15 Phil.

G.R. No. L-5270 January 15, 1910

ELLIOTT, J.

Lessons Applicable: Applicability of Provision

Laws Applicable: Art. 2 RPC

FACTS:

• Accused H. N. Bull, master of vessel, willfully, unlawfully, and wrongly carry,

transport, and bring into the port and city of Manila, aboard said vessel, from the port
of Ampieng, Formosa, 677 head of cattle and carabaos, without providing suitable
means for securing the animals while in transit, so as to avoid cruelty and unnecessary
suffering.

• Animals to be tied by means of rings passed through their noses, and allow and
permit others to be transported loose in the hold and on the deck of said vessel without
being tied or secured in stalls, and all without bedding

• Neglect and failure of the accused to provide suitable means for securing said
animals while so in transit, the noses of some of said animals were cruelly torn, and
many of said animals were tossed about upon the decks and hold of said vessel, and
acruelly wounded, bruised, and killed.

• All contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine
Commission.

Section 1 of Act No. 55, which went into effect January 1, 1901, provides that —

The owners or masters of steam, sailing, or other vessels, carrying or transporting cattle,

sheep, swine, or other animals, from one port in the Philippine Islands to another, or
from any foreign port to any port within the Philippine Islands, shall carry with them,
upon the vessels carrying such animals, sufficient forage and fresh water to provide for
the suitable sustenance of such animals during the ordinary period occupied by the
vessel in passage from the port of shipment to the port of debarkation, and shall cause
such animals to be provided with adequate forage and fresh water at least once in every
twenty-four hours from the time that the animals are embarked to the time of their final
debarkation.

• Bull(Norweigan): Norwegian vessel, and it is conceded that it was not registered or

licensed in the Philippine Islands under the laws thereof so it is not within the
jurisdiction of the Philippines

ISSUE: W/N the court had jurisdiction over an offense of this character when the
neglect and omission which constitutes the offense continued during the time the ship
was within the territorial waters of the United States

HELD: The defendant was found guilty

YES.

• No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offenses or crime

committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other country, but
when she came within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlines which embrace the
entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters, and a new set of principles
became applicable.

Note: when it comes in our territory it has the discretion to prosecute or not.

If it choose to prosecute must be justified.

• 2 well-defined theories as to extent of the immunities ordinarily granted to them

1. French theory and practice-matters happening on board a merchant ship which do

not concern the tranquillity of the port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiciable
only by the court of the country to which the vessel belongs. The French courts
therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant
vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against another.

2. The United States has adhered consistently to the view that when a merchant
vessel enters a foreign port it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities,
unless the local sovereignty has by act of acquiescence or through treaty arrangements
consented to waive a portion of such jurisdiction.

• The disembarkation of the animals is not necessary in order to constitute the

completed offense, and a reasonable construction of the language of the statute confers
jurisdiction upon the court sitting at the port into which the animals are bought. They
are then within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the mere fact of their
disembarkation is immaterial so far as jurisdiction is concerned.
• The appellant contends that the language of the Spanish text of the information does
not charge him with failure to provide "sufficient" and "adequate" means. The words
used are "medios suficientes" and "medios adecuados." In view of the fact that the
original complaint was prepared in English, and that the word "suitable" is translatable
by the words "adecuado," "suficiente," and "conveniente," according to the context and
circumstances, we determine this point against the appellant, particularly in view of the
fact that the objection was not made in the court below, and that the evidence clearly
shows a failure to provide "suitable means for the protection of the animals."

Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the
entrance of Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the laws of the
Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel
sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the
illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters -
regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship settled from the
foreign port and while it was on the high seas,

Case Title: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engaged in the transport of animals named

Stanford commanded by H.N. Bull docked in the port of Manila, Philippines. It was
found that said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa carried 677 heads of cattle without
providing appropriate shelter and proper suitable means for securing the animals
which resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and others to have died while in
transit.

This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the
Philippine Constitution. It is however contended that cases cannot be filed because
neither was it said that the court sitting where the animals were disembarked would
take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not licensed under Philippine laws, like the
ships involved.

Issue:

Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign
ship while inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.

Held:

Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the
entrance of Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the laws of the
Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel
sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the
illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters -
regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship settled from the
foreign port and while it was on the high seas,

In light of the above restriction, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a
fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs.