THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. WONG CHENG

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. WONG CHENG

GR No. L-18924

October 19, 1922

FACTS:  The appellee was accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English Nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city.The lower court held and dismissed the case on lack of jurisdiction, hence the Attorney-General representing the appellant prayed for the revocation of the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining the demurrer.

ISSUE:   Whether or not the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in jurisdiction waters of the Philippines.

RULING: In view of the precedents on cases of Schooner Exchange vs. M’Faddon and Others, United States vs. Bull, United States vs. Look Chaw and on the work of Malloy entitled “Treaties, Conventions, etc” volume 1 page 625; the court held that mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit is not triable by courts of the Philippines but to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign vessel is a breach of the public order because it causes such drug to produce pernicious effects within our territory. Wherefore, the order appealed is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with the law, without special findings as to cost.

               

THE UNITED STATES VS. LOOK CHAW

THE UNITED STATES VS. LOOK CHAW

GR No. L-5887

December 16, 1910

FACTS: Defendant Chaw was found in possession of two sacks of opium on board the steamship Errol of English Nationality departed in Hongkong bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu. He stated, freely and voluntarily that the contraband belonged to him but prayed for the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction to try the same and facts therein did not constitute a crime. The court of First Instance of Cebu ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction in as much as the crime had been committed within its district, on the wharf of Cebu. Hence, the defendant appealed to Supreme Court.

ISSUE:   Whether or not the courts of the Philippineshave jurisdiction to try unlawful possession of opium on a foreign vessel and unlawful sale of opium on Philippine soil.

RULING: The court ruled that on the account of foreign vessel being an extension of its own nationality, mere possession of thing of prohibited use in Philippine Islands does not constitute a crime and therefore not triable by the courts in the Philippines. However, in the case at bar, the can of opium landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil is an open violation of the laws of the land, and therefore as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of commission of the crime, only the court established in the said place had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty. Therefore, imprisonment and fine were reduced from 5 years to six months and 10,000 to 1,000 respectively. Other aspects were affirmed in toto with the cost of this instance against the appellant.

                

CASCO VS. GIMENEZ

CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO. VS.  HON PEDRO GIMENEZ AND ISMAEL MATHAY

GR No. L- 17931

February 28, 1963

FACTS:

Casco Philippine Chem. Co is a manufacturer of synthetic glue. In November and December 1959 and in May 1960 , the company bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde and paid a margin fee to the central bank in the amount of 40, 111.14. Prior to this, the central bank, pursuant to the Republic Act 2906 otherwise known as Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law, issues a circular no. 95 fixing a margin fee of 25 % effective July 1, 1959 and later on issues a memorandum order establishing a procedure for the exemption thereof.

The petitioner thereof requested for a refund of the said amount. However,  although the central bank issued a voucher for a refund, the auditor did not approved its release on the ground that it was not in accordance with section 2 paragraph 8 of RA 2906 which was affirmed by the Auditor General, hence the petitioner sought an appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:   Whether or not urea and formaldehyde are exempted by law for the payment of margin fee in reference to RA 2906?

RULING: The court affirmed the decision of the Auditor General denying the claim for a refund of the petitioner on the premise that “urea formaldehyde” is a finish product and not a chemical solution and is therefore different from urea and formaldehyde which are raw materials used to produce synthetic glue as clearly defined by DOST and the enrolled bill which uses the term “urea formaldehyde” instead of urea and formaldehyde being conclusive upon the courts.