G.R. No. L-1996. May 30, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. SALIP JULMAIN, ALIMPONOS HADJA AND INSAN-IN HADJA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
PERFECTO, J.:
the Court of First Instance of Sulu, on October 31, 1947, it was declared taht
said court has no jurisdiction over this case and ordered its dismissal with
costs de oficio and the immediate release of the accused, and, at the same time,
the transmittal of a certified copy of the complaint and supporting affidavits
and of the amended information to the provincial fiscal and city attrorney of
Zamboanga for such action as he may deem proper to take.
The information in this case, dated August 28, 1947, reads as
follows:
“The undersigned provincial fiscal accuses Salip Julmain,
Alimponos Hadja and Insan-in Hadja of the crime of murder, committed as
follows:“That on or about the 19th day of January, 1947, in the seas
between Zamboanga and Sulu Provinces, while the said accused were navigating on
a vinta from Zamboanga City to Luuk, Province of Sulu, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused with one slip Minsola, who is
not yet apprehended, with malice afore-thought, conspiring together and helping
each other and with deliberate intention to take the life of Moro Aye, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and suddenly and treacherously
attack the latter with a spear, ax and paddle wounding him on his left breast
and on the forehead both wounds being necessarily mortal, and being the direct
and immediate cause of death of Moro Aye, after which his dead body was thrown
overboard. All contrary to law.”
It appears, however, according to the affidavits upon which the
prosecution was initiated, that the alleged cirme of murder was committed in the
seas between Zamboanga city and Basilan Island while both the deceased and the
accused were enroute to the Island while both the deceased and the accused were
enroute to the Island of Jolo on an unlicensed or unregistered vinta. Because of
the crime, widow Ulka Aye and her children landed from the same vinta at
Pangasaan, Basilan Island, although the vinta was chartered to carry them from
Zamboanga to Kambing, Luuk, Sulu.
Section 14, paragraph 3, Rule 106, upon which the trial court
issued the order in question reads as follows:
“(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel
registered or licensed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, in the
course of its voyage, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the
proper court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or province
through which the vessel passed during such voyage.”
The trial court declared that the above quoted provisions are
not applicable to the present case because the vinta in question was
unregistered or unlicensed and, therefore, the scene of the crime must be
considered as an ordinary place and that, even assuming that the reglementary
provisions above quoted may be applied, it appearing that the vinta stopped at
Pangasaaan, BAsilan Island, under the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga, the latter is the one competent to try the case.
After a careful consideration of the undisputed facts of this
case for the purposes of the appeal, and of the applicable law, we find no error
in the appealed order. The vinta in question was unregistered or unlicensed and,
therefore, is not wihtin the purview of section 14, paragraph c, of Rule 106,
which contemplates a vessel registered or licensed in accordance with law. It
appearing that the crime was committed in waters within the jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, the latter is the proper court to try the
case. And, even if the vinta in question were licensed or registered, it
appearing that the ifrst port of entry of the vinta was Pangasaan, Basilan
Island, under the jurisdiction of said court, there cannot by any dispute that
the case should be tried in Zamboanga. The appealed order is affirmed.
Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.