Post

United States vs. H. N. Bull

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
United States vs. H. N. Bull

Case Title and Citation

The United States, plaintiff-appellee, vs. H. N. Bull, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-5270, January 15, 1910
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Elliott, J.

Facts

  • The information alleged that for many months prior to December 2, 1908, H. N. Bull was master of the steamship Standard, engaged in carrying cattle and carabaos from foreign ports to Manila, and that on or about December 2, 1908 he brought into the port and city of Manila, aboard said vessel from the port of Ampieng, Formosa, six hundred and seventy-seven (677) head of cattle and carabaos without providing suitable means for securing the animals in transit, resulting in injury and death to some animals, contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275.
  • Act No. 55 (effective January 1, 1901) required owners or masters of vessels carrying animals from a foreign port to ports within the Philippine Islands to carry sufficient forage and water and provide forage and water at least once every 24 hours. Section 3 prescribed penalties and authorized prosecution in any Court of First Instance or provost court in the province or port in which such animals are disembarked.
  • Act No. 275 (October 23, 1901) amended section 1 of Act No. 55 by requiring owners or masters to provide suitable means for securing animals while in transit to avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering, and prohibited loading/unloading by swinging animals over the side by ropes or chains attached to thorns.
  • Trial court findings (supported by the evidence) included:
    • For about six months prior to December 2, 1908 the defendant transported cattle from Chinese and Japanese ports to Manila aboard the Norwegian steamer Standard.
    • On December 2, 1908 the defendant brought a large number of cattle into Manila Bay and anchored behind the breakwaters in front of the city of Manila, within the court’s jurisdiction.
    • Fifteen of the cattle had broken legs and three were dead from broken legs.
    • The cattle were transported on deck and in the hold without stalls, partitions, cross-cleats, or other suitable provisions to keep them secure, and without bedding.
    • Testimony for the Government (Captain Summerville) supported the stall system as preventing losses; the defendant testified his experience favored carrying cattle loose.
  • The defendant was convicted in the Court of First Instance for violation of section 1 of Act No. 55 as amended by Act No. 275 and was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. Judgment affirmed by this Court.

Issues

  1. Did the complaint state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court?
  2. Under the evidence, was the trial court without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case?
  3. Is Act No. 55, as amended by Act No. 275, in violation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore void as applied to this case?
  4. Is the evidence insufficient to support the conviction?

Ruling

  1. Yes - the information alleged facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction and to inform the defendant of the charge.
  2. No - the court had jurisdiction because the offense was continuing and completed while the vessel was within American territorial waters.
  3. No - Act No. 55, as amended, was within the legislative authority exercised for the government of the Philippine Islands and is valid.
  4. No - the evidence supported the trial court’s findings and sustained the conviction.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • On jurisdiction and the continuing offense:
    • The Court applied the principle that territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction extend to territorial waters (citing standard texts on international law). The offense consisted of continuing omissions and conditions aboard the vessel that persisted while the Standard was within American territorial waters (within three miles of the headlands and subsequently at least 25 miles to anchorage). Because the completed forbidden act occurred within those waters, local courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter and person.
    • The nationality of the vessel (Norwegian) did not bar local jurisdiction for a merchant ship: unlike public (war) vessels which receive exterritorialcourtesy, merchant vessels entering the ports of a foreign state for trade are ordinarily subject to local jurisdiction as to matters affecting the interests and order of the port (citing Schooner Exchange v. McFadden; U.S. v. Diekelman; authorities and treaty practice discussed).
    • Treaties (e.g., the Sweden and Norway treaty of July 4, 1827, article 13) and diplomatic communications limit local jurisdiction narrowly (disputes between captains and crews), but do not bar prosecution by local authorities for offenses that disturb the order or tranquillity of the country or violate local criminal laws.
  • On sufficiency of the information:
    • The information alleged willful, unlawful failure to provide suitable means to secure animals and described the resulting cruelty and injuries; the term “willfully” implies knowledge and intentionality. Translation differences between English and Spanish versions did not render the charge insufficient where the original complaint was in English and the evidence showed knowing and intentional conduct.
    • The statute’s jurisdictional provision naming Courts of First Instance or provost courts in the port or province into which the animals are brought was reasonably construed to allow prosecution where the ship and animals came within the territorial jurisdiction, regardless of literal allegation of disembarkation.
  • On constitutionality of Act No. 55 as amended:
    • The Court analyzed the constitutional status of the Philippine Islands as territory acquired by the United States, governed under the plenary power of Congress to make rules respecting territory (Art. IV, sec. 3). Congress had the power to delegate legislative authority to the Philippine Commission and subsequently to the Philippine Legislature subject to reservations and limitations contained in the organic acts and instructions adopted for the Islands.
    • The Constitution of the United States does not apply of its own force to unincorporated territories; Congress and the President (by authority vested via the Spooner amendment and subsequent Acts, including the Act of July 1, 1902) established the organic law and restrictions. The local legislative authority may enact laws on commerce with foreign ports unless expressly forbidden by Congress or the organic laws.
    • Act No. 55 (and the amendment by Act No. 275) regulated the carriage of animals from foreign ports into Philippine ports, a subject within the legislative competence exercised for the government of the Islands; Congress had not annulled the acts, and the statute had been in force without disapproval. Therefore the Act was valid.
  • On sufficiency of evidence:
    • The trial court’s factual findings—anchorage within Manila Bay, inadequate provisions for securing animals, resulting injuries and deaths, and expert testimony favoring stall systems—were supported by the record. The Court held that suitability of method is a judicial question to be resolved from evidence, not left solely to masters’ judgment. The evidence sufficed to sustain conviction and fine.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Territorial jurisdiction extends to territorial waters; a continuing offense that completes within territorial waters is subject to local jurisdiction.
  • Merchant vessels entering a foreign state’s ports for trade are generally subject to the local criminal jurisdiction for acts affecting the peace, health, or order of the port, unless treaty or explicit waiver provides otherwise.
  • Laws enacted by the Philippine Commission or Legislature under powers delegated by the United States are valid unless Congress has expressly or impliedly forbidden their enactment or has annulled them.
  • The term “willfully” in a criminal information implies knowledge and intentionality; pleadings must inform a person of the offense in ordinary and concise language.
  • Determination of what constitutes “suitable means” for securing animals during maritime transport is a question of fact for the court based on evidence.

Disposition

  • The judgment of the Court of First Instance convicting H. N. Bull under section 1 of Act No. 55 as amended by Act No. 275 is affirmed.
  • Sentence: pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and payment of costs.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring: Arellano, C.J.; Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ.
  • No dissenting opinions noted in the decision.

Significance / Notes

  • Clarifies that local courts in the Philippine Islands may exercise criminal jurisdiction over offenses by masters of foreign merchant vessels when the wrongful conduct continues into and culminates within territorial waters.
  • Upholds the power of the Philippine Commission and Legislature to regulate commerce into the Islands (including humane transportation of animals) under the authority delegated by the United States, subject to congressional reservation of annulment.
  • Establishes that compliance with maritime humane-transport statutes cannot be left solely to a shipmaster’s discretion when local law prescribes standards to avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering.
  • Illustrates the application of international-law distinctions between warships (exterritorial courtesies) and merchant ships (subjection to local laws) in the insular context.
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.