U.S. v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7
G.R. No. L-5270 January 15, 1910
ELLIOTT, J.
Lessons Applicable: Applicability of Provision
Laws Applicable: Art. 2 RPC
FACTS:
• accused H. N. Bull, master of vessel, willfully, unlawfully, and wrongly carry, transport, and bring into the port and city of Manila, aboard said vessel, from the port of Ampieng, Formosa, 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.
• animals to be tied by means of rings passed through their noses, and allow and permit others to be transported loose in the hold and on the deck of said vessel without being tied or secured in stalls, and all without bedding
• neglect and failure of the accused to provide suitable means for securing said animals while so in transit, the noses of some of said animals were cruelly torn, and many of said animals were tossed about upon the decks and hold of said vessel, and cruelly wounded, bruised, and killed.
• All contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Commission.
Section 1 of Act No. 55, which went into effect January 1, 1901, provides that —
The owners or masters of steam, sailing, or other vessels, carrying or transporting cattle,
sheep, swine, or other animals, from one port in the Philippine Islands to another, or from
any foreign port to any port within the Philippine Islands, shall carry with them, upon the
vessels carrying such animals, sufficient forage and fresh water to provide for the suitable
sustenance of such animals during the ordinary period occupied by the vessel in passage from
the port of shipment to the port of debarkation, and shall cause such animals to be provided
with adequate forage and fresh water at least once in every twenty-four hours from the time
that the animals are embarked to the time of their final debarkation.
• Bull(Norweigan): Norwegian vessel, and it is conceded that it was not registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands under the laws thereof so it is not within the jurisdiction of the Philippines
ISSUE: W/N the court had jurisdiction over an offense of this character when the neglect and omission which constitutes the offense continued during the time the ship was within the territorial waters of the United States
HELD: The defendant was found guilty
YES.
• No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offenses or crime committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other country, but when she came within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlines which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters, and a new set of principles became applicable.
Note: when it comes in our territory it has the discretion to prosecute or not.
If it choose to prosecute must be justified.
• 2 well-defined theories as to extent of the immunities ordinarily granted to them
1. French theory and practice-matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquillity of the port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiciable only by the court of the country to which the vessel belongs. The French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another.
2. The United States has adhered consistently to the view that when a merchant vessel enters a foreign port it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities, unless the local sovereignty has by act of acquiescence or through treaty arrangements consented to waive a portion of such jurisdiction.
• The disembarkation of the animals is not necessary in order to constitute the completed offense, and a reasonable construction of the language of the statute confers jurisdiction upon the court sitting at the port into which the animals are bought. They are then within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the mere fact of their disembarkation is immaterial so far as jurisdiction is concerned.
• The appellant contends that the language of the Spanish text of the information does not charge him with failure to provide "sufficient" and "adequate" means. The words used are "medios suficientes" and "medios adecuados." In view of the fact that the original complaint was prepared in English, and that the word "suitable" is translatable by the words "adecuado," "suficiente," and "conveniente," according to the context and circumstances, we determine this point against the appellant, particularly in view of the fact that the objection was not made in the court below, and that the evidence clearly shows a failure to provide "suitable means for the protection of the animals."
1 week ago
