Calme v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Wenefredo Calme and four others were accused of murder for allegedly throwing Edgardo Bernal overboard the M/V "Cebu City" while the vessel was sailing from Ozamis City to Cebu City on May 12, 1991. Procedural History: Petitioner moved to quash the information, questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Oroquieta City. The motion was denied by the RTC. Petitioner's subsequent petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied by the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's jurisdiction. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, solely raising the issue of whether the Oroquieta court has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City has jurisdiction over the offense charged, considering the location of the crime and the applicable rules on venue. Whether the general rule on venue and jurisdiction under par. (a) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court applies, or whether the special provision for offenses committed on board a vessel under par. (c) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14), Rule 110 takes precedence. Whether Act No. 400, as interpreted by the petitioner, governs the determination of venue for offenses committed on board a vessel, or whether it has been superseded by subsequent rules.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Oroquieta court and the applicable rule on venue: The Court held that the applicable provision is Section 15(c) (now Section 14), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that '(w)here an offense is committed on board a vessel 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 territory through which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the generally accepted principles of international law.' This rule applies because the offense occurred while the vessel was 'in transit,' meaning 'on the way or passage; while passing from one person or place to another. In the course of transportation.' The exact location where the alleged murder took place was not definitively established, and even if it were, the fact that it occurred while the vessel was in transit triggers the special rule for offenses committed on board vessels. The jurisdiction is not limited to the exact place of commission but extends to the first port of entry or any territory through which the vessel passed. On the precedence of the special provision for offenses committed on board a vessel: The Court found that the general rule under par. (a) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14) is not applicable when the special circumstance of the offense being committed on a vessel in transit is present. Therefore, Section 15(c) takes precedence in this case. On the applicability of Act No. 400: The Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that Act No. 400 should govern. The Court clarified that Act No. 400 was amended by Section 15(c), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. While Act No. 400 conferred jurisdiction to the CFI of any province into which the ship shall come after the commission of the crime, the present rule provides that jurisdiction is vested in the proper court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory through which the vessel passed during such voyage. The Court emphasized that statutory construction dictates that where the provisions of the law or rule are clear and unequivocal, its meaning must be determined from the language employed and must be given its literal meaning. Since Section 15(c) of Rule 110 is clear and does not contain the qualification found in Act No. 400, it must be applied as written. The Court found no reason to rely on Act No. 400, especially since its specific provision regarding jurisdiction based on the vessel coming to a province after the commission of the crime was not carried into the present rule.
Main Doctrine
The criminal action for an offense committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage may be instituted and tried in the proper court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory through which the vessel passed during such voyage, regardless of the exact location where the offense occurred, provided it happened while the vessel was in transit.