GR 33487; (May, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33487 May 31, 1971
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMO MARTIN, CANDIDO MARTIN and RODOLFO HIGASHI, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The defendants-appellees, Maximo Martin, Candido Martin, and Rodolfo Higashi, were charged before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of La Union for violating Section 46 of the Philippine Immigration Act. The information alleged that on September 22, 1966, in Sto. Tomas, La Union, they conspired to bring into and land 39 Chinese aliens illegally from a vessel at Barrio Damortis, a place not an authorized port of entry. The information included a phrase stating the acts were done “in active aid with Filipino nationals” who were separately charged in the CFI of Bulacan for concealing and harboring the same aliens after their transport from La Union to Malolos, Bulacan, where they were apprehended.
The accused filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the CFI of La Union lost jurisdiction because the CFI of Bulacan had already taken cognizance of the related case involving the same conspiracy. The trial court granted the motion, ruling the allegation of conspiracy in the La Union information meant all accused in both cases committed one transitory offense. The prosecution appealed, contending the La Union court erred in dismissing the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of La Union has jurisdiction to try the accused for the offense of illegally bringing in and landing aliens, notwithstanding a separate case for concealing and harboring the same aliens pending in Bulacan.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the case. The Court clarified that the acts penalized under Section 46 of the Immigration Act—”bringing into” and “landing” aliens versus “concealing” and “harboring” them—are distinct and separate offenses. The offense of bringing in and landing is consummated once the aliens are ashore on Philippine territory, which in this case occurred specifically in La Union. This is separate from the subsequent acts of concealing and harboring, which were committed in Bulacan. Each set of acts constitutes a different violation of the law.
The allegation of conspiracy “in active aid with” the accused in Bulacan was deemed a mere surplusage that did not alter the nature of the offense charged in La Union. It could be disregarded without affecting the validity of the information. The Court also rejected the characterization of the violation as a single “transitory or continuing offense.” Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the place where the offense or any essential element was committed. Since the illegal landing was consummated in La Union, the CFI of La Union properly acquired jurisdiction over that specific charge, independent of the subsequent harboring case in Bulacan. The cases involve different acts by different sets of persons at different locations and times.