Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    05 Schneckenburger Vs Moran

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Enrico de Vera
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay in Manila, petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of First Instance of Manila from trying him for falsification, claiming diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that as a consul, Schneckenburger was subject to the laws of the Philippines and not entitled to the same privileges as ambassadors. The Court also held that under the newly adopted Constitution of the Philippines, the Court of First Instance had concurrent original jurisdiction over criminal cases with the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

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

    05 Schneckenburger Vs Moran

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Enrico de Vera
    33 views3 pages
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay in Manila, petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of First Instance of Manila from trying him for falsification, claiming diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that as a consul, Schneckenburger was subject to the laws of the Philippines and not entitled to the same privileges as ambassadors. The Court also held that under the newly adopted Constitution of the Philippines, the Court of First Instance had concurrent original jurisdiction over criminal cases with the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    05 Schneckenburger vs Moran

    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, an honorary consul of Uruguay in Manila, petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of First Instance of Manila from trying him for falsification, claiming diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that as a consul, Schneckenburger was subject to the laws of the Philippines and not entitled to the same privileges as ambassadors. The Court also held that under the newly adopted Constitution of the Philippines, the Court of First Instance had concurrent original jurisdiction over criminal cases with the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views3 pages

    05 Schneckenburger Vs Moran

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Enrico de Vera
    Rodolfo Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay in Manila, petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of First Instance of Manila from trying him for falsification, claiming diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that as a consul, Schneckenburger was subject to the laws of the Philippines and not entitled to the same privileges as ambassadors. The Court also held that under the newly adopted Constitution of the Philippines, the Court of First Instance had concurrent original jurisdiction over criminal cases with the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    1.

    Schneckenburger vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 249, July 31, 1936

    Excerpt : 1. [No. 44896. July 31,


    1936] RODOLFO A . SCHNECKENBURGER , petitioner , vs. MANUEL V.
    MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondent. ORIGINAL ACTION in
    the Supreme Court. Prohibition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the
    court. Cardenas Casal for petitioner . Solicitor-General Hilado for
    respondent. ABAD SANTOS, J.: The petitioner was duly accredited honorary
    consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on June 11, 1934. He was
    subsequently charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime
    of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the
    court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States
    and the Constitution of2. the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction
    to try him. His objection having been overruled, he filed this petition
    for a writ of prohibition with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance
    of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him.
    VOL. 63, JULY 31, 1936 251 Schneckenburger vs. Moran In support of this
    petition counsel for the petitioner contend (1) That the Court of First
    Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case filed against
    the petitioner 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 affecting3. laws of the country where he
    resides. (U. S. vs. Ravara, 2 Dall., 297; 1 Law. ed., 388; Wheaton's
    International Law [2d ed.], 423.) The substantial question raised in this case
    is one of jurisdiction. 1. We find no merit in the contention that Article III,
    section 2, of the Constitution of the United States governs this case. We do
    not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the constitutional
    provision relied upon by the petitioner extended ex propio vigore over the
    Philippines. Suffice it to say that the inauguration of the Philippine
    Commonwealth on November 15, 1935, has brought about a fundamental
    change in the political and legal status of the Philippines. On the date
    mentioned4. ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such
    jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines; and (2) 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. This case involves no question of
    diplomatic immunity. It is well settled 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. (Ex parte Baiz,
    135 U. S., 403; 34 Law. ed., 222.) A consul is not exempt from criminal
    prosecution for violations of the5. the Constitution of the Philippines went
    into full force and effect. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
    Not only the members of this court but all other officers, legislative,
    executive and judicial, of the Government of the Commonwealth, are bound
    by oath to support the Constitution. (Article XIII, section 2.) This court owes
    its own exist252 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED Schneckenburger vs.
    Moran ence to that great instrument, and derives all its powers therefrom.
    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 affecting6. the cases and in
    the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, and to hear and
    determine the controversies thus brought before it, and in other cases
    provided by law." Jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto, certiorari,
    mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus was also conferred on the Courts
    of First Instance by the Code of Civil VOL. 63, JULY 31, 1936
    253 Schneckenburger vs. Moran Procedure. (Act No. 190, secs. 197, 217,
    222, 226, and 525.) It results that 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

    Less Excerpts
    Case Title : RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, petitioner, vs. MANUEL V.
    MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondent. 
    Case Nature : ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition. 
    Syllabi Class :ID.|COURTS|AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS|SUPREME
    COURT|JURISDICTION |FIRST INSTANCE |CONSULS
    Syllabi:
    1. ID.;  ID.; CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES is FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF
    THE LAND.+
    2. COURTS;  SUPREME COURT;  JURISDICTION  ; ORIGINAL.+
    3. COURTS;  SUPREME COURT;  JURISDICTION  ; NOT EXCLUSIVE.+
    4. COURTS;  FIRST INSTANCE  ;  JURISDICTION  ; ORIGINAL.+
    5. COURTS;  FIRST INSTANCE  ;  JURISDICTION  ; NOT EXCLUSIVE.+
    6. AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS;  CONSULS; PRIVILEGES AND
    IMMUNITIES.+
    7. AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS;  CONSULS; EXEMPTION FROM
    CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.+

    Docket Number: No. 44896

    Counsel: Cardenas & Casal, Solicitor-General Hilado

    Ponente: ABAD SANTOS

    Dispositive Portion:
    We conclude, therefore, that the Court of First Instance of Manila has
    jurisdiction to try the petitioner, and that the petition for a writ of prohibition
    must be denied. So ordered.

    You might also like