Us V Sweet 265w37

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.”