Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 456 views

    3.rodolfo Schneckenburger vs. Moran Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Brown
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger was charged with falsification of a private document in a Philippine court while serving as honorary consul of Uruguay. He argued the court did not have jurisdiction over him based on provisions in the US and Philippine Constitutions regarding jurisdiction over ambassadors and ministers. However, the court ruled that while those provisions granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over diplomats, consuls are not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as ambassadors or ministers. Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they reside and are not exempt from criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

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

    3.rodolfo Schneckenburger vs. Moran Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Brown
    456 views1 page
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger was charged with falsification of a private document in a Philippine court while serving as honorary consul of Uruguay. He argued the court did not have jurisdiction over him based on provisions in the US and Philippine Constitutions regarding jurisdiction over ambassadors and ministers. However, the court ruled that while those provisions granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over diplomats, consuls are not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as ambassadors or ministers. Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they reside and are not exempt from criminal prosecution.

    Original Title

    3.Rodolfo-Schneckenburger-vs.-Moran-Case-Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodolfo Schneckenburger was charged with falsification of a private document in a Philippine court while serving as honorary consul of Uruguay. He argued the court did not have jurisdiction over him based on provisions in the US and Philippine Constitutions regarding jurisdiction over ambassadors and ministers. However, the court ruled that while those provisions granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over diplomats, consuls are not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as ambassadors or ministers. Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they reside and are not exempt from criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    456 views1 page

    3.rodolfo Schneckenburger vs. Moran Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Brown
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger was charged with falsification of a private document in a Philippine court while serving as honorary consul of Uruguay. He argued the court did not have jurisdiction over him based on provisions in the US and Philippine Constitutions regarding jurisdiction over ambassadors and ministers. However, the court ruled that while those provisions granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over diplomats, consuls are not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as ambassadors or ministers. Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they reside and are not exempt from criminal prosecution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [G.R. No. 44896.

    July 31, 1936]

    RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER vs. MANUEL V. MORAN

    FACTS:

    Rodolfo Schneckenburger was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at


    Manila, Philippine Islands on June 11, 1934. He was charged in the Court of First
    Instance of Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected
    with the reason that both under the Constitution of the United States and the
    Constitution of the Philippines have no jurisdiction to try him. Then he filed for a
    petition of writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of First Instance of Manila from
    taking cognizance of the case.

    He contends:
    (1) That the Court of First Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case
    filed against him 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. To which the court
    stated that in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction, this court is bound by the
    provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that the original
    jurisdiction of this court "shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
    ministers, and consuls"; and
    (2) Also he contended 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. 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 of, but concurrent
    with, that of the Courts of First Instance, therefor not EXCLUSIVE ONLY TO THE
    SUPREME COURT.

    ISSUE:
    WHETHER OR NOT A CONSUL IS ENTITLED TO PRIVELEGES AND
    IMMUNITIES OF AN AMBASSADOR OR MINISTER?

    RULING:

    It is well settled rule 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.

    You might also like