Calme vs Court of Appeals Calme vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 116688, August 30, 1996 G.R. No. 116688, August 30, 1996 WENE
WENEFREDFRED CA!"CA!"E, E, petpet#t#o$#t#o$erer, , vs. vs. C%RC%R& & F F A'A''EA!'EA!(, (, formformer er 10t) D#v#s#10t) D#v#s#o$ o$ *#t) *#t) +N.+N. AN
AN&&NN ". ". "A"AR&R&NNE- E- as as C)C)a#a#rmrma$ a$ a$a$ ++N. N. CACANCNC C. C. GAGARCRCA A a$a$ ++N. N. RARA""NN "A/%&A(, as memers, respo$e$ts.
"A/%&A(, as memers, respo$e$ts. (upreme Court of t)e ')#l#pp#$es (upreme Court of t)e ')#l#pp#$es ()#ps #$volve2
()#ps #$volve2 M/V Cebu City M/V Cebu City
Ships Country o! "egistry# $hilippines Ships Country o! "egistry# $hilippines %wners Country o! "egistry# $hilippines %wners Country o! "egistry# $hilippines 'laeDate of $#e$t2
'laeDate of $#e$t2
$resu&ably, '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, May +2, ++. $resu&ably, '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, May +2, ++. Fats2
Fats2
$etitioner and !our other persons were accused o! -illing dgardo Bernal by allegedly throwing $etitioner and !our other persons were accused o! -illing dgardo Bernal by allegedly throwing hi& oerboard the M/V Cebu City owned and operated by 0illia& Lines, Inc., while the essel was hi& oerboard the M/V Cebu City owned and operated by 0illia& Lines, Inc., while the essel was sailing !ro& %1a&is City to Cebu City on the night o! +2 May ++. $etitioner i&pugned the %ro)uieta sailing !ro& %1a&is City to Cebu City on the night o! +2 May ++. $etitioner i&pugned the %ro)uieta "Cs *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged through a &otion to )uash which, howeer, was denied by "Cs *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged through a &otion to )uash which, howeer, was denied by Judge Conol o! "C, Br.+2, %ro)uieta City. $etitioner Cal&es petition !or certiorari and prohibition was Judge Conol o! "C, Br.+2, %ro)uieta City. $etitioner Cal&es petition !or certiorari and prohibition was denied due course and dis&issed by the C3 in its decision dated +( 4ece&ber +5. $etitioners denied due course and dis&issed by the C3 in its decision dated +( 4ece&ber +5. $etitioners &otion !or reconsideration o! said decision was denied in the C3 resolution o! +6 July +6.
&otion !or reconsideration o! said decision was denied in the C3 resolution o! +6 July +6. $etitioner asserts that, although the alleged cri&e too- place while
$etitioner asserts that, although the alleged cri&e too- place while the essel was in the essel was in transit, thetransit, the general rule laid down in par. 7a8 o! Sec. +9 7now Section +68, "ule ++( o! the "eised "ules o! Court is general rule laid down in par. 7a8 o! Sec. +9 7now Section +68, "ule ++( o! the "eised "ules o! Court is the applicable proision in deter&ining the proper enue and *urisdiction and not Sec. +97c8 7now the applicable proision in deter&ining the proper enue and *urisdiction and not Sec. +97c8 7now Section +68 thereo! since the e:act location where the alleged cri&e occured was -nown, and that the Section +68 thereo! since the e:act location where the alleged cri&e occured was -nown, and that the proper enue is Si)ui*or because, according to
proper enue is Si)ui*or because, according to the Marine $rotest !iled by the Marine $rotest !iled by the essels captain the shipthe essels captain the ship was '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, when he receied the report that a passenger was '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, when he receied the report that a passenger *u&ped o
*u&ped oerboard. ;erboard. ;ence, the ence, the present apresent appeal.ppeal. ssue2
ssue2 0hether or not the %ro)uieta court has *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged against petitioner.0hether or not the %ro)uieta court has *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged against petitioner. Rul#$g2
Rul#$g2 <
<ees. s. %ro%ro)u)uietieta a ""C C hahas s *ur*urisdisdictictioion. n. hhe e e:e:acact t loclocatiation on whwhere ere the the allallegeged ed o!o!!e!ense nse wawass co&&itted was not duly established. he Marine protest si&ply aderted that the essel was
co&&itted was not duly established. he Marine protest si&ply aderted that the essel was within thewithin the waters o! Si)ui*or Island when the captain was in!or&ed o! the incident, which does not necessarily waters o! Si)ui*or Island when the captain was in!or&ed o! the incident, which does not necessarily proe that the alleged &urder too- place in the sa&e area. In any case, where the cri&e was actually proe that the alleged &urder too- place in the sa&e area. In any case, where the cri&e was actually co&&itted is i&&aterial since it is undisputed that it occurred while the essel was in transit. In transit co&&itted is i&&aterial since it is undisputed that it occurred while the essel was in transit. In transit si&ply &eans on the way or passage= while passing !ro& one person or place to another, in the course si&ply &eans on the way or passage= while passing !ro& one person or place to another, in the course o! transportation. he applicable proision is par. 7c8 o! Sec. +9 7now Section +68, "ule ++( which o! transportation. he applicable proision is par. 7c8 o! Sec. +9 7now Section +68, "ule ++( which proides that where an o!!ense is co&&itted on board a
proides that where an o!!ense is co&&itted on board a essel in the course o! essel in the course o! its oyage, the cri&inalits oyage, the cri&inal action &ay be instituted and tried in the proper court o! the !irst port o! entry or o! any &unicipality or action &ay be instituted and tried in the proper court o! the !irst port o! entry or o! any &unicipality or terri
territory tory throthrough which ugh which the the essessel el paspassed sed duriduring ng such oyage sub*ect to such oyage sub*ect to the the gengeneralerally ly acceacceptedpted principles o! international law.
principles o! international law. D#spos#t#ve 'ort#o$2
D#spos#t#ve 'ort#o$2
N 4EW F &+E FREGNG
%.(. vs !oo5 C)a*
G.R. No. !788 Deemer 16, 1910
&+E %N&ED (&A&E(, pla#$t#ffappellee, vs. ! C+AW :al#as !% C+%;, efe$a$tappella$t. (upreme Court of &)e ')#l#pp#$es
()#ps $volve2
Stea&ship rrol
Ships Country o! "egistry# ?nited @ingdo& 'laeDate of $#e$t2
0har! o! Cebu, 3ugust +, +(. Fats2
Between ++A+2 a.&. on 3ugust +, +(, seeral persons, a&ong the& Messrs. Jac-s and Milliron, chie! o! the depart&ent o! the port o! Cebu and internalAreenue agent o! Cebu, respectiely, went abroad the stea&ship rroll to inspect and search its cargo, and !ound large )uantities o! processed opiu&, which was under the de!endants control, who !reely ad&itted that this sac-, belonged to hi&. 4e!endant also stated oluntarily, that he had bought the sei1ed opiu& in ;ong-ong with the intention o! selling the& as contraband in Me:ico or Vera Cru1. wo co&plaints were then !iled against the de!endant. he !irst co&plaint !iled against the de!endant, in the Court o! irst Instance o! Cebu, stated that he Dcarried, -ept, possessed and had in his possession and control, E -ilogra&&es o! opiu&,D and that Dhe had been surprised in the act o! selling +,((( pesos worth prepared opiu&.D
3 co&plaint !or the unlaw!ul possession o! opiu& was !iled against the de!endant. he de!ense &oed !or a dis&issal o! the case, on the grounds that the court had no *urisdiction to try the sa&e and the !acts concerned therein did not constitute a cri&e. he !iscal,as-ed that the &a:i&u& penalty o! the law be i&posed upon the de!endant, in iew o! the considerable a&ount o! opiu& sei1ed. he court ruled that it did not lac- *urisdiction, inas&uch as the cri&e had been co&&itted within its district, on the whar! o! Cebu.
4uring trial, It was established that the stea&ship rroll was o! nglish nationality, that it ca&e !ro& ;ong-ong, and that it was bound !or Me:ico, ia the call ports o! Manila and Cebu. 3!ter the deliberation, o! the case, the trial court sentenced the de!endant to 9 years o! i&prison&ent, to pay a !ine o! $+(,(((, with additional subsidiary i&prison&ent in case o! insolency, though not to e:ceed one third o! the principal penalty, and to the pay&ent o! the costs. It !urther ordered the con!iscation, in !aor o! the Insular Foern&ent, o! the e:hibits presented in the case. ro& this *udg&ent, the de!endant appealed to the SC.
ssue2 0hether or not the de!endant can be held liable !or the unlaw!ul possession o! opiu&. Rul#$g2
<es. 3lthough the &ere possession o! a thing o! prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a !oreign essel in transit, in any o! their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a cri&e triable by the courts o! this country, on account o! such essel being considered as an e:tension o! its own nationality, the sa&e rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the $hilippine Islands, in the present case a can o! opiu&, is landed !ro& the essel upon $hilippine soil, thus co&&itting an open iolation o! the laws o! the land, with respect to which, as it is a iolation o! the penal law in !orce at the place o! the co&&ission o! the cri&e, only the court established in that said place itsel! had co&petent *urisdiction, in the absence o! an agree&ent under an international treaty. 3lso, een ad&itting that the )uantity o! the drug sei1ed, the sub*ect &atter o! the present case, was
considerable, it does not appear that, on such account, the two penalties !i:ed by the law on the sub*ect, should be i&posed in the &a:i&u& degree.
D#spos#t#ve 'ort#o$2
here!ore, reducing the i&prison&ent and the !ine i&posed to si: &onths and $+,(((, respectiely, we a!!ir& in all other respects the *udg&ent appealed !ro&, with the costs o! this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
5amoto vs Colletor of Customs G.R. No. !39969, <ul= 11, 193>
(A<R A"&, apta#$ of t)e <apa$ese motor f#s)#$g sampa$, +os)o "aru, pla#$t#ff appellee, vs. &+E N(%!AR C!!EC&R F C%(&"(, efe$a$tappella$t.
(upreme Court of t)e ')#l#pp#$es ()#ps $volve2
"eenue Cutter 3rayat
Ships Country o! "egistry# >/3 %wners Country o! "egistry# >/3 ;oshu Maru
Ships Country o! "egistry# Japan %wners Country o! "egistry# Japan $lace/4ate o! Incident#
0ithin waters o! Salo&ague Island, 4ece&ber +6, +52. Fats2
3bout noon o! 4ece&ber +6, +52, reenue cutter Arayat sighted a Japanese !ishing boat na&ed the Hosho Maru, anchored a short distance away !ro& Salo&ague Island, a s&all island o!! the cost o! >orthern Lu1on. 3 boarding party was put aboard the !ishing essel and !ound !ishing yields and e)uip&ent, but no articles o! co&&erce or passengers. ?pon a report being &ade to the Insular Collector o! Custo&s, that o!!icial directed the sei1ure o! the Hosho Maru and, a!ter ad&inistratie proceedings, decreed the !or!eiture o! the essel and directed its sale at public auction !or the bene!it o! the Foern&ent, due to the iolation o! custo&s and )uarantine laws and regulations.
Capt. %-a&oto appealed the case to the CI o! Manila. hat court held that the Hosho Maru too- re!uge in $hilippine waters on account o! stress o! weather, that the it was not engaged in the i&portation o! &erchandise in any $hilippine port, and that nothing had been !ound indicating that the !ishing essel unlaw!ully iolated any custo&s or )uarantine law or regulation. here!ore the order o! con!iscation and !or!eiture was reersed and the essel ordered returned to its owner, with costs against the Insular Collector o! Custo&s. he SolicitorAFeneral brings this appeal and as-s this court to reerse the *udg&ent o! the Court o! irst Instance o! Manila and a!!ir& the decision o! the Insular Collector o! Custo&s.
ssue2 0hether or not the Collector o! Custo&s erred in ordering the sei1ure o! the ;oshu Maru. Rul#$g2
<es. Since there were no $hilippine statute enacted at the ti&e to goern the case at bar, the Court re!erred to the laws o! ?S and ?@. Both in ngland and in the ?nited States con!iscation o! a essel !or iolation o! a custo&s law cannot be had ad&inistratiely but only by court proceedings. Section +5E5 o! the 3d&inistratie Fode proides !or the !or!eiture o! essels engaged in certain speci!ied illegal actions, none o! which apply in this case. It there!ore &ust be held that the Collector o! Custo&s was without authority to order the !or!eiture o! the essel. he right o! asylu& !ro& stress o! weather is a right well recogni1ed by international law and is in accordance with the dictates o! Christianity. he only li&itation is that the weather &ust be such as to create an honest belie! in the &ind o! a s-ill!ul and !ir& &ariner.3s the SolicitorAFeneral is unable to point out the speci!ic law or regulation that he clai&s the ;osho Maru iolated, !urther proceedings are dee&ed unnecessary.
D#spos#t#ve 'ort#o$2
he *udg&ent appealed !ro& is there!ore a!!ir&ed with the &odi!ication that costs in both instances will be de oficio. So ordered.
Dela Fue$te vs De 4e=ra
G.R. No. !37387 <a$uar= 31, 1983
A!FRED DE !A F%EN&E, as Colletor of Customs, 'ort of (ual, R!AND GE&NA, as Comm#ss#o$er of Customs, +!AR R%-, as Flag ff#er $ Comma$, ')#l#pp#$e Nav=, a$ G! FERNANDE-, as Comma$a$t, ')#l#pp#$e Coast Guar, pet#t#o$ers, vs. +N. <E(%( DE 4E?RA, #$ )#s apa#t= as <uge of t)e Court of F#rst $sta$e of "a$#la, /ra$) @4, !%C? (&AR (+''NG C"'AN?, a$ &ENG /EE EN&ER'R(E( C. :+; !&D., respo$e$ts.
(upreme Court of t)e ')#l#pp#$es ()#ps $volve2
M/V Luc-y Star I
Ships Country o! "egistry# $ana&a %wners Country o! "egistry# >/3 'laeDate of $#e$t2
%!! the coast o! Ga&bales appro:i&ately 5(n& east o! Scarborough Shoal or 25n& east o! the International reaty Li&its, June +E, +H2.
Fats2
%n June +E, +H2, at Ep&, the crew o! a Aboat o! the $hilippine Coast Fuard spotted the M/V Luc-y Star I, owned by the priate respondent Luc-y Star Shipping Co., unloading cargo to seeral s&all watercra!ts alongside it, o!! the coast o! Ga&bales. 3s the Aboat was approaching the M/V Luc-y Star I, it was &et by gun!ire !ro& the s&aller watercra!ts which i&&ediately !led !ro& the scene. %nly the M/V Luc-y Star I was apprehended. ?pon boarding, the $CF o!!icers discoered cases o! !oreign &ade cigarettes allegedly owned by eng Bee nterprises Co. 7;@8 Ltd., coArespondent herein. he o!!icers, also saw on board a certain 4eogracias Labrador, ilipino Captain o! the do&estic watercra!t, M/L Sangbay, one o! the boats seen alongside the M/V Luc-y Star I.
he captain o! the Luc-y Star I, Li a- Sin, was not able to present docu&ents or papers !or the cigarettes. hey were arrested !or s&uggling. herea!ter, a warrant o! sei1ure and detention was issued by the Collector o! Custo&s o! the $ort o! SualA4agupan against the essel and articles sei1ed !or iolation o! the ari!! and Custo&s Code. Subse)uently, the 3cting $roincial iscal !iled be!ore the CI o! Ga&bales, an in!or&ation against Li a- Sin, the crew o! Luc-y Star I, Labrador, and other persons !or iolation o! the sa&e, penali1ed ".3. +5H, as a&ended by ".3. 6H+2# Meanwhile, the priate respondents !iled be!ore the CI o! Manila, presided oer by respondent *udge, ;on. de Veyra. a co&plaint !or in*unction and recoery o! personal property against the petitioners praying !or the return o! the goods sei1ed and the release o! the M/V Luc-y Star I.
"espondent Judge did not grant the in*unction prayed !or and ruled that he Bureau o! Custo&s cannot !or!eit the essel. It ruled that it could only i&pose a !ine against the owners o! the essel.he petitioners as-ed !or a reconsideration o! the a!ore)uoted order inso!ar as it re)uired the& to in!or& the respondent court o! the &a:i&u& !ine that &ay be the basis !or a bond that would entitle the priate respondents to repossess the essel, but to no aail. 3s the respondents counter, they allege that the sei1ure o! the ship was illegal and against the accepted principles o! international law !or the !ollowing reasons# +8 the ship is a !oreign essel registered under the laws o! the "epublic o! $ana&a and !lies the $ana&ian !lag= 28 the crew is co&posed o! aliens= and 58 the ship was sei1ed outside the territorial *urisdiction o! the $hilippines, the Bureau o! Custo&s is without power to en!orce the $hilippine Custo&s law. Conse)uently, it is argued that the proper !oru& !or the priate respondents to obtain relie! !or the release o! the essel is the ordinary court, &ore speci!ically, the Court o! irst Instance. he petitioners contend, on the other hand, that the M/V Luc-y Star I was apprehended at a point 25 &iles east o! the International reaty Li&its, well within the territory o! the $hilippines as de!ined in 3rticle I o! the +59 Constitution, the reaty o! $aris, and "epublic 3ct >o. 5(6E. he petitioners state
that the essel was caught in the act o! s&uggling. ;ence, this petition !or certiorari and prohibition. ssue2 0hether or not the CI has *urisdiction to ta-e cogni1ance o! the co&plaint which is the sub*ect
o! a sei1ure and !or!eiture proceedings be!ore the Collector o! Custo&s o! the port o! SualA 4agupan.
Rul#$g2
>o. It is wellAsettled that the e:clusie *urisdiction oer sei1ure and !or!eiture cases ested in the Collector o! Custo&s precludes a CI !ro& assu&ing cogni1ance oer such cases. Jurisprudence proides that, the CI should yield to the *urisdiction o! the Collector o! Custo&s. he Jurisdiction o! the Collector o! Custo&s is proided !or in "epublic 3ct +5H which too- e!!ect on July +, +9H, &uch later than the Judiciary 3ct o! +6'. Moreoer, on grounds o! public policy, it is &ore reasonable to conclude that the legislators intended to diest the CI o! the prerogatie to replein a property which is a sub*ect o! a sei1ure and !or!eiture proceedings !or iolation o! the ari!! and Custo&s Code, %therwise, actions !or !or!eiture o! property !or iolation o! Custo&s laws could easily be under&ined by the si&ple deice o! replein. he *udicial recourse o! the owner o! a personal property which has been the sub*ect o! a sei1ure and !or!eiture proceedings be!ore the Collector o! Custo&s is not in the CI but in the Court o! a: 3ppeals, and only a!ter e:hausting ad&inistratie re&edies in the Bureau o! Custo&s.
he Collector o! Custo&s constituted itsel! as a tribunal to hear and deter&ine a&ong other things, the )uestion o! whether or not the M/V Luc-y Star I was sei1ed within the territorial waters o! the $hilippines. I! the priate respondents beliee that the sei1ure was &ade outside the territorial *urisdiction o! the $hilippines, it should raise the sa&e as a de!ense be!ore the Collector o! Custo&s and i! not satis!ied, !ollow the correct appellate procedures. 3 separate action be!ore the Court o! irst Instance is not the re&edy.
D#spos#t#ve 'ort#o$2
0;"%", the petition is hereby granted. he )uestioned orders o! the respondent court are set aside. he preli&inary in*unction dated 3ugust 26, +H2 is &ade per&anent and the respondent court is ordered to desist !ro& !urther proceeding in Ciil Case >o, 'H659.
