Case Digest

Lising, Ieuan C. Jurisdoctor 2B Special Issues on International Law Calme vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 116688, August 30, 1996 WENEFRED WENEFRED  CA!"E, CA!"E, pet#t#o$ pet#t#o$er er,, vs. C%R& C%R& F A''EA! A''EA!(, (, former former 10t) D#v#s#o$ D#v#s#o$ *#t) +N. AN& AN&N N  ". "AR& "AR&N NEE- as C)a# C)a#rm rma$ a$ a$ a$ +N. +N. CANC CANC  C. GARC GARCA A a$ a$ +N. +N. RA" RA"N N "A/%&A(, as memers, respo$e$ts. (upreme Court of t)e ')#l#pp#$es ()#ps #$volve2 M/V Cebu City Ships Country o! "egistry# $hilippines %wners Country o! "egistry# $hilippines 'laeDate of $#e$t2 $resu&ably, '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, May +2, ++. Fats2 $etitioner and !our other persons were accused o! -illing dgardo Bernal by allegedly throwing hi& oerboard 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 "Cs *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged through a &otion to )uash which, howeer, was denied by 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 &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 the essel was in transit, the general rule laid down in par. 7a8 o! Sec. +9 7now Section +68, "ule ++( o! the "eised "ules o! Court is the applicable proision 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 proper enue is Si)ui*or because, according to the Marine $rotest !iled by the essels captain the ship was '.( &iles o!! Minalonan $oint, Si)ui*or Island, when he receied the report that a passenger   *u&ped oerboard. oerboard. ;ence, ;ence, the present appeal. appeal. ssue2 0hether or not the %ro)uieta court has *urisdiction oer the o!!ense charged against petitioner. Rul#$g2 /3 ;oshu Maru Ships Country o! "egistry# Japan %wners Country o! "egistry# Japan $lace/4ate o! Incident# 0ithin waters o! Salo&ague Island, 4ece&ber +6, +52. Fats2  3bout noon o! 4ece&ber +6, +52, reenue 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&inistratie proceedings, decreed the !or!eiture o! the essel and directed its sale at public auction !or the bene!it o!  the Foern&ent, due to the iolation o! custo&s and )uarantine laws and regulations. Capt. %-a&oto appealed the case to the CI 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 $hilippine port, and that nothing had been !ound indicating that the !ishing essel unlaw!ully iolated any custo&s or )uarantine law or regulation. here!ore the order o!  con!iscation and !or!eiture was reersed and the essel ordered returned to its owner, with costs against the Insular Collector o! Custo&s. he SolicitorAFeneral brings this appeal and as-s this court to reerse the *udg&ent o! the Court o! irst Instance o! Manila and a!!ir& the decision o! the Insular  Collector o! Custo&s. ssue2 0hether or not the Collector o! Custo&s erred in ordering the sei1ure o! the ;oshu Maru. Rul#$g2 o, 'H659.

Lising, Ieuan C. Jurisdoctor 2B Special Issues on International Law