SCHNECKENBURGER v MORAN
G.R. No. L-44896
July 31, 1936
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on June 11, 1934. He was subsequently charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him.
In support of this petition counsel for the petitioner contend
(1) That the Court of First Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case filed against the petitioner for the reason that under Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines; and
(2) that even under the Constitution of the Philippines original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, is conferred exclusively
G.R. No. L-44896
July 31, 1936
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on June 11, 1934. He was subsequently charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him.
In support of this petition counsel for the petitioner contend
(1) That the Court of First Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case filed against the petitioner for the reason that under Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines; and
(2) that even under the Constitution of the Philippines original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, is conferred exclusively
upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*CFI: overruled his motion.
Hence, he filed this PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him.
ISSUE:
WON that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner and not the SC as provided in the constitution
HELD:
YES.
the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was NOT exclusive.
The Constitution of the United States provides that the Supreme Court shall have "original jurisdiction" in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. In construing this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the "original jurisdiction thus conferred upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution was not exclusive jurisdiction, and that such grant of original
The laws in force in the Philippines prior to the inauguration of the Commonwealth conferred upon the Courts of the First Instance original jurisdiction in all criminal cases to which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. (Act No. 136, sec. 56.) Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls for, as we have already indicated, consuls, not being entitled to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or ministers, are subject to the laws and regulations of the country where they reside jurisdiction did not prevent Congress from conferring original jurisdiction in cases affecting consuls on the subordinate courts of the Union.
OTHER NOTES:
1. This case involves no question of diplomatic immunity. It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*CFI: overruled his motion.
Hence, he filed this PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him.
ISSUE:
WON that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner and not the SC as provided in the constitution
HELD:
YES.
the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was NOT exclusive.
The Constitution of the United States provides that the Supreme Court shall have "original jurisdiction" in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. In construing this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the "original jurisdiction thus conferred upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution was not exclusive jurisdiction, and that such grant of original
The laws in force in the Philippines prior to the inauguration of the Commonwealth conferred upon the Courts of the First Instance original jurisdiction in all criminal cases to which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars might be imposed. (Act No. 136, sec. 56.) Such jurisdiction included the trial of criminal actions brought against consuls for, as we have already indicated, consuls, not being entitled to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or ministers, are subject to the laws and regulations of the country where they reside jurisdiction did not prevent Congress from conferring original jurisdiction in cases affecting consuls on the subordinate courts of the Union.
OTHER NOTES:
1. This case involves no question of diplomatic immunity. It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment