G.R. No. 12954. January 31, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CHU LOY AND LEE KAM, DEFENDANTS. CHU LOY, APPELLANT.
JOHNSON, J.:
passenger on board a steamship passing through the port of Manila with opium in
his possession is guilty of the crime of illegal importation of said drug, in
the absence of proof that he intended to discharge the same or to actually bring
it within the Philippine Islands. The important facts may be stated as
follows:
That the steamship Castlefield, an English vessel, arrived at the
port of Manila on the 15th day of August, 1917, from Saigon, Indo-China; that
this was the first trip of said vessel to the port of Manila; that its
accustomed trips were from Hongkong to Saigon and return; that it cleared for
the purpose of sailing out of the port of Manila on the 17th day of August,
1917; that the appellant was chief cook on board said vessel and had been for
three trips; that said trips had been between Hongkong and Saigon; that he did
not know that the vessel was coming to the port of Manila when it left Saigon a
few days prior to the 15th day of August; that the 60 tins of opium in question
were delivered to him at Saigon to be turned over to some one at Hongkong; that
said tins were kept by him in the kitchen of said vessel until it arrived in the
Philippine waters, when they were delivered to the codefendant (Lee Kam) to be
kept in the room of one of the officers of the vessel until after the same had
sailed out of the port of Manila; that there was no attempt made to bring1 said
opium ashore nor to discharge it at Manila, notwithstanding the fact that the
vessel had been in the port for two days prior to the time when they were found
in the place above indicated; that the said tins were found as above indicated
just before the said vessel sailed from the port of Manila on the 17th day of
August, 1917. Under these facts, is the appellant guilty of the illegal
importation of opium? He frankly admitted that the opium was in his possession
and fully explained its origin as well as the purpose of his possession.
Considering the fact that no effort was made by him to discharge said opium
during the two days while the vessel was at anchor in the port of Manila, we are
inclined to accept his statement that it was his intention to carry the opium in
question to Hongkong and not to deliver it in the Philippine Islands, especially
in view of the fact that when the vessel left Saigon he did not know that it was
coming to Manila.
The rule, that the importation of merchandise for the purposes of the revenue
department of the Government as well as for the other purposes is complete the
moment the vessel enters the waters of the country, is so well established that
the citation of authorities to support it seems almost unnecessary. (U. S. vs.
Look Chow, IS Phil. Rep., 573; The Mary, 16 Fed. Cases, 932; U. S.
vs. Lyman, 26 Fed. Cases, 1024; Perots vs. U. S., 19 Fed.
Cases, 258; U. S. vs. Jose, 34 Phil. Rep., 840; U. S. vs. Ah
Sing, 36 Phil. Rep., 978.)
However well that rule may be established by eminent authorities, it is
necessarily limited in its scope of operation by another rule that is equally
well established, and that is that the bringing of merchandise into the
jurisdictional waters of the country must be with the intent to import
it. If the fact was important, it perhaps could be proved that almost every
vessel anchoring in Philippine waters has on board merchandise for other ports
outside of the Philippine Islands. It certainly cannot be successfully
maintained that such merchandise, simply because it happened to be found upon a
vessel within the Philippine waters, had been imported into the Philippine
Islands. Neither do we believe that it can be successfully maintained that
merchandise belonging to individuals on board a vessel passing through the ports
of the Philippine Islands can be regarded as having been imported without; proof
of an intention to import. The mere possession of merchandise on board a vessel
in the Philippine waters is not of itself sufficient to amount to an importation
of the same. There must be proof of an intent to import. (U. S. vs.
Jose, 34 Phil. Rep., 840; U. S. vs. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. Rep., 978.)
It may be added, however, that if the goods found upon a vessel within the
Philippine waters are really contraband then they are subject to be attached and
confiscated. But even then there must be some proof that said merchandise was
brought within Philippine waters for the purpose of discharging it. Certainly
the Government would not attempt to confiscate, as contraband, merchandise which
is found upon a foreign vessel within the Philippine waters when it is proved
beyond peradventure that it was the intention of the owner to carry the same to
some other port.
We are persuaded from all of the facts of the record that the defendant and
appellant did not intend to import the said 60 cans of opium into the Philippine
Islands, and is, therefore, not guilty of the crime charged in the
complaint.
Therefore, and for the reasons above stated, the sentence of the lower court
is hereby revoked; and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the complaint be
dismissed and the defendant and appellant be discharged from the custody of the
law, with costs de officio. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Araullo, and Avanceña, JJ.,
concur.
CONCURRING OPINION
CARSON, J., concurring:
I concur.
As I understand It, the rule as to importation is that proof that merchandise
was found aboard a vessel in Philippine waters raises a presumption, prima
facie, that such merchandise had been imported into the country at the moment
when the vessel entered these waters, without further evidence as to intent. But
this presumption may be overcome by proof to the contrary.
A mere preponderance of the evidence is sufficient for that purpose, in civil
cases, and evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in criminal cases;
but the burden of proof rests on the party who asserts that such merchandise was
not brought within the jurisdictional waters of the Islands with intent to
import it.
DISSENTING OPINION
MALCOLM, J., dissenting:
The trial court, the Hon. George R. Harvey, in the course of his decision,
truly says:
“Chu Loy testified that he knew the package contained opium; that he knew the
day after the vessel left Saigon that it was coming to Manila; that after
arrival in Manila he delivered the package of opium to Lee Kam to keep for him.
Therefore, it is clearly shown that Chu Loy willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously brought the opium as unmanifested cargo in the Philippine Islands,
and within the jurisdiction of the customs authorities and of this court, and he
cannot be excused by reason of his claim that he did not intend to land the
opium in Manila. Such a rule would open the door wide to illegal importation of
opium and its derivatives into the Philippine Islands and render nugatory the
efforts of the customs authorities to detect and bring to justice those who are
engaged in the nefarious .business of bringing opium and its derivatives into
the port of Manila, and planning and watching for opportunities to land it
clandestinely.”
Act No. 2381, in section 4, provides that:
“Any person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the
Philippine’ Islands, or assist in so doing, shall be punished by imprisonment
for a period of not less than two nor more than five years, and by a fine of not
less than three hundred pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos. In case of the
commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section, the delinquent
may be deported if not a citizen of the United States or of the Philippine
Islands.”
Remembering the words of the court and the provisions of the law,
hereinbefore quoted, it cannot admit of doubt that the law prohibits the
unlawful bringing of opium into the Philippine Islands with or without the
intention of landing it. Even granting, therefore, that the accused had no
intention of landing the opium in these Islands, he has violated the provisions
of the law. His intention or lack of intention cannot excuse his illegal acts.
The judgment should be affirmed.