People vs. Martin

Section 46 of the Philippine Immigration Act treats the acts of bringing into, landing, concealing, and harboring an alien as four separate and distinct offenses; the disjunctive “or” in the provision is not to be read as “and” absent a contextual reason. A charge for bringing in and landing aliens in La Union is therefore not pre-empted by a separate charge for concealing and harboring the same aliens in Bulacan.

Maximo Martin, Candido Martin, and Rodolfo Higashi were prosecuted under Section 46 of Commonwealth Act No. 613, the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, which penalizes any individual who shall bring into or land in the Philippines or conceal or harbor an alien not duly admitted or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside. The provision lists these acts disjunctively, and the case required the SC to determine whether they are separate offenses or one continuing violation.

Maximo Martin, Candido Martin, and Rodolfo Higashi were charged with bringing into and landing thirty-nine Chinese aliens who, on September 22, 1966, traveled by the Chinese vessel “Chungking” from the port of Hongkong. According to the information in Criminal Case No. A-392, the three conspired and confederated together and mutually helped one another and, as the information further alleged, acted in active aid with Filipino nationals who were then charged before the CFI of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 6252-M; they allegedly brought in and carried into the Philippines the thirty-nine aliens, who were not duly admitted by any immigration officer or lawfully entitled to enter, and from the “Chungking” took delivery, loaded, and ferried the aliens in the vessel “MARU XI,” which they owned, operated, and piloted, from outside the Philippines, surreptitiously landing them at Barrio Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, a place not a duly authorized port of entry. After the aliens were landed at Damortis, they were loaded in a car and two jeepneys for transport to Manila, but they did not reach their destination because Philippine Constabulary agents intercepted them in Malolos, Bulacan.

For concealing and harboring these thirty-nine aliens, Jose Pascual, Filipinas Domingo, Jose Regino, Alberto Bunyi, Emerdoro Santiago, and Ibarra Domingo were charged before the CFI of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 6258-M. The amended information alleged that on or about September 22, 1966, in Malolos, Bulacan, they and several others whose identities were unknown conspired and aided one another and wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously brought, concealed, and harbored the thirty-nine Chinese aliens, who were not duly admitted by any immigration officer or lawfully entitled to enter or reside in the Philippines under the immigration laws; it further alleged that earlier on the same day, through the aid, help, and manipulation of the abovenamed accused, the aliens were loaded and ferried to shore from the Chinese vessel “CHIUNG HING” in a fishing vessel known as “MARU Xl” and landed at Barrio Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, and immediately upon landing were loaded in an automobile bearing plate No. H-3812-Manila driven and operated by Emerdoro Santiago and two jeepneys with plates Nos. S-27151 and S-26327 driven and operated by Jose Regino and Alberto Bunyi, respectively, and brought southwards along the MacArthur highway; upon reaching Malolos, Bulacan, Philippine Constabulary agents apprehended them, confiscated and impounded the vehicles used in carrying and transporting the aliens, and took the sum of P15,750 found in the possession of Jose Pascual, which was used or to be used in connection with the crime charged.

The information in Criminal Case No. A-392, dated January 12, 1968, charged the three accused in the CFI of La Union with violation of Section 46 of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended. It alleged that on or about September 22, 1966, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of La Union, they conspired and confederated together and mutually helped one another and, as alleged, acted in active aid with Filipino nationals who were then charged before the CFI of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 6252-M, and did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously bring in and carry into the Philippines the thirty-nine Chinese aliens who traveled by the Chinese vessel “Chungking” from the port of Hongkong and who were not duly admitted by any immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter the Philippines, and from the “Chungking” took delivery, loaded, and ferried the Chinese aliens in the vessel “MARU XI” owned, operated, under the charge, and piloted by all the accused from outside into the Philippines, surreptitiously landing the said aliens at Barrio Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, which place of landing is not a duly authorized port of entry in the Philippines.

• Conspiracy Allegation: The Government contended that the lower court erred in declaring that the information in Criminal Case No. A-392 alleged conspiracy between the accused therein and the persons accused in Criminal Case No. 6258-M.
• Effect of Conspiracy: The Government contended that the lower court erred in holding that, by reason of the alleged conspiracy, the act of one accused in both cases is the act of all and that all the accused in the two cases are liable and punishable for one offense or violation of Section 46 of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, although committed through the different means specified in said section.
• Nature of Offense: The Government contended that the lower court erred in holding that the violation of Section 46 committed by the accused in both criminal cases partakes of the nature of a transitory or continuing offense.
• Jurisdiction: The Government contended that the lower court erred in declaring that it lacked jurisdiction and in dismissing Criminal Case No. A-392.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that the CFI of La Union had no jurisdiction over the offense charged because the court had been pre-empted from taking cognizance by the pendency in the CFI of Bulacan of Criminal Case No. 6258-M.

• Conspiracy Allegation: Whether the information in Criminal Case No. A-392 alleged a conspiracy between the three accused therein and the persons accused in Criminal Case No. 6258-M.
• Effect of Conspiracy / Separate Offenses: Whether the acts of bringing into and landing aliens and the acts of concealing and harboring them under Section 46 constitute one offense, such that all the accused in both cases are liable for one violation.
• Nature of Offense: Whether the violation of Section 46 committed by the accused in both cases is a transitory or continuing offense.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the CFI of La Union had jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-392 despite the pendency of Criminal Case No. 6258-M in the CFI of Bulacan.

• Conspiracy Allegation: No. The phrase “the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another” referred only to the three accused in A-392; the clause about active aid with the Bulacan accused was surplusage and should be disregarded.
• Effect of Conspiracy / Separate Offenses: No. Section 46 treats bringing into, landing, concealing, and harboring as four separate acts; the three accused were charged only with bringing in and landing, while the Bulacan accused were charged only with concealing and harboring.
• Nature of Offense: No. Bringing into and landing are completed once the alien is brought ashore and are separate and distinct from concealing and harboring; the violation is not a transitory or continuing offense.
• Jurisdiction: Yes. The CFI of La Union had jurisdiction over A-392 because the information charged bringing in and landing in La Union, and the alleged conspiracy with the Bulacan accused was not properly alleged and was surplusage.

• Conspiracy Allegation: The SC held that the lower court misread the information. The words “the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another” can refer only and exclusively to the three persons accused in A-392, namely Maximo Martin, Candido Martin, and Rodolfo Higashi. The clause “and in active aid with Filipino nationals who are presently charged before the CFI of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 6258-M” may imply an agreement on the sequence of steps, but the three defendants are charged only with bringing in and landing, while the six Bulacan accused are charged only with concealing and harboring. The SC found it technically absurd to conclude a conspiracy between the three defendants and six persons who are not named defendants in the case. At all events, the clause can and should be considered surplusage and omitted without doing violence to the indictment; it should therefore be disregarded.

• Effect of Conspiracy / Separate Offenses: The SC examined Section 46 and noted that its second paragraph repeats the basic words and concepts of the first: “bring into or land in the Philippines or conceal or harbor.” There being no indication to the contrary, the act of bringing into, the act of landing, the act of concealing, and the act of harboring are four separate acts, each possessing its own distinctive, different, and disparate meaning. “Bring into” refers to placing an alien within the territorial waters of the Philippines; “land” refers to putting ashore an alien; “conceal” refers to hiding an alien; “harbor” refers to giving shelter and aid to an alien. The word “or” is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated unless the context requires a different interpretation. While “or” may be read as “and” and vice versa, it is so only when the context so requires; Section 46 does not justify a non-disjunctive meaning. The bringing into and landing of the thirty-nine aliens were completed when they were placed ashore at Damortis on September 22, 1966. The act of the six accused in Bulacan of transporting the aliens constitutes concealing and harboring. The lower court itself accepted that different individuals acting separately and independently could violate the law if each commits any of the means specified. Thus the three accused in A-392 were charged only with bringing in and landing, and the Bulacan accused only with concealing and harboring; they were not liable for one offense.

• Nature of Offense: The SC rejected the lower court’s view that the acts constituted one “transitory and continuing violation.” The acts of bringing into and landing an alien in the Philippines are completed once the alien is brought ashore on Philippine territory and are separate and distinct from the acts of concealing and harboring such alien. If the aliens were apprehended immediately after landing, there would be no occasion for concealing and harboring them. One set of persons may accomplish the act of bringing in and/or landing aliens, and another completely different set of persons may conceal and/or harbor them. The general concept of a continuing offense is that the essential ingredients of the crime are committed in different provinces, as in the complex offense of kidnapping with murder if the victim is transported through different provinces before being killed; in such case, the CFI of any province in which any one of the essential elements has been committed has jurisdiction. That concept does not apply because the acts here are separate and distinct.

• Jurisdiction: Because the information in A-392 charged the three accused with bringing in and landing the aliens at Barrio Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union, and because the alleged conspiracy with the Bulacan accused was not properly alleged and was surplusage, and because the acts are separate offenses, the CFI of La Union had jurisdiction over A-392. The pendency of Criminal Case No. 6258-M in Bulacan for concealing and harboring did not pre-empt the La Union court. The SC concluded that the lower court erred in refusing to take cognizance of the case.

• Separate Acts under Section 46 of the Philippine Immigration Act — Section 46 treats “bringing into,” “landing,” “concealing,” and “harboring” as four separate and distinct acts, each with its own meaning: “bring into” is placing an alien within Philippine territorial waters; “land” is putting ashore an alien; “conceal” is hiding an alien; “harbor” is giving shelter and aid to an alien. The SC applied this by holding that the three accused in La Union were charged only with bringing in and landing, while the six Bulacan accused were charged only with concealing and harboring, so they could not be liable for one offense.

• Disjunctive “or” — The word “or” is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated unless the context requires a different interpretation; it may be read as “and” only when the context so requires. The SC applied this to Section 46, holding that its use of “or” was not to be read non-disjunctively and that the listed acts were separate.

• Surplusage in an Information — An unnecessary allegation in an information may be treated as surplusage and disregarded without doing violence to the indictment. The SC applied this to the clause “and in active aid with Filipino nationals who are presently charged before the CFI of Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 6258-M,” which it disregarded; the conspiracy phrase referred only to the three named accused.

• Continuing Offense — A continuing offense is one whose essential ingredients are committed in different provinces; the CFI of any province where an essential element is committed has jurisdiction. The SC applied this by distinguishing the separate acts of bringing in/landing and concealing/harboring, which are completed at different stages, and holding that the violation was not a continuing offense.

• Separate Offenses and Jurisdiction — When the information charges one of the separate acts under Section 46 in a particular province, the court of that province has jurisdiction over that charge notwithstanding a separate prosecution in another province for another act under the same section. The SC applied this to hold that the CFI of La Union had jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. A-392.

• “Scanning section 46 in its entire context, it is at once apparent, there being no indication to the contrary, that the act of bringing into, the act of landing, the act of concealing, the act of harboring, are four separate acts, each act possessing its own distinctive, different and disparate meaning.” — This is the core statutory interpretation: the four acts are separate, not one composite offense.
• “The rule is too well-settled to require any citation of authorities that the word ‘or’ is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated unless the context requires a different interpretation.” — This states the rule on the disjunctive “or” that the SC applied to Section 46.
• “It is crystal-clear that the words, ‘the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,’ can refer only and exclusively to the three persons accused in this case, namely Maximo Martin, Candido Martin and Rodolfo Higashi.” — This rejects the lower court’s reading that the information alleged a conspiracy with the Bulacan accused.
• “The acts of bringing into and landing an alien in the Philippines are completed once the alien is brought ashore on Philippine territory, and are separate and distinct from the acts of concealing and harboring such alien.” — This is the ratio for rejecting the continuing-offense theory.

• Kataniag vs. The People of the Philippines, 74 Phil. 45 — Cited for the rule that “or” may be read as “and” only when the context requires; the SC used it to confirm that Section 46’s “or” should be given its disjunctive meaning.
• Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855 — Cited for the general concept of a continuing offense; the SC distinguished it because the acts of bringing in/landing and concealing/harboring are separate and completed at different stages.
• Middleton vs. U.S., C.C.A. Fla., F. 2d 239, 240 — Cited in footnote for the meaning of “bring into” as covering violations where actual landing or placing of aliens on shore could not be shown.
• Taylor vs. U.S., 152 F.1, 10, C.C.A. 197 — Cited in footnote for the meaning of “landing” as setting on shore or coming on shore.
• Susnjar vs. U.S., C.C.A., Ohio, 27 F. 2d 223, 224 — Cited in footnote for the meanings of “harbor” and “conceal” under the federal immigration law.

• Section 46, Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940), as amended — The SC interpreted the provision, which penalizes any individual who shall bring into or land in the Philippines or conceal or harbor any alien not duly admitted by any immigration officer or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside under the immigration laws, or attempts, conspires with, or aids another to commit any such act. The SC held that the acts are separate and that the disjunctive “or” is not to be read as “and”; it applied this to the separate charges against the La Union and Bulacan accused.