7/11/2017 G.R. No. 496 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

<br /><br />001 Phil 614 : DECEMBER 1902 - PHILIPPINE

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

Like 1 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > December 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 496 December 31,
1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL.

001 Phil 614:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 496. December 31, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellant, v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL., Defendants-

Appellees.

Assistant Attorney-General Constantino, for Appellant.

William Lane ONeill, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; JURISDICTION; CRIMES ON HIGH SEAS. Courts of First Instance of the Philippines
have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of crimes committed on the high seas on board of a transport or
other vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.

DECISION

TORRES, J. :

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
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 months 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
ChanRobles Intellectual Property general and the Civil Commission to establish a judicial system with authority to take cognizance of
Division 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.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1902decemberdecisions.php?id=158 1/5
7/11/2017 G.R. No. 496 December 31, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL. <br /><br />001 Phil 614 : DECEMBER 1902 - PHILIPPINE

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 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.
X by DNSUnlocker
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.

Ads by Google News GR GR No Case Criminal

Ads by Google Criminal Law GR Law GR VS
Ads by Google Jurisprudence Court Records Court GR

Who Controls the World? Back to Home | Back to Main

Who exactly are the most powerful 13

families who control the world? Who is QUICK SEARCH

in control of the world? A question lik

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

December-1902
Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 970 December 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v.
TEODORO REYES

001 Phil 517

G.R. No. 571 December 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v.

THOMAS E. KEPNER

001 Phil 519

G.R. No. 1005 December 3, 1902 - JOSE V. L.

GONZAGA v. W.F. NORRIS

001 Phil 529

G.R. No. 1035 December 4, 1902 - MARIA DEL

CARMEN VIUDA DE BUSTILLOS v. ROQUE GARBANZOS

001 Phil 532

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1902decemberdecisions.php?id=158 2/5