William Fowler and others were accused of theft of champagne valued at $20 that occurred on August 12, 1901 aboard the US vessel Lawton while navigating the high seas. The defendants argued the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to try the crime since it occurred on the high seas and not in Manila or Philippine territory. The prosecution countered the court had original jurisdiction over all criminal cases with penalties over 6 months imprisonment or $100 fine, and jurisdiction over US flagged vessels. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction as the Lawton was neither registered in the Philippines nor within its territorial jurisdiction per Act No. 400.
William Fowler and others were accused of theft of champagne valued at $20 that occurred on August 12, 1901 aboard the US vessel Lawton while navigating the high seas. The defendants argued the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to try the crime since it occurred on the high seas and not in Manila or Philippine territory. The prosecution countered the court had original jurisdiction over all criminal cases with penalties over 6 months imprisonment or $100 fine, and jurisdiction over US flagged vessels. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction as the Lawton was neither registered in the Philippines nor within its territorial jurisdiction per Act No. 400.
William Fowler and others were accused of theft of champagne valued at $20 that occurred on August 12, 1901 aboard the US vessel Lawton while navigating the high seas. The defendants argued the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to try the crime since it occurred on the high seas and not in Manila or Philippine territory. The prosecution countered the court had original jurisdiction over all criminal cases with penalties over 6 months imprisonment or $100 fine, and jurisdiction over US flagged vessels. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction as the Lawton was neither registered in the Philippines nor within its territorial jurisdiction per Act No. 400.
US, complainant-appellant VS William Fowler, Et Al, defendants-appellees
Jurisdiction: Crime on high seas
1. The two defendants and appellees, Fowler et al, have been accused of the theft of sixteen (16) bottles of champagne of the value of $20 on 12 August 1901 while on board the transport Lawton (US vessel). Lawton was then navigating the high seas. 2. Defendants: The Court of First Instance (CFI) was without jurisdiction to try the crime charged since the crime was committed on the high seas and not in manila, or within the territory comprising the Bay of Manila or upon the 3-mile limit which the jurisdiction extends. 3. Prosecution: The court has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty exceeds 6 months imprisonment or a fine over $100. The Military General and Civil Commission admiralty has jurisdiction over all vessels flying the flag of the United States and the same was vested in the CFI of Manila. 4. SC: ACT.No.400, states that the Philippines has jurisdiction only with the crimes committed in a ship registered in the Philippines or those within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Lawton is neither a ship registered in the Philippines nor within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Our courts are without jurisdiction to take cognizance of a crime committed on board the same.