Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law Case # 9

a. General

U.S. v. Sweet

1 Phil. 18 (1901)

FACTS:

Philip Sweet was employed by the United States military in the Philippines who allegedly
committed an offense against a Prisoner of War (POW). The case was filed with the Courts
of First Instance (CFI). Sweet is now contending that the courts are without jurisdiction
because he was “acting in the line of duty,” at the time the alleged offense was committed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the case is within the jurisdiction of the CFI.

Yes. Act No. 136 of the US-Phil Commission, section 56 (6) is states the CFIs are given
original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a penalty more than 6 months
imprisonment or a fine greater than $100 may be imposed. Furthermore, CFIs have
jurisdiction to try offenders charged with violation of the Penal Code within their territorial
limits, regardless of the military character of the accused. The defendant and his acts are
within the jurisdiction of the CFI because he failed to prove that he was indeed acting in the
line of duty.

2. Whether or not an assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a

prisoner of war is not an offense under the penal code.

Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW is not in the RPC, physical assault
charges may be pressed under the RPC. Under articles 4 and 5 of the Code of Military
Justice above cited a military person could not be brought to trial before a civil tribunal for
an assault upon a prisoner of war, but by the commission of that offense he incurred a
criminal responsibility for which he was amenable only to the military jurisdiction.

3. Assuming that it is an offence under the penal code, whether or not the military
character sustained by the person charged with the offence at the time of its commission
exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals.

No. The application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is
unaffected by the military or other special character brought before them for trial (R.A.No.
7055). Appellant claims that the act was service but this cannot affect the right of the Civil
Court to takes jurisdiction of the case.”