Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5887)
Petitioner
The United States (plaintiff and appellee) prosecuted the defendant for unlawful possession of opium.
Respondent
Look Chaw (alias Luk Chiu), charged with possession (and originally also sale) of opium found aboard the steamship Erroll and on the wharf at Cebu.
Key Dates
Relevant dates in the record include the seizure occurring between 11 and 12 o’clock a.m. on the 18th (noted in the record as August 19, 1909), and the appeal decision rendered December 16, 1910.
Applicable Law
The Court applied the penal law in force at the place of commission, and evaluated jurisdictional principles regarding crimes committed aboard foreign vessels in transit within Philippine ports. The Court recognized the general rule that mere possession aboard a foreign vessel in transit, while within a Philippine port, ordinarily does not give Philippine courts jurisdiction, but made an exception where the prohibited article is landed on Philippine soil, constituting an open violation of local penal law and conferring local jurisdiction unless displaced by international treaty.
Facts Established at Trial
Customs and revenue officers searched the steamship Erroll and found two sacks of opium (Exhibits A and B) and additional cans (Exhibits C and D). Exhibit A contained 49 cans; Exhibit B (found in the hold under the defendant’s control) contained a larger number. Exhibit C consisted of four cans found where the ship’s firemen sleep; testimony indicated such crew personal supplies were permitted provided they were not taken ashore. Exhibit D was a single can purchased from the defendant by a secret service agent and used as a sample. The defendant admitted ownership of the sacks and stated he bought the opium in Hongkong intending to sell it as contraband in Mexico (Puerto de Vera Cruz), and admitted prior sales and contracts to sell. The ship was of English nationality, came from Hongkong, and was bound for Mexico via Manila and Cebu.
Evidentiary Rulings at Trial
The trial court struck portions of testimony that directly referred to sales and struck parts of hearsay testimony alleging there was “more opium on board,” but admitted other testimony and the defendant’s admissions. The defense admitted the contents of Exhibits A, B, and C and the defendant’s statement as to ownership and possession to abbreviate proceedings.
Procedural History and Trial Court Judgment
Initially, a complaint charged both possession and sale; a demurrer by the defense on the ground of duplicity was sustained, and the fiscal separated the charges and filed separate complaints. This appeal concerns only the unlawful possession charge (docketed as No. 375 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu and No. 5887 in the Supreme Court). The trial court found jurisdiction and convicted the defendant, sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of P10,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment up to one third of the principal penalty if insolvent), costs, confiscation of the exhibits to the Insular Government, and an order that the defendant be turned over to customs authorities for immigration proceedings rather than released on appeal or completion of sentence.
Issues on Appeal
Key issues addressed on appeal were: (1) Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu had jurisdiction to try the offense given that the opium was aboard a foreign vessel in transit; and (2) whether the facts constituted a criminal offense triable under local penal law and, if so, whether the penalties imposed were appropriate.
Supreme Court Reasoning and Holdings
The Supreme Court affirmed that, as a general rule, mere possession of a prohibited item aboard a foreign vessel in transit within Philippine ports does not by itself create jurisdiction for Philippine courts because the vessel is considered an extension of its nationality. However, the Court held that this rule does not apply when the prohibited article is landed on Philippine soil; landing constitutes an open violation of the penal law of the place of commission and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the local court (absent displacing international treaty). On the facts, th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5887)
Citation, Court, and Decision Date
- Reported at 18 Phil. 573; G.R. No. 5887.
- Decision dated December 16, 1910.
- Opinion delivered by ARELLANO, C.J.
- Justices listed as concurring: Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ.
Docketing and Trial Court Identification
- Original prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Cebu under cause number No. 375.
- Case on the general docket of this Court listed as No. 5887.
- The cause on appeal concerns the single charge of unlawful possession of opium after an earlier demurrer led to separation of charges.
Parties
- Plaintiff and Appellee: The United States.
- Defendant and Appellant: Look Chaw (alias Luk Chiu).
Procedural History
- Initial complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu alleged both possession and sale of opium.
- Defense filed a demurrer asserting, among other grounds, that more than one crime was charged.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer, finding two charges (unlawful possession and unlawful sale) in the original complaint, and ordered the fiscal to file separate complaints for each violation.
- The fiscal complied; the present cause concerns only unlawful possession of opium.
- Defendant was tried in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, convicted, sentenced, and appealed to this Court.
Trial Court Findings of Fact (as reported)
- Timing and search:
- Between 11 and 12 o’clock a.m. on the 18th of the stated month (noted as August 19, 1909 in the finding), officials boarded the steamship Erroll to inspect and search its cargo.
- Present during inspection: several persons including Messrs. Jacks (chief of the department of the port of Cebu) and Milliron (internal-revenue agent of Cebu).
- Discovery of exhibits:
- Exhibit A: one sack found in a cabin near the saloon containing 49 cans of opium.
- Exhibit B: a larger sack found in the ship’s hold, also containing several cans of opium.
- Exhibit C: a lot of four cans found in the part of the ship where the firemen habitually sleep.
- Exhibit D: another can, separately identified and used as evidentiary matter concerning a purchase from the defendant by a secret service agent.
- Control and possession:
- The hold in which Exhibit B was found was under the defendant’s control.
- Defendant freely and voluntarily admitted that the sacks corresponding to Exhibits A and B belonged to him.
- Defendant’s statements (as reported by the internal-revenue agent and the fiscal’s record):
- He had bought the sacks of opium in Hongkong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Puerto de Vera Cruz.
- He stated the vessel arrived at Cebu on the 15th and that on the same day he sold opium.
- He had tried to sell opium for P16 a can and had a contract to sell about P500 worth.
- He stated the opium found in the room of two other Chinese men (prosecuted separately) was his and that he left it in their stateroom to avoid discovery because his room had already been searched many times.
- He gave counts for the sacks: 80 cans in the large sack, 49 in the small, totaling 129 cans.
- Ship details:
- The steamship Erroll was of English nationality, had come from Hongkong, and was bound for Mexico via the call ports of Manila and Cebu.
- Admissions and control at trial:
- To abbreviate proceedings, the defense admitted Exhibits A, B, and C contained opium and were found on board the Erroll, and that the defendant stated the sacks were his.
Evidence Introduced and Trial Rulings on Evidence
- Exhibits:
- Exhibits A and B: sacks containing opium forming corpus delicti for the possession charge.
- Exhibit C: four cans found in firemen’s quarters; evidence showed custom-house instruction permitting crew to retain certain amounts of opium provided it not be taken ashore.
- Exhibit D: single can purchased from defendant by a secret service agent and taken to the governor’s office as proof that the accused had opium to sell; this item was treated as corpus delicti and important evidence.
- Testimony and hearsay rulings:
- Internal-revenue agent testified as to defendant’s admissions in the presence of provincial fiscal, a Chinese interpreter, warden, and guards; defendant spoke English so interpreter later not needed.
- The internal-revenue agent testified the defendant made voluntary admissions including purchase in Hongkong and intent to sell as contraband.
- The trial court, on motion by the defense, ordered stricken from the record a portion of an internal-revenue age