[ G.R. No. 11411, December 11, 1916 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LI KIENG DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested and tried before the Court of First Instance of the Province of Sulu, Jolo. Upon being arraigned, the defendant presented the question of the jurisdiction of the court to try him. He alleged, in effect, that no crime had been committed within the jurisdiction of said court. The objection to the jurisdiction was overruled and the cause was brought on for trial.
After hearing the evidence, the Honorable George N. Hurd, judge, found the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of two years and to pay a fine of P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.
The only question presented by the appellant here is one of jurisdiction. He alleges that the Court of First Instance of the Province of Sulu, under the evidence and the law applicable to the case, had no jurisdiction of the defendant or of the offense.
The evidence found in the record shows that the defendant, in company with three Moros arrived at the port of Sandakan, British North Borneo, on or about the 17th of June, 1915, with thirteen aliens (including the defendant and appellant) ; that they embarked in a Moro boat called a vinta, which was the property of a Moro called Langi; that the defendant and his companions were arrested on the high seas by the officers of the customs cutter Gilbert near the Reef of Mambahenauhan; that the point at which the defendant and his companions were arrested near said reef was not within the waters of the Philippine Archipelago.
After a careful examination of the evidence we find no proof which shows that at the time the defendant and his companions were arrested they were within the jurisdiction of the court of the Province of Sulu or of any other court of the Philippine Archipelago. For the reason, therefore, that the evidence fails to show that the defendant had committed any crime within the jurisdiction of the court the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, the complaint is hereby dismissed, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant be discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de officio. So ordered.
Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.