Case Summary (G.R. No. 5270)
Petitioner
The Government of the United States acting through local prosecuting authorities in the Philippine Islands, enforcing Acts No. 55 and No. 275 enacted by the Philippine Commission and later the Philippine Legislature.
Respondent
H. N. Bull, master and captain of the steamship Standard (Norwegian registry), who transported hundreds of cattle and carabaos from Ampieng, Formosa, to Manila and was charged with failing to provide suitable means for securing animals in transit.
Key Dates
- Offense alleged: On or about December 2, 1908 (transportation and arrival into Manila Bay).
- Trial and conviction at Court of First Instance; appeal decided by this Court (decision text provided).
Applicable Law
- Act No. 55 (effective January 1, 1901): duty on owners/masters to carry sufficient forage and water; provide adequate forage and water at least once every 24 hours; penalties for knowing and willful failure. Jurisdictional provision: prosecutions may be instituted in any Court of First Instance or provost court in the province or port in which animals are disembarked.
- Act No. 275 (October 23, 1901): amendment adding duty to provide suitable means for securing animals in transit to avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering; prohibition against loading/unloading animals by swinging over the side by ropes/chains attached to horns.
- Organic and constitutional framework governing the Philippine Islands as an acquired territory of the United States: presidential military authority, Spooner amendment, Act of July 1, 1902 (organic law governing the Islands), and the reserved power of Congress to annul local laws.
Procedural Posture and Assignments of Error
Appellant convicted in Court of First Instance; appealed to this Court raising four principal contentions: (1) information fails to state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction; (2) trial court lacked jurisdiction under the evidence; (3) Acts No. 55 and 275 are unconstitutional as applied; and (4) evidence insufficient to support conviction.
Facts Alleged and Found by Trial Court
Information alleged that Bull, as master of the Standard, transported 677 head of cattle/carabaos from Ampieng, Formosa, to Manila and willfully failed to provide suitable means for securing them, resulting in torn noses, animals tossed about, wounded, bruised, and killed. Trial court findings (adopted on appeal and sustained by the record) included: extended engagement in transporting cattle to Manila; the Standard anchored within Manila Bay under defendant's directions; at arrival several cattle had broken legs and three were dead; animals were carried on deck and in hold without suitable precautions, stalls, partitions, supports, or bedding; and that a practicable suitable method is individual stalls with partitions and crosscleats to prevent slipping in storms.
Issue — Jurisdiction: Legal Framework
The Court analyzed jurisdiction under the statutes and general principles of territorial and maritime jurisdiction. Key legal points relied upon in the decision: (a) Acts conferred prosecution in Courts of First Instance or provost courts in the province or port in which animals are disembarked; (b) courts of the Philippine Islands may exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed within territorial waters; (c) a continuing offense that began on the high seas but continued within the territorial waters of the United States (three-mile limit for territorial waters as described) could be prosecuted locally; and (d) nationality of the vessel is not an absolute bar to local jurisdiction for merchant vessels.
Jurisdiction: Application to the Case
The Court held that jurisdiction existed because the offending conduct was a continuing offense whose elements were present while the ship was within American territorial waters (Manila Bay). The fact that the ship was Norwegian and not registered in the Philippine Islands did not deprive the local courts of jurisdiction. The Court distinguished warships (which enjoy a higher degree of exterritoriality by comity) from merchant vessels and relied on established authorities and treaties showing that merchant vessels entering foreign ports generally submit to local jurisdiction for matters affecting the tranquillity or interests of the port. The Court further rejected the argument that the information had to allege disembarkation in order to confer jurisdiction, reasoning that jurisdiction vested when the animals and the offending conditions came within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Jurisdiction: Treaty and Consular Considerations
The Court reviewed treaty provisions (example given: 1827 treaty between Sweden and Norway and the United States) and governmental practice concerning consular jurisdiction. It concluded that treaties granting consular jurisdiction in limited classes of disputes do not generally remove local criminal jurisdiction over violations of local criminal laws that disturb public order or otherwise affect the port; the offense here was a violation of the country’s criminal law and not merely an internal shipboard dispute.
Sufficiency of Information and Pleading Issues
Appellant argued the information failed to allege that defendant knowingly and willfully violated the statute. The Court held that alleging the act was done “willfully” sufficiently alleges knowledge; “willfully” implies intent and knowledge in this context. The Court also addressed translation/formal sufficiency issues (English original and Spanish translation) over terms like “suitable,” “adequate,” and “sufficient,” concluding that the complaint, prepared originally in English and translated, fairly charged the offense and was adequate in ordinary and concise language to inform a person of common understanding of the conduct complained of.
Constitutionality of Acts No. 55 and 275 — Legal Basis for Local Legislation
The Court undertook an extended constitutional analysis grounded in the legal status of the Philippine Islands as a territorial possession of the United States. Main points articulated in the opinion:
- The Constitution vests in Congress the power to govern territories and to make “needful rules and regulations respecting territory” (Art. IV, sec. 3).
- Territories acquired by conquest or treaty belong to the United States, and governance of such territories is entrusted to Congress (or delegated authorities).
- The Constitution does not of its own force operate in such territories; Congress can determine which constitutional provisions apply and may delegate local legislative power to locally created governments.
- The President initially exercised military and then civil authority under the war power; the Spooner amendment and subsequent Acts (including Act of July 1, 1902) provided and ratified the structure of civil government and limited local legislative competence with certain protections (due process, trial rights, etc.).
- Congress expressly reserved the right to annul local laws but otherwise granted broad legislative authority to the Philippine Commission and subsequent legislature.
On that basis the Court found Acts No. 55 and No. 275 to be valid exercises of the legislative autho
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 5270)
Procedural Posture
- Defendant H. N. Bull was convicted in the Court of First Instance for violation of section 1 of Act No. 55 as amended by section 1 of Act No. 275 and appealed to this Court (G.R. No. 5270; decision dated January 15, 1910).
- Appellant raised four principal contentions on appeal: (1) the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction; (2) on the evidence the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the case; (3) Act No. 55 as amended is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support conviction.
- The trial court found defendant guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs; the Court of First Instance’s judgment and sentence were affirmed by this Court.
Information and Charge Alleged
- The information alleged that for many months prior to December 2, 1908, H. N. Bull was master of the steamship Standard, engaged in carrying and transporting cattle, carabaos, and other animals from a foreign port (Ampieng, Formosa) to the port and city of Manila.
- It charged that on or about December 2, 1908, Bull willfully, unlawfully, and wrongfully brought into the port and city of Manila aboard the Standard six hundred and seventy-seven (677) head of cattle and carabaos without providing suitable means for securing the animals while in transit so as to avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering.
- Specific allegations described failure to provide stalls or suitable means for tying and securing the animals, use of rings passed through noses to tie some, and allowing others to be transported loose in the hold and on deck without bedding, resulting in torn noses, animals tossed about, cruel wounds, bruises, and deaths.
- The information charged violation of Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Commission.
Statutes and Legal Provisions Invoked
- Section 1, Act No. 55 (effective January 1, 1901):
- Owners or masters of vessels carrying cattle, sheep, swine, or other animals from any foreign port to any port within the Philippine Islands must carry sufficient forage and fresh water for suitable sustenance during the ordinary passage and must provide adequate forage and fresh water at least once every twenty-four hours from embarkation to final debarkation.
- Act No. 275 (enacted October 23, 1901) — amendment to Act No. 55, adding to section 1:
- Owners or masters must provide suitable means for securing animals while in transit so as to avoid all cruelty and unnecessary suffering and must provide suitable facilities for loading and unloading without cruelty; expressly unlawful to load or unload cattle by swinging them over the side by ropes or chains attached to the horns.
- Section 3, Act No. 55:
- Penalty for knowingly and willfully failing to comply with section 1: a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 (United States money) for each offense; prosecutions may be instituted in any Court of First Instance or any provost court organized in the province or port in which such animals are disembarked.
- Additional statutory reference:
- Act No. 136 (organization of courts) and Act No. 400 (extension of general jurisdiction for certain offenses committed on high seas or within Philippine waters on board vessels registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands) are discussed by the Court in relation to jurisdictional arguments.
Facts Found by the Trial Court (as sustained by evidence)
- Defendant, as captain and master of the Norwegian steamer Standard, for about six months prior to December 2, 1908, engaged in transporting cattle and carabaos from Chinese and Japanese ports to Manila.
- On December 2, 1908, defendant brought into the city of Manila aboard the Standard a large number of cattle; the ship was anchored behind the breakwaters in front of the city of Manila in Manila Bay and within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
- At that time, fifteen of the cattle had broken legs and three others were dead, these dead animals having broken legs.
- The cattle were transported upon the deck and in the hold without suitable precaution or care for transportation to avoid danger and risk to their lives and safety; no provision was made upon the decks or in the hold to maintain the cattle in a suitable condition and position for transportation.
- The trial court found as a suitable and practicable manner of transport into Manila Bay the use of individual stalls providing partitions, support at front, sides and rear, and crosscleats on the floor to prevent slipping and panics during storms.
- Government witness Captain Summerville (steamship Taming) testified that since the introduction of the stall system in ships he had suffered no loss during the last year, supporting the practicability and efficacy of stalls.
- Defendant testified he believed carrying cattle loose on decks and in holds was preferable and more secure for life and comfort of the animals; the trial court found this theory unsupported by proof and common reason, observing that the found method risked panics and injury when large numbers of unprotected animals are carried without stalls.
Issues Presented on Appeal
- Whether the information stated facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance.
- Whether, under the evidence, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case (including questions of where the offense was committed: high seas versus territorial waters).
- Whether Act No. 55 as amended by Act No. 275 violated provisions of the Constitution of the United States and was therefore void as applied to the facts of this case.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
- Ancillary challenges argued by appellant:
- Information did not allege that the court was sitting at the port where the cattle were disembarked.
- The Standard was a Norwegian vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands; therefore, local courts lacked jurisdiction for offenses committed on board.
- Information failed to allege that defendant knowingly and willfully failed to provide suitable means.
- Spanish text translation allegedly did not charge failure to provide "sufficient" or "adequate" means.
Court’s Analysis — Territorial Jurisdiction and Place of Offense
- Distinction between high seas and territorial waters:
- No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over offenses committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of another country, but once a ship entered territorial waters the territorial sovereign’s jurisdiction applied, subject to conceded limitations.
- The Court noted that when the Standard came within three miles of a line drawn from the headlands embracing the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters and subject to local jurisdiction.
- Continuing offense doctrine applied:
- The offense was treated as a continuing one; even if originating at a foreign port, the neglect and omission continued during the vessel’s transit through territorial waters, and the completed forbidden act occurred within American (Philippine) waters.
- It was therefore immaterial that similar conditions existed while on the high seas; jurisdiction attached when the offense continued or was completed within territorial waters.
- Conclusion on territorial jurisdiction:
- The Court held the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and that the court therefore had jurisdiction over subject matter and person.
Court’s Analysis — Nationality of Vessel and Exterritoriality Principles
- General principle: every state has complete control over its territorial waters; exclusion from local jurisdiction of foreign vessels is a question of recognized limitations, comity, and treaties.
- Distinction between public