Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 317 views

    People Vs Chan Fook

    Uploaded by

    CE Sher
    Chan Fook, a Chinese passenger, was allowed to land in the Philippines after arriving by ship. The next day, when retrieving his luggage from the pier, a customs agent attempted to search him without a warrant after finding indecent postcards in his luggage. A dispute ensued when Chan Fook resisted the search. The Supreme Court held that once allowed to land, Chan Fook was no longer subject to search by customs authorities without a warrant. The Court also found that foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Philippine Bill of Rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Chan Fook

    Uploaded by

    CE Sher
    317 views2 pages
    Chan Fook, a Chinese passenger, was allowed to land in the Philippines after arriving by ship. The next day, when retrieving his luggage from the pier, a customs agent attempted to search him without a warrant after finding indecent postcards in his luggage. A dispute ensued when Chan Fook resisted the search. The Supreme Court held that once allowed to land, Chan Fook was no longer subject to search by customs authorities without a warrant. The Court also found that foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Philippine Bill of Rights.

    Original Description:

    j

    Original Title

    People vs Chan Fook

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Chan Fook, a Chinese passenger, was allowed to land in the Philippines after arriving by ship. The next day, when retrieving his luggage from the pier, a customs agent attempted to search him without a warrant after finding indecent postcards in his luggage. A dispute ensued when Chan Fook resisted the search. The Supreme Court held that once allowed to land, Chan Fook was no longer subject to search by customs authorities without a warrant. The Court also found that foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Philippine Bill of Rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    317 views2 pages

    People Vs Chan Fook

    Uploaded by

    CE Sher
    Chan Fook, a Chinese passenger, was allowed to land in the Philippines after arriving by ship. The next day, when retrieving his luggage from the pier, a customs agent attempted to search him without a warrant after finding indecent postcards in his luggage. A dispute ensued when Chan Fook resisted the search. The Supreme Court held that once allowed to land, Chan Fook was no longer subject to search by customs authorities without a warrant. The Court also found that foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Philippine Bill of Rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE VS CHAN FOOK

    Facts:
    Chan Fook is a chinese passenger of the United States Military Transport South Bend. Immigration
    authorities allowed him to land in the Philippines and he left the boat on the same day. The following day
    he went to pier no. 1 to get his baggage. After the search of the baggage in which postcards of an indecent
    character were found, a customs agent, Eugenio M. Cruz, attempted to search the body of the accused, to
    which the latter apparently objected. A dispute took place between the two, which terminated in the
    secret agent seizing the Chinaman by the arm with intent to search his body, after showing him his police
    badge. The accused resisted and struck the secret agent on the stomach. The latter in turn struck him on
    the neck. Here the customs inspector, Anastacio Jacinto, intervened, and explained to the accused that
    Cruz was a customs secret service agent and had the right to search him in order to find whether he had
    on his person any contraband. Then the appellant made no further resistance and allowed himself to be
    searched.

    The prosecution alleges that under section 1338 of the Administrative Code all persons coming
    into the Philippine Islands from Foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by the customs
    authorities under such regulations as may be prescribed relative thereto. The defense, however, contends
    that once the accused has arrived at the point of his destination by being allowed to leave the boat and to
    land he was beyond the jurisdiction of the customs authorities, and, therefore, not liable to search without
    judicial warrant.

    Issue: Whether the search is valid

    Held: The SC held that that after the customs authorities have permitted the accused to land in Manila, the
    terminus of his voyage, he ceased to be a passenger within the meaning of said section 1338 of the
    Administrative Code. The fact that the accused returned to pier No. 1 to get the baggage that he had left
    there the day before does not subject him to the operation of said section. He could have gone back there
    several weeks or months after his arrival, and in such case, if the contention of the prosecution is
    sustained, all foreigners arriving in the Philippines would be in the highly anomalous situation of being
    liable to detention of the right to be secured against unreasonable searches guaranteed by section 3 of the
    Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, known as Jones Law, which provides that the right to be secured
    against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..
    In the case at bar the action of the accused in laying his hands on the agent Cruz is, in our opinion,
    an adequate defense to repel the aggression of the latter, who had seized him by the arm for the purpose
    of searching him. In accordance with the repeated decisions of the supreme court of Spain, the gravity of a
    disobedience to an order of a person in public authority is measured and graded by the circumstances
    surrounding the act, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression rather than
    by the source of the order disobeyed. And, taking into consideration the circumstances of the present
    case, wherein the agent Cruz had exceeded his functions, and wherein the accused acted in defense of the
    most highly esteemed of individual rights, the constitutional right to be secured against unreasonable
    searches, The SC held that there is no ground for finding the accused guilty of the crime defined in article
    252 of the Penal Code.
    That foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to the benefits of the individual rights secured by the
    Philippine Bill is undeniable. In the case of Kepner vs. U. S. (195 U. S., 100), the Supreme Court said:

    When Congress came to pass the Act of July 1, 1902, it enacted, almost in the language of the President's
    instructions, the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. In view of the expressed declarations of the President,
    followed by the action of Congress, both adopting, with little alternation, the provisions of the Bill of
    Rights, there would seem to be no room for argument that in this form it was intended to carry to the
    Philippine Islands those principles of our government which the President declared to be established as
    rules of law for the maintenance of individual freedom, at the same time expressing regret that the
    inhabitants of the Islands had not therefore enjoyed their benefit. And according to the principles
    underlying the Constitution, as extended to the Philippine Islands by the President's instructions to the
    Commission and by the Philippine Bill, foreigners are entitled to the protection of their life, liberty, and
    property. In the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (118 U. S., 356, 369), Justice Matthews says:

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor
    shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or properly without due process of law; nor deny to any
    person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their
    application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of
    color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

    You might also like