US vs.

Look Chaw
18 Phil 573, December 16, 1910

Facts:

Between 11 and 12 o'clock a. m. on the present month (stated as August 19, 1909), several
persons, among them Messrs. Jacks and Milliron, chief of the department of the port of Cebu
and internal-revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went abroad the steamship Erroll to inspect
and search its cargo, and found, first in a cabin near the saloon, one sack and afterwards in the
hold, another sack. The sack contained 49 cans of opium, and the larger sack, also contained
several cans of the same substance. The larger sack was under the defendant's control, who
moreover, freely and of his own will and accord admitted that this sack, as well as the found in
the cabin, belonged to him. The said defendant also stated, freely and voluntarily, that he had
bought these sacks of opium, in Hongkong with the intention of selling them as contraband in
Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that, as his hold had already been searched several times for opium,
he ordered two other Chinamen to keep the sack.

Issue: Is the case triable in Philippine courts?

Ruling:

No, the case is not triable in Philippine courts. The Supreme Court said that, although the mere
possession of an article of prohibited use in the Philippine Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in
transit in any local port, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of
the Islands, such vessels being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule
does not apply when the article, the use of which is prohibited in the Islands, is landed from the
vessels upon Philippine soil; in such a case an open violation of the laws of the land is
committed with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the
commission of the crime, no court other than that established in the said place has jurisdiction
of the offense, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.

US vs. Ah Sing
36 Phil 978, October 10, 1917

Facts:
Ah Sing as onboard steamer Shun Chang which docked on Cebu from Saigon on 25 April 1917.
He had bought 8 cans of opium there, which were found on the ship, hidden in the ashes below
the boiler of ship engine. No evidence regarding intent to import was brought to court.

Issue: Is the case triable in our courts?

Ruling:

Yes, the case is under our jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that as applied to the Opium
Law, we expressly hold that any person unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into
the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a vessel
which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the jurisdictional limits of the
Philippine Islands. In such case, a person is guilty of illegal importation of the drug unless
contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise.

Applied to the facts herein, it would be absurb to think that the accused was merely carrying
opium back and forth between Saigon and Cebu for the mere pleasure of so doing. It would
likewise be impossible to conceive that the accused needed so large an amount of opium for his
personal use. No better explanation being possible, the logical deduction is that the defendant
intended this opium to be brought into the Philippine Islands. We accordingly find that there
was illegal importation of opium from a foreign country into the Philippine Islands. To
anticipate any possible misunderstanding, let it be said that these statements do not relate to
foreign vessels in transit, a situation not present.

People vs. Wong Cheng

46 Phil 729, October 19, 1922

Facts:

Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in Manila Bay
2.5 miles from shore.

Issue: Does the Philippines have jurisdiction over Merchant ships in its territory?

Ruling:
Yes, the Philippines have the jurisdiction over merchant ships in its territory. We have seen that
the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not
triable by or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the
inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its
mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not being about in the
said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere
possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order.

But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce
its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our
Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.

US vs. Ah Chong
15 Phil 499, March 19, 1910

Facts:

Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) and stayed there at
Bldg. 27. One night, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to force his way into the room.
There was no way to know who it was as it was dark and the room only had 1 door and 1
window, and vines covered the window; all he could do was ask who it was. He asked twice,
and then, when no response came, he threatened the attacker that if he continued, he would
be killed. He took a knife which he kept under his pillow because of the robberies occurring
recently, and when he was hit on the knee by a chair he uses to keep the door closed, he
attacked and killed the man who turned out to be his roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called
for help immediately but it was too late.

Issue: Is he liable for the crime?

Ruling:

No, he is not liable for the crime. It was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the
facts had been as he believed them to be.
People vs. Oanis, et al
74 Phil 257, July 27, 1943

Facts:

Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen, Oanis and Galanta,
went to a house where they suspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a sleeping man
inside, they shot him leading to his death without confirming the identity of the man. He turned
out to be Tecson, an innocent man.

Issue: Are they liable the crime?

Ruling:

Yes, Oanis and Galanta are liable for the crime. Unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they
tried to ascertain that they had the right man. As they did not exercise due precaution, they
were guilty of murder.

People vs. Balmores

85 Phil 493,496 (1950)

Facts:

Balmores was found guilty of attempted estafa through falsification of a government obligation.
He attempted to cash in a sweepstakes ticket that was obviously falsified (the ticket was split
into , and the winning ticket number written in ink at the bottom left part of the halved
ticket). He presented his falsified ticket to a PCSO booth. The PCSO employee manning the
booth saw that the ticket was obviously falsified, and had Balmores arrested.
Balmores waived the right to counsel, and pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted estafa.

Issue: Did Balmores commit an impossible crime.

Ruling:

No, it is not an impossible crime. The recklessness and clumsiness of the act of falsification did
not make the crime an impossible one under Paragraph 2 Article 4 of the RPC. The alteration of
a losing sweepstakes ticket would constitute a crime only if an attempt to cash it were done,
which is what occurred in this case.

Intod et. al. vs. C.A.

G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992

Facts:

Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her
room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one.

Issue: Is he liable for attempted murder?

Ruling:

No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible
crimean act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with
means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose
is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2) physical
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible
crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount
to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
(1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
(2) There is no intention to perform the physical act;
(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond

control prevent consummation of intended crime.
Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have
been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no
defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the
other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The
factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the
intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised
Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.