US VS.

LOOK CHOWNATURE: TERRITORIALITYFACTS:

On August 19, 1909 Jacks & Millinon, Chief Department of Cebu And Internal
revenue agent of Cebu respectively wentaboard the steamship ERROLL to inspect
and search the its cargo, found 2 sacks containing opium. The defendant Look Chow
statedvoluntarily that he bought these sacks of opium in Hong Kong with the
intention of selling them as contraband
(Goods that havebeen imported or exported illegally, Imported or exported illegally,
either in defiance of a total ban or without payment of duty.)
inMexico or Vera Cruz (a state in the Mexican Gulf)His hold had already been
searched several times for opium, he ordered two other Chinese men to keep the
sack. All the evidencefound properly constitute
corpus delicti
(corpus dee-lick-tie, Latin for the substantial fact that a crime has been committed
and in a popular crime jargon, the body of the murder victim, physical object upon
which the crime was committed
)It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came
from Hong Kong and that it was bound forMexico, via the call ports of Manila and
Cebu.
STATES CONTENTION:
Asked for maximum penalty be imposed upon the defendant, in view of the
considerable amount of opiumseized. Mere possession of a prohibited substance in
the Philippines is an open violation of the penal law in force at the place
ofcommission of the crime. Regardless of the quantity of the drug seized, maximum
penalty will still be imposed. However, defendantadmitted the quantity of the drug
seized.
ACCUSEDS CONTENTION:
The defense moved for the dismissal of the case, on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction to trythe facts concerned therein did not constitute a crime.
ISSUE:
Whether courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels
stationed in its port.
CRIME:
possession of illegal drugs, smuggling, violation of art 2 RPC
HELD:
Decision of CFI is affirmed with modification. Reduced imprisonment from 5 years to
6 months and then a fine from 10000 toonly 1000.The possession of a prohibited
substance in our islands aboard a foreign vessel in transit does not, as a general
rule, constitute acrime triable by the courts of the country. The foreign vessel is an
extension of its own nationality. BUT, if the substance whose useis prohibited within
the Philippine islands in the present case landed from the vessel upon the Philippine
soil is a crime violatingpenal laws. Only the courts on the said place has the
competent jurisdiction in the absence of an agreement under an internationaltreaty

13. PEOPLE VS. GATCHALIAN

NATURE: Liberality in favour of the accused
FACTS: sAlfonso Gatchalian was charged before the court of First Instance of
Zamboanga with a violation of Section 3 Republic Act602 AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A
MINIMUM WAGE LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
From August 4, 1951 to December 31 1953, theaccused who is the owner of New
Life Drug Store only paid a salary which is less than that provided by law to
Expedito Fernandez asalesman in the said business establishment. (Monthly salary
of 60-90, unpaid salary is 1016.14 for the period mentioned.)He pleaded not guilty
to the charge when arraigned last June 19, 1956. Filed motion to dismiss, the court
after hearing all thearguments issued an order dismissing the information with costs
de oficio (court cost will be paid by the state) and cancelling thebail bond by the
accused.The Court ordered Regional Representative of Department of Labor to
immediately institute a civil action against the erringemployer. Motion for
reconsideration was denied so the government took the said appeal.
STATES CONTENTION:
Law which was violated by the accused carries it with both civil and criminal liability.
ACCUSEDS CONTENTION:
The violation charged does not constitute a criminal offense but carries only a civil
liability and if it doesthe law alleged violated does not carry a penalty penalizing it.
Law is ambiguous
ISSUE:
Minimum wage Law, Section 3 does not provide clear cut criminal punishment,
broad and ambiguous
CRIME: Violation of Minimum Wage Law
HELD:
SC concluded that the courta quo erred in dismissing the information filed against
the appellee and, consequently, its orderof December 3, 1956, subject of this
appeal should be set aside. NO decision but ordered that the cases be remanded to
the court aquo for further proceeding, with costs against appellee. The intention of
the law is clear, to slap not just of criminal liability but alsoof civil liability he may
commit as a result of underpayment. The law is all- embracing, any violations of the
provisions of this act embodies the very fundamental purpose for which the
law has been adopted. Order for review of court a quo.14.