Criminal Law I Case Digests

Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor

ARTICLE 2: ENGLISH RULE V. FRENCH RULE

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

(G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922)

FACTS: Appellee is 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 demurrer filed by said
appellee alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower
court, which so held and dismissed the case.

ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction

over crime, like the one herein involved, committed aboard
merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters.

HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this particular

matter in connection with International Law; to wit, the French
rule, according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of the
country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were
committed, unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory; and the English rule, based on the
territorial principle and followed in the United States, according
to which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in
general triable in the courts of the country within territory they
were committed. Of this two rules, it is the last one that
obtains in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and

1
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are
authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the
United States (we were still a US territory when this was
decided in 1922).
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. Remanded
to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with
law.

2
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
----------------------------------------------------------------------

US vs. Look Chaw, December 16, 1911

Facts: Several persons (including the internal-revenue agent of

Cebu) went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search
its cargo. Note that steamship Erroll is of English nationality
and it came from HongKong bound for Mexico via the call ports
of Manila and Cebu. These persons found sacks of opium
(exhibits A, B, and C.)

The complaint filed against defendant stated that defendant

carried, kept, possessed, and had in his possession and
control 96 kg of opium and that he he had been surprised in
the act of selling P1,000 worth prepared opium. However,
since there was more than 1 crime charged, the fiscal just filed
for unlawful possession of opium

Defense admitted that Exhibits A, B, and C, contained opium

and were found on board Erroll and that it was true that the
defendant stated that these sacks of opium were his and that
he had them in his possession. (There was an exhibit D but
exhibit D was the opium bought from the defendant.)

Xxx two sacks of opium, designated as Exhibits A and B,

properly constitute the corpus delicti. Moreover, another lot of
four cans of opium, marked, as Exhibit C, was the subject
matter of investigation at the trial, and with respect to which
the chief of the department of the port of Cebu testified that
they were found in the part of the ship where the firemen
3
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
habitually sleep xxx another can of opium, marked "Exhibit D,"
is also corpus delicti and important as evidence in this cause.

According to the testimony of the internal-revenue, the opium

seized in the vessel had been bought by the defendant in
HongKong, at P3.00 for each round can and P5.00 for each of
the others, for the purpose of selling it, as contraband, in
Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; that the vessel arrived at
Cebu and on the same day he sold opium.

The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds

that the court had no jurisdiction to try the same and the facts
concerned therein did not constitute a crime. The fiscal, at the
conclusion of his argument, asked that the maximum penalty
of the law be imposed upon the defendant, in view of the
considerable amount of opium seized.

The court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction, inasmuch as

the crime had been committed within its district, on the wharf
of Cebu. The court sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment, to
pay a fine of P10,000, with additional subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvencyxxx It further ordered the confiscation, in
favor of the Insular Government.

The defendant appealed. The issue to be resolved in this case

is

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction

Held: Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.

4
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these
Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports,
does NOT constitute a crime triable by the courts of this
country, on account of such vessel being considered as an
extension of its own nationality

EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the

Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is
landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing
an open violation of the laws of the land with respect to which,
as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the
commission of the crime, only the court established in that
said place itself had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of
an agreement under an international treaty.

Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine imposed to

six months and P1,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978 (1917)

Cf. French vs. English rule

FACTS: The defendant is a subject of China employed as a

fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign steamer
which arrived the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a
voyage direct from the port of Saigon. The defendant bought

5
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
eight cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the
steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from
Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of
Cebu, the authorities on making the search found the cans of
opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's
engine. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the
opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He did not
confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He
did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibited
drug.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of

opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven?

RULING: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove that

the vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine
waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. In this
case, it is to be noted that Sec. 4 of Act No. 2381 begins, Any
person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited
drug into the Philippine Islands Import and bring should be
construed as synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a
port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of
importation. The importation is not the making entry of goods
at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the
port, and the importation is complete before the entry to the
customhouse. Moreover, possession for personal use is
unlikely, judging from the size of the amount brought.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
6
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
PADILLA vs DIZON

FACTS

Respondent Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision,

the tourist and accused, Lo Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had
no willful intention to violate the law. He also directed the
release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of US$3,000.00
under Central Bank Circular No. 960.

Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila

International Airport while attempting to smuggle foreign
currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the country.

An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for
violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal
sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD NO. 1883.

Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 provides that no person

shall take out or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit
foreign exchange in any form out of the Philippines without an
authorization by the Central Bank. Tourists and non-resident
visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign
exchange brought in by them. Tourists and non-resident
temporary visitors bringing with them more than US$3,000.00
or its equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their
foreign exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at
points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines.

7
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883 provides that any person who shall
engage in the trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency
in violation of existing laws or rules and regulations of the
Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of
foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of 20
years) and a fine of no less than P50,000.00.

At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a

businessman from Hongkong, that he had come to the
Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business in the country
with his business associates, and that he and his business
associates declared all the money they brought in and all
declarations were handed to and kept by him.

Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that

time, Lo Chi Fai was urged by his business associates to come
to Manila to bring the money out of the Philippines.

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a

complaint against Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross

incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding that the

8
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central Bank Circular No.
960, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the
criminal intent to violate the law.

HELD

Yes. Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign

currency and foreign currency instruments found in the
possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was apprehended at the
airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange did not
correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by
Lo Chi Fai at the trial, and that these currency declarations
were declarations belonging to other people.

In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960

to justify the release of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R.
Dizon again diplayed gross incompetence and gross ignorance
of law. There is nothing in the Central Bank Circular which
could be taken as authority for the trial court to release the
said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi Fai.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Oanis

9
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
Facts: Provincial Inspector received a telegram that escaped
convict Anselmo Balgtas and Irene must be apprehended Dead
or Alive. He then instructed Chief of Police Oanis who knew a
certain Irene to subdue the escaped convict and so Oanis
and others went to the said persons house. Oanis and Galanta
approached a certain Brigada Mallare outside the house, who
told them that Irene was sleeping with her paramour in
bedroom. Oanis and Halanta then went to Irenes room and
saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door and shot
him. That man turned out to be Serapio Tecson, Irenes
paramour.

Oanis defense is that when he went to the room of Irene, he

said If you are Balagtas, stand up!. Tecson then woke up and
was about to stand when Oanis determined that he was
Balagtas and shot him. Tecson was apparently trying to pick
something from the floor, thus prompting Oanis to shoot him
in self-defense. Meanwhile, Gallanta narrated that Oanis shot
Tecson while he was still lying on his bed.

Issue: w/n accused are not liable by reason of mistake of fact

Ruling: NO.

Citing the Ah Chong case: Ignorantia Facti Excusat applies

only when mistake is committed w/o fault or carelessness.

In this case, there are no circumstances which would press the

accused to shoot the victim. With Tecson asleep, accused had
ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without
10
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
hazard to themselves, considering victim was unarmed. Thus
his petition is denied, and he is criminally liable for the murder
of Tecson

----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG

FACTS

Ah Chong worked as a cook at the Officers quarters No. 27,

Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province. The said place was a detached
house around 40 meters away from the nearest building. It
also served as the officers mess room. Only Ah Chong and
Pascual Gualberto, a muchaho, slept in that place. It was not
furnished with a permanent lock. O August 14, 1908, around
10o clock in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awaken
because someone had been trying to open the room. Out of
fear, I shouted who is there but none replied. Instead, the
other person kept on forcing his entry. Ah Chong believed that
it was a thief, and shouted again if you enter, I will kill you!
Again none replied. Upon entry, and out of fear Ah Chong
inflicted a wound on the intruders stomach. When he realized,
that person was his roomate Gualberto. He immediately called
his employers and dressed Pascuals wound but he died on the
following day.

ISSUE

11
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
Whether or not should Ah Chong should be exempt from
criminal liability?

HELD

YES. The Supreme Court held that

A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at

bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the
intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a
thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his
life and of his property and of the property committed to his
charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must
have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he
acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in
the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as
he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can
not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts,
or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the
imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and
his property and the property under his charge.

----------------------------------------------------------------

US V. VALDEZ
12
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
FACTS: At about noon, on November 29, 1919, while the
interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the Pasig River, a
small boat was sent out to raise the anchor. The crew of this
boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez y Quiri, and six
others among whom was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel.
The accused was in charge of the men and stood at the stern
of the boat, acting as helmsman, while Venancio Gargantel
was at the bow.

The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too

slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to
insult the men. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated,
saying that it would be better, and they would work better, if
he would not insult them. The accused took this as a display of
insubordination; and rising in rage he moved towards
Venancio, with a big knife, threatening to stab him. At the
instant when the accused had attained to within a few feet of
Venancio, the latter, evidently believing himself in great and
immediate peril, threw himself into the water and disappeared
beneath its surface to be seen no more.

As it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct the

view of persons upon the scene, the failure of Venancio
Gargantel to rise to the surface conclusively shows that, owing
to his possible inability to swim or the strength of the current,
he was borne down into the water and was drowned.

ISSUE: WON Valdez was guilty of homicide

13
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
RULING: YES. The circumstances narrated above are such in
our opinion as to exclude all reasonable possibility that
Venancio Gargantel may have survived; and we think that he
came to his death by drowning under the circumstances
stated.

As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death

thus occasioned the likewise can be no doubt; for it is obvious
that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted solely
in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in no
sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him it was
but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any
reasonable person under the same circumstances might have
done the same. As was once said by a British court, "If a man
creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of dander
which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he
injuries himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result." (Reg. vs. Halliday, 61
L. T. Rep. [N.S.], 701.

In this connection a pertinent decision from the Supreme Court

of Spain, of July 13, 1882, is cited in the brief of The Attorney-
General, as follows: It appeared that upon a certain occasion
an individual, after having inflicted sundry injuries upon
another with a cutting weapon, pointed a shotgun at the
injured person and to escape the discharge the latter had to
jump into a river where he perished by drowning. The medical
14
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
authorities charged with conducting the autopsy found that
only one of the wounds caused by a cut could have resulted in
the death of the injured person, supposing that he had
received no succour, and that by throwing himself in the river
he in fact died of asphyxia from submersion. Having been
convicted as the author of the homicide, the accused alleged
upon appeal that he was only guilty of the offense of inflicting
serious physical injuries, or at most of frustrated homicide. The
Supreme Court, disallowing the appeal, enunciated the
following doctrine: "That even though the death of the injured
person should not be considered as the exclusive and
necessary effect of the very grave wound which almost
completely severed his axillary artery, occasioning a
hemorrhage impossible to stanch under the circumstances in
which that person was placed, nevertheless as the persistence
of the aggression of the accused compelled his adversary, in
order to escape the attack, to leap into the river, an act which
the accused forcibly compelled the injured person to do after
having inflicted, among others, a mortal wound upon him and
as the aggressor by said attack manifested a determined
resolution to cause the death of the deceased, by depriving
him of all possible help and putting him in the very serious
situation narrated in the decision appealed from, the trial
court, in qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated
homicide, did not commit any error of law, as the death of the
injured person was due to the act of the accused." (II Hidalgo,
Codigo Penal, p. 183.)

15
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible
author of the death of Venancio Gargantel, and he was
properly convicted of the offense of homicide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pp v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE

ARTICLE 4: PROXIMATE CAUSE

September 7, 1931 G.R. No. 35006

FACTS: Purification lived maritally with the Chinaman Felix Te

Sue who was a married man. A certain Mguela Dawal, with
whom Felix had also lived maritally, threatened to bring suit
against him unless he rejoined her, the Chinaman and the
accused voluntarily agreed to separate. From that time on Te
Sue lived in together with the said Miguela Dawal.

On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited her

former paramour, found him with Miguela. When Te Sue saw
her, he approached and told her to go away at once because
her new paramour might get jealous and do her harm. The
accused insisted upon remaining, and on being pushed by Te
Sue and Miguela, feeling that she was being unjustly treated,
took hold of a small penknife she carried and stabbed the man
in the abdomen. Horrified, perhaps, at her deed, she fled to
the street, leaving the blade sticking in her victim's abdomen.
The injured man was at once taken to the provincial hospital

16
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
where he was given first aid treatment, and Doctor Ortega
performed a slight operation upon him.

From the testimony of Dr. Ortega, it may be inferred: That

the deceased was stabbed on the left side of the abdominal
region, near the navel; that the wound did not involve any
internal organ; that upon arriving at the hospital, he was
submitted to a minor operation which consisted in cleaning,
medicating, and suturing the wound; that upon his arrival, the
patient was in a nervous state; that during the operation they
tied down the patient; that immediately after the operation
Doctor Ortega admonished him to keep quiet because any
movement he might make would change his pathological state
for the worse and bring about dangerous complication; that in
spite of this admonition the deceased moved about, sitting up
in bed, getting up and pacing about the room; that because of
this, the internal vessels, already congested because of the
wound, bled, and the hemorrhage thus produced caused his
death.

The defense contends, with which the Attorney-General

agrees, that according to Doctor Ortega's testimony the
determining cause of Te Sue's death was not he wound
inflicted by the accused, but his own carelessness in moving
about against the doctor's orders, which produced the internal
hemorrhage.

ISSUE: Whether the wound inflicted by the accused would

held him liable for the crime.
17
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
RULING: YES.

The court concluded that the internal veins were congested

from the beginning because of the force of the blow which
produced the wound, and that what really impelled the patient
to violate the doctor's orders, by sitting up in bed and pacing
about the room, was not, as the defense insinuates, a desire to
aggravate the criminal liability of the accused, but simply his
nervous condition, which was noted from the moment he
entered the provincial hospital. It was not the warmth of the
bed or his not being used to it that made the patient act as he
did, but the pathological state created by the illness brought
on by the wound from which he was suffering. The court was
convinced that under normal conditions, if the patient had not
been ill, he would not have violated the doctor's orders,
knowing, as he did, that the slightest movement might
occasion a complication or internal hemorrhage capable of
causing death.

The patient's nervous condition when the complication or

internal hemorrhage which caused death set in, was an
inherent physiological condition produced by the wound in the
abdomen. It goes without saying that if he had not been
wounded he would not have undergone that extraordinary
state and condition, nor have had to leave his bed during the
critical stage of his illness.

Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (32 Phil., 218), The

court held that "One who performs a criminal act should
18
 Criminal Law I Case Digests
Balderas|Candolita |Delabahan |Masanguid |Pacquiao |Pastor
be held to liability for the act and for all of its
consequences, although both were inflicted upon a
person other than the one whom the felon intended to
injure."

However, the appellant is entitled to the mitigating

circumstances of not having intended to commit so serious a
crime as that committed, and of having acted with passion and
obfuscation. The first is shown by the fact that she made use
of a small penknife, and the second, by the fact that before the
attack she had been pushed out of the room where the victim
was, and that she considered such treatment as an offense or
abuse. The penalty must therefore be reduced one degree or
to prision mayor.

The judgment appealed from is modified and the appellant is

sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P500, to
suffer the accessory penalties of article 61 of the Penal Code,
and to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

19