People of the Philippines vs.

Wong Chen
G.R. No. 149927 March 30,2004

Facts:
The Attorney-General urges the revocation of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, sustaining the demurer presented by the defendant to the information that
initiated this case and which the appellee is accused of having illegally smoked
Opium, in Manila Bay two and half miles from the shores of the city. The demurer
alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held and dismissed
the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over the crime
committed aboard a merchant vessel anchored in our territorial waters.

Ruling:
Yes, the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction. 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 vessel should not be
prosecuted in the courts of the country with those 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 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. The
Philippines adheres to the English rule. Hence such a mere possession is not
considered a disturbance of the public order. But to smoke opium within territorial
limits, even though aboard a merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order
here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effect within
our territory.
 United States vs. Conde
G.R. No. L-18208 February 14,1922

Facts:
That on the 30th day of December,1915, the alleged offended persons
Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco Executed and delivered to the defendants a
contract evidencing the fact that the former had borrowed from the latter the sum of
300 pesos, and that, by virtue of the terms of said contract, the said Bartolome
Oliveros and Engracia Lianco obligated themselves to pay the defendant’s interest at
the rate of 5% per month, payable within the first ten days of each and every month,
the first payment to be made on the 10th day of January 1916. There were other terms
in the contract which, however, are not important for the decision in the present case.
On the 6th day of May 1,1921, a complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance
of the city of Manila, charging the defendants with violation of the Usury Law (Act
No.2655). The appellants now contend that the contract upon which the alleged
usurious interest was collected was executed before Act No.2655 was adopted. That
at the said contract was made there was no usury law in force in the Philippine
Islands. That the said Act No. 2655 did not become effective until the 1 st day of May,
1916, or four months and half later after the contract in question was executed and
that the said law could have no retroactive effect or operation because the said law
impairs the obligation of a contract.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendants violated Act No.2655 (Usury Law)
Ruling:
No, the defendants did not violate Act No.2655. A law imposing a new penalty,
or a new liability or disability, or giving a new right of action, must not be construed
as having a retroactive effect. Laws must be construed prospectively and not
retrospectively. In the present case Act No.2655 made an act which had been done
before the law was adopted, a criminal act, and to make said applicable to the act
complained of would give it an ex post facto operation. The legislature is prohibited
from adopting a law which will make an act done before its adoption a crime.
Therefore, that the acts complained of in the present case were legal at the time of
their occurrence, they cannot be made criminal by any subsequent or ex post facto
legislation.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Rosemoor Mining Development Corporation,et.al

G.R. No. 149927 March 30,2004
Facts:
The four (4) petitioners, namely, Dr.Lourdes S. Pascual, Dr. Pedro De La
Concha, Alejandro De La Concha, and Rufo De Guzman, after having been. Granted
permission to prospect for marble deposits in the mountain of Biak-na-Bato, San
Miguel, Bulacan, succeeded in discovering marble deposits of high quality and in
commercial quantities in Mount Mabio which forms part of the Biak-na-Bato range.
Having succeeded in discovering said marble deposits, and. As a result of their tedious
efforts and substantial expenses, the petitioners applied with the Bureau of Mines,
now Mines and Geosciences Bureau, for the issuance of the corresponding license to
exploit said marble deposits. After compliance with numerous required conditions,
License No.33 was issued by the Bureau of Mines in favor of the herein petitioner.
Shortly after Respondent Ernesto R. Maceda was appointed Minister of the
Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioners License No.33 was
cancelled by him through letter to Rosemoor Mining Corporation dated September
6,1986 for the reasons stated therein. The trial court ruled that the privileged granted
under the due process clause of the Constitution. Such right was supposedly violated
when the license was cancelled without notice and hearing. The cancellation was said
to be unjustified, because the area that could be covered by the four separate
applications of respondents was 400 hectares. According to the RTC, Proclamation
No.84, which confirmed the cancellation of the license, was an ex post facto law; as
such, it. Violated Sec.3 Art.XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not Proclamation No.84 issued by Pres.Corazon Aquino is valid. The
corollary issue is whether or not the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto
law applies to Proclamation No.84

Ruling:
Proclamation No.8 issued by Pres.Corazon Aquino is valid. It is stressed that at
the time Pres.Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No.84. on March 9,1987, she was
still validly exercising legislative powers provided under the Provision of the
Constitution of 1986. They contended that Proclamation No.84 is not valid for the
following reasons: 1)it violates the clause on the non-impairment of contracts; 2) it is
an ex post facto law and or bill of attainder’ and 3) it was issued by the President
after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.