U.S. v.
BULL (INNA) or other animals upon or from vessels upon which they are transported,
January 15, 1910 | Elliott, J. | Characteristics of Criminal Law - Territorial
PETITIONER: The United States
RESPONDENT: H.N. Bull
SUMMARY: H.N. Bull was the master of the Norwegian steamship Standard.
He transported 677 animals from Formosa to Manila without securing them
properly, instead simply tying them with rings through their noses and leaving
them untied and unsecured in stalls without bedding. This resulted to them being
cruelly wounded, bruised and killed, contrary to Section 1 of Act No. 55 as
amended by Section 1 of Act No. 275 of the Philippine Commission prohibiting
the unnecessary suffering of animals during transit. Bull contended that the
Philippine court under U.S. rule did not have jurisdiction over the case as the
vessel is registered under Norway and not the Philippines. The court held that
Bull is indeed guilty, and that the jurisdiction to try his case in the Philippines
applied when the vessel came within our territorial waters and all the elements of
the crime were still present.
DOCTRINE: A continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant
vessel sailing from Formosa to the Philippines, by filing to provide stalls for
animals in transit in violation of Act No. 55 is triable in the Philippines
because the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was
within territorial waters, regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed
when the ship sailed from the foreign port while it was on high seas.
FACTS:
1. H.N. Bull was the master of the steamship Standard. He set sail from
Formosa to Manila with 677 heads of cattle and carabaos and failed to
provide suitable means for securing the animals while in transit and avoid
unnecessary suffering for them. He tied them by means of rings through
their noses, left them untied or unsecured in stalls without bedding. This
resulted to the animals becoming cruelly torn, tossed upon the decks and
hold of the vessel, thereby cruelly wounded, bruised and killed.
2. His failure to provide a safe means to transport the animals is contrary to
Section 1 of Act No. 55 as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 275 of the
Philippine Commission which states:
“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 provide suitable means for securing such animals
while in transit so as to avoid all cruelty and unnecessary suffering to the
animals, and suitable and proper facilities for loading and unloading cattle
without cruelty or unnecessary suffering. It is hereby made unlawful to load
or unload cattle upon or from vessels by swinging them over the side by
means of ropes or chains attached to the thorns.”
Section 3 thereof provides that:
“Any owner or master of a vessel, or custodian of such animals, who
knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the provisions of section one,
shall, for every such failure, be liable to pay a penalty of not less that one
hundred dollars nor more that five hundred dollars, United States money,
for each offense. Prosecution under this Act may be instituted in any Court
of First Instance or any provost court organized in the province or port in
which such animals are disembarked.”
3. H.N. Bull was found guilty by the Court of First Instance, contending that
(1) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court; (2) that under the evidence the trial court was without jurisdiction
to hear and determine the case; (3) that Act No. 55 as amended is in
violation of certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and
void as applied to the facts of the case; and (4) that the evidence is
insufficient to support conviction. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the (Philippine) court (under the United States occupation at the time) had
jurisdiction over this offense committed on a Norwegian vessel not carrying a
Philippine registry – YES (this is an exemption to the general rule, please refer to
ratio)
RULING:
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. The
sentence and judgment is affirmed. So ordered.
RATIO:
1. While no Philippine court has jurisdiction over offenses committed in the
high seas or territorial waters of other countries, the steamship Standard
came within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlines which embrace
the entrance to Manila Bay. When the Standard traveled 25 miles before
it reached the Philippine territorial waters, the violation of the statute
continued and it is immaterial to the court that the same conditions may
have existed while the vessel was in the high seas. It was a continuing
offense and all the elements necessary to constitute it was present from its
 departure until arrival. The completed forbidden act was done within
American waters, and the court therefore has jurisdiction over the offense
and the person of the offender.

2. When the offense falls within the Philippine territory, it has the discretion to
prosecute or not. If it chooses the former, it must be justified and there are
two well-define theories as to the extend of the immunities ordinarily
granted to the courts:

a. French Theory and Practice: Matters happening on board a

merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the port or
perseons 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.

b. 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 thorough treaty
arrangments consented to waive a portion of such
jurisdication.

3. 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.

4. H.N. Bull 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."