Case Summary (G.R. No. 175025)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Decision date: September 20, 1902.
The case reached the court on appeal from a Court of First Instance which had assumed jurisdiction and entered an order that is here under review. The court affirms the order below.
Applicable Law and Legal Authorities
- Penal Code, Article 418 (providing punishment by arresto mayor and a fine of 325 to 3,250 pesetas for the offense charged).
- Act No. 136 of the United States Philippine Commission, Section 56(6) (conferring original jurisdiction on Courts of First Instance "in all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months' imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars may be imposed").
- Spanish Code of Military Justice, Articles 232, 4, and 5 (as cited regarding military offenses and exclusive military jurisdiction under that Code).
- Precedents and authorities cited by the court: United States v. Clark, 31 F. Rep. 710; In re Fair, 100 F. Rep. 149.
- The court notes the Spanish military code provisions are not in force here and did not apply to the United States Army.
Charge, Punishment, and Threshold for Civil Jurisdiction
The offense charged falls within the penal statutory provision cited (Art. 418) and is punishable by penalties that trigger the jurisdictional threshold established by Act No. 136, sec. 56(6). Accordingly, absent a valid statutory bar, the Court of First Instance had original cognizance of the offense.
Jurisdictional Issue Presented
The appellant contends that the civil court lacked jurisdiction for two principal reasons: (1) an assault by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offense cognizable under the general Penal Code (because it is dealt with by military law); and (2) the military character of the accused at the time of the alleged offense exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of civil tribunals. The court reduces the contention to these two propositions and addresses each.
Analysis — Whether the Acts Are Offenses under the Penal Code
The court rejects the argument that conduct punishable under military law cannot also constitute an offense under the general Penal Code. Although the Spanish Code of Military Justice would have punished an assault of this character (Art. 232) and, under its Arts. 4 and 5, assigned exclusive cognizance to military tribunals for many offenses by military persons, the same acts may simultaneously violate the general penal statute. Nothing in the language of Article 418 indicates exclusion of persons from its reach by reason of military status. Therefore, the fact that the acts might also be punishable under a military code does not render them outside the scope of the Penal Code.
Analysis — Effect of Military Status on Civil Jurisdiction
The court finds no statute in local or Congressional legislation that limits the jurisdiction conferred on the Courts of First Instance by Act No. 136 with respect to employees of the United States military establishment. Absent express legislative limitation, the general principle applied is that the civil tribunals’ jurisdiction is not affected by the military or special character of the person accused. The court cites authority establishing that civil jurisdiction ordinarily remains intact unless curtailed by express law (United States v. Clark). Consequently, being an employee of the military does not, in itself, deprive the civil court of jurisdiction.
Availability of Military-Related Defenses and Limits of Jurisdictional Inquiry
Claims that the accused acted pursuant to orders of military superiors or within the scope of military duty are recognized as defenses on the merits but do not, by themselves, deprive the civil courts of the power to try the case. Such defenses may be examined and considered at trial. The court distinguishes the present case from one in which one sovereign would be attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the military agents of another sovereign; here the civil court derives its powers from the same government under whose authority the acts were performed. The record also indicates there was no competing assertion of jurisdiction by military tribunals; the complaint was filed by order of the commanding general of the Division
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175025)
Case Citation and Panel
- G.R. No. 448; decision dated September 20, 1902.
- Opinion delivered by Ladd, J.
- Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Mapa, JJ., concur.
- Cooper, J., files a concurring opinion.
Procedural Posture
- Appeal from an order of the court below; the order of the lower court is affirmed.
- Costs awarded to the appellant.
- The complaint was entered by order of the commanding general of the Division of the Philippines, a fact noted by the court.
Facts Found or Assumed by the Court
- The appellant, Philip K. Sweet, was at the time of the alleged offense an employee of the United States military authorities in the Philippine Islands.
- The person upon whom the alleged assault was committed was a prisoner of war in the custody of the United States military authorities.
- The court assumes these facts to be true, either as found upon sufficient evidence or upon the admissions of the prosecuting attorney by the court below.
- The appellant’s claim that he was “acting in the line of duty” at the time is not supported by the findings or by any evidence appearing in the record.
Charge and Penal Provision
- The offense charged in the complaint is punishable under the Penal Code now in force by arresto mayor and a fine ranging from 325 to 3,250 pesetas.
- The penalty cited corresponds to Article 418 of the Penal Code as referenced in the decision.
Jurisdictional Statute Invoked
- Act No. 136 of the United States Philippine Commission, section 56(6), confers original jurisdiction upon Courts of First Instance “in all criminal cases in which a penalty of more than six months’ imprisonment or a fine exceeding one hundred dollars may be imposed.”
- Because the charged offense carries penalties exceeding those thresholds, the offense was cognizable by the court below unless other facts remove jurisdiction.
Primary Contentions Presented for Lack of Jurisdiction
- First contention: An assault committed by a soldier or military employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offense under the Penal Code (i.e., civil penal law does not apply).
- Second contention: Even if such an act is an offense under the Penal Code, the military character of the person charged at the time of commission exempts him from ordinary jurisdiction of the civil tribunals.
Court’s Analysis — Applicability of the Penal Code and Military Law
- The court recognizes that under the Spanish Code of Military Justice (art. 232) an assault of the character charged, when committed in time of war by a military person upon a prisoner of war, is punishable under that military code.
- Articles 4 and 5 of the Spanish Code of Military Justice give military tribunals, with certain exceptions not material to the case, exclusive cognizance of all offenses committed by military persons.
- The court holds that acts punishable under the Spanish military legislation may nevertheless also be offenses under the general Penal Code; nothing in the language of Article 418 indicates exclusion of any persons within territorial jurisdiction.
- The commission of acts punishable by military law does not render them any less an offense under the Penal Code; the same act may incur criminal responsibility under general penal laws and, when in time of war, may also constitute an infraction of the military code when viewed in another aspect.