Schneckenburger v. Moran 1936

G.R. No. L-44896             July 31, 1936

RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, petitioner,
vs.
MANUEL V. MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondent.

Cardenas and Casal for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for respondent.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Facts of the Case: 

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 of 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.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.

       2. Whether or not 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 and thus prevents the Court of First Instance from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed.

Held:

         1.  No. The Supreme Court find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States governs this case. 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 mentioned, the Constitution of the Philippines went into full force and effect. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it provides that the original jurisdiction of this court "shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.”

             2.  No. The Constitution of the Philippines original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, is not conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Constitution does not define the jurisdiction of this court in specific terms, but merely provides that "the Supreme Court shall have such original and appellate jurisdiction as may be possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." It then goes on to provide that the original jurisdiction of this court "shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls." However, the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was derived from section 17 of Act No. 136 (all laws of the Philippine Islands in force at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were to continue in force until the inauguration of the Commonwealth; thereafter, they were to remain operative, unless inconsistent with the Constitution until amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the National Assembly), which reads as follows: The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto in 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 Procedure. 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.