Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 2K views

    People V. Wong Cheng G.R. NO. L-18924 OCTOBER 19, 1922 FACTS: The Appellant, in Representation of The Attorney

    Uploaded by

    Ramon Khalil Erum IV
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a case where a defendant was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard a merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. The vessel was anchored within territorial waters, two and a half miles from shore. While the French rule limits jurisdiction over crimes aboard foreign vessels unless the crime affects local peace and security, the English rule allows jurisdiction based on territorial principles. As the US has not renounced such jurisdiction by treaty regarding England, whose flag the vessel flew, Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime which occurred in territorial waters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V. Wong Cheng G.R. NO. L-18924 OCTOBER 19, 1922 FACTS: The Appellant, in Representation of The Attorney

    Uploaded by

    Ramon Khalil Erum IV
    2K views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a case where a defendant was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard a merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. The vessel was anchored within territorial waters, two and a half miles from shore. While the French rule limits jurisdiction over crimes aboard foreign vessels unless the crime affects local peace and security, the English rule allows jurisdiction based on territorial principles. As the US has not renounced such jurisdiction by treaty regarding England, whose flag the vessel flew, Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime which occurred in territorial waters.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE-V.-WONG-CHENG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a case where a defendant was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard a merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. The vessel was anchored within territorial waters, two and a half miles from shore. While the French rule limits jurisdiction over crimes aboard foreign vessels unless the crime affects local peace and security, the English rule allows jurisdiction based on territorial principles. As the US has not renounced such jurisdiction by treaty regarding England, whose flag the vessel flew, Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime which occurred in territorial waters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    People V. Wong Cheng G.R. NO. L-18924 OCTOBER 19, 1922 FACTS: The Appellant, in Representation of The Attorney

    Uploaded by

    Ramon Khalil Erum IV
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a case where a defendant was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard a merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. The vessel was anchored within territorial waters, two and a half miles from shore. While the French rule limits jurisdiction over crimes aboard foreign vessels unless the crime affects local peace and security, the English rule allows jurisdiction based on territorial principles. As the US has not renounced such jurisdiction by treaty regarding England, whose flag the vessel flew, Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime which occurred in territorial waters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PEOPLE V.

    WONG CHENG
    G.R. NO. L-18924
    OCTOBER 19, 1922

    FACTS: The appellant, in representation of the Attorney


    General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation of a
    demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila
    presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of
    having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel
    Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was
    anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shores
    of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant contended
    the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime,
    which resulted to the dismissal of the case.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction


    over the crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored
    in our jurisdictional waters.

    RULING: Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in


    our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have a right of
    jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said that having
    the opium smoked within our territorial waters even though
    aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order
    because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects
    within our territory.

    Two fundamental rules on this particular matter in


    connection with International Law

    1. 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

    2. 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.

    As to whether the United States has ever consented by treaty


    or otherwise to renouncing such jurisdiction or a part thereof,
    we find nothing to this effect so far as England is concerned,
    to which nation the ship where the crime in question was
    committed belongs.

    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.

    You might also like