Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 428 views

    Digest On Schneckenburger v. Moran (63 Phil. 249 (1943) )

    Uploaded by

    Jaja Gk
    1. Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay, was charged with falsification of a private document in Manila court. He argued the court had no jurisdiction. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Philippine Constitution gives it original jurisdiction over cases affecting consuls, consuls are not exempt from criminal prosecution in the country where they reside. 3. The Court also found that its original jurisdiction at the time of the Constitution's adoption was concurrent, not exclusive, with lower courts. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction and the petition for prohibition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Digest On Schneckenburger v. Moran (63 Phil. 249 (1943) )

    Uploaded by

    Jaja Gk
    428 views1 page
    1. Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay, was charged with falsification of a private document in Manila court. He argued the court had no jurisdiction. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Philippine Constitution gives it original jurisdiction over cases affecting consuls, consuls are not exempt from criminal prosecution in the country where they reside. 3. The Court also found that its original jurisdiction at the time of the Constitution's adoption was concurrent, not exclusive, with lower courts. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction and the petition for prohibition was denied.

    Original Description:

    Digest on Schneckenburger v. Moran [63 Phil. 249 (1943)]

    Original Title

    Digest on Schneckenburger v. Moran [63 Phil. 249 (1943)]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay, was charged with falsification of a private document in Manila court. He argued the court had no jurisdiction. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Philippine Constitution gives it original jurisdiction over cases affecting consuls, consuls are not exempt from criminal prosecution in the country where they reside. 3. The Court also found that its original jurisdiction at the time of the Constitution's adoption was concurrent, not exclusive, with lower courts. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction and the petition for prohibition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    428 views1 page

    Digest On Schneckenburger v. Moran (63 Phil. 249 (1943) )

    Uploaded by

    Jaja Gk
    1. Schneckenburger, an honorary consul of Uruguay, was charged with falsification of a private document in Manila court. He argued the court had no jurisdiction. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Philippine Constitution gives it original jurisdiction over cases affecting consuls, consuls are not exempt from criminal prosecution in the country where they reside. 3. The Court also found that its original jurisdiction at the time of the Constitution's adoption was concurrent, not exclusive, with lower courts. Therefore, the lower court had jurisdiction and the petition for prohibition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 1

    CASE DIGEST ON SCHNECKENBURGER v. MORAN [63 Phil.

    249 (1943)]
    November 10, 2010

    Nature: Original action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.

    Facts: Schneckenburger, who is an honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila was subsequently charged in
    CFI-Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to this saying that under
    the US and Philippine Constitution, the CFI has no jurisdiction to try him. After his objection was
    overruled, he filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the CFI from taking cognizance of the
    criminal action filed against him. Aside from this, he contended that original jurisdiction over cases
    affecting ambassadors and consuls is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

    Issues:

    1. WON the US SC has Original Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, consuls, et. al & such
    jurisdiction excludes courts of the Phils.

    No. First of all, a consul is not entitled to the privilege of diplomatic immunity. A consul is not exempt
    from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. The inauguration of
    the Philippine Commonwealth on Nov. 15, 1935 caused the Philippine Constitution to go into full force
    and effect. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It also provides that the original jurisdiction
    of this court “shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, consuls et.al.”

    2. WON original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, consuls, et. al. is conferred
    exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines

    “The Supreme Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as may be possessed and exercised by
    the Supreme Court of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” According to Sec.
    17. of Act No. 136 and by virtue of it, jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus,
    prohibition and habeas corpus was also conferred on the CFI’s. As a result, the original jurisdiction
    possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippines at the time the Constitution was
    adopted was not exclusive of, but concurrent with, that of the CFI’s. The original jurisdiction conferred
    to SC by the Constitution was not an exclusive jurisdiction.

    Judgment: CFI has jurisdiction to try the petitioner, and the petition for a writ of prohibition must be
    denied.

    You might also like