Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    United States vs. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496, Dec. 31, 1902 (Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Marilie Tubalinal
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the theft of champagne that occurred on an American military transport ship while navigating the high seas. The two defendants argued that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed outside Manila's territorial waters. The judge agreed and dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign ships on the high seas based on the relevant laws. The defendants were discharged with costs paid by the government.

    Copyright:

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

    United States vs. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496, Dec. 31, 1902 (Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Marilie Tubalinal
    42 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the theft of champagne that occurred on an American military transport ship while navigating the high seas. The two defendants argued that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed outside Manila's territorial waters. The judge agreed and dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign ships on the high seas based on the relevant laws. The defendants were discharged with costs paid by the government.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. United States vs. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496, Dec. 31, 1902 (Jurisdiction)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding the theft of champagne that occurred on an American military transport ship while navigating the high seas. The two defendants argued that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed outside Manila's territorial waters. The judge agreed and dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign ships on the high seas based on the relevant laws. The defendants were discharged with costs paid by the government.

    Copyright:

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

    United States vs. Fowler, G.R. No. L-496, Dec. 31, 1902 (Jurisdiction)

    Uploaded by

    Marilie Tubalinal
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the theft of champagne that occurred on an American military transport ship while navigating the high seas. The two defendants argued that the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed outside Manila's territorial waters. The judge agreed and dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign ships on the high seas based on the relevant laws. The defendants were discharged with costs paid by the government.

    Copyright:

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

    THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant, vs. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

    ,
    defendants-appellees.

    1902-12-31 | G.R. No. 496

    DECISION

    TORRES, J.:

    The two defendants have been accused of the theft of sixteen bottles of champagne of the value of $20,
    on the 12th August, 1901, while on board the transport Lawton, then navigating the high seas, which
    said bottles of champagne formed part of the cargo of the said vessel and were the property of Julian
    Lindsay, and which were taken lucri causa, and with the intent to appropriate the same, without violence
    or intimidation, and without the consent of the owner, against the statute in the case made and provided.

    The accused having been brought before the court, the prosecuting attorney being present on behalf of
    the Government, counsel for the defendants presented a demurrer, alleging that the Court of First
    Instance was without jurisdiction to try the crime charged, inasmuch as it appeared from the information
    that the crime was committed on the high seas, and not in the city of Manila, or within the territory
    comprising the Bay of Manila, or upon the seas within the 3-mile limit to which the jurisdiction of the court
    extends, and asked, upon these grounds, that the case be dismissed.

    This contention was opposed by the prosecuting attorney, who alleged that the court has original
    jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty exceeds six month's imprisonment, or a fine of over
    $100; that, in accordance with the orders of the Military Governor and the Civil Commission admiralty
    jurisdiction over all crimes committed on board vessels flying the flag of the United States has been
    vested in the Courts of First Instance of the city of Manila. Among other laws and orders he cited the
    order of August 14, 1898, and Acts Nos. 76 and 186 of the United States Civil Commission. He argued
    that the President of the United States had unquestionable authority to authorize the commanding
    general and the Civil Commission to establish a judicial system with authority to take cognizance of
    maritime and admiralty causes, citing a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in support of
    this doctrine, which was applicable to this Archipelago, which is now analogous to the status of some of
    the States of the Union during the Mexican was and the war of secession.

    The judge, however, by an order of the 14th of September, 1901, held that the court was without
    jurisdiction to try the accused for the theft alleged to have been committed on the high seas, sustained
    the demurrer, and ordered the discharge of the defendants, with the costs to the Government. Against
    this order the prosecuting attorney appealed, and the case was brought before this court.

    This case deals with a theft committed on board a transport while navigating the high seas. Act No. 136
    of the organic law, as well as Act No. 186 passed by the Civil Commission, and which repealed the
    former law, Act No. 76, do not expressly confer jurisdiction or authority upon this court to take
    cognizance of all crimes committed on board vessels on the high seas. While the provisions of the law
    are clear and precise with respect to civil admiralty or maritime cases, this is not true with respect to
    criminal cases. If any doubt could arise concerning the true meaning of the law applicable to the case,
    Act. No. 400 effectively dissipates such doubts.

    This law, which is an addition to Act No. 136, by which the courts of justice of the Philippine Islands were
    organized, in article 1 adds to article 56, consisting of seven paragraphs, another paragraph numbered 8,
    which reads as follows: "Of all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction
    | Page 1 of 2
    of any country, or within any of the navigable waters of the Philippine Archipelago, on bard a ship or
    water craft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws
    thereof." The purpose of this law was to define the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance in criminal
    cases for crimes committed on board vessels registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands. The
    transport Lawton not being a vessel of this class, our courts are without jurisdiction to take cognizance of
    a crime committed on board the same.

    Upon these grounds we consider that the order appealed should be affirmed, with the costs de oficio. So
    ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Smith, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.

    | Page 2 of 2

    You might also like