United States v. Neta Shiyokishi
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 2236 January 4, 1906
THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NETA SHIYOKISHI,defendant-appellant.
Thomas L. McGirr for appellant.
Attorney-General Wilfley for appellee.
WILLARD,J.:
The defendant in this case was prosecuted in the Court of Customs Appeals for a violation of section 3 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. L., 1213), and was convicted of the offense of introducing into the Philippine Islands a woman for the purpose of prostitution.
The defendant insisted in the court below, and insists here, that the Court of Customs Appeals had no jurisdiction of the offense. Most of the questions raised by him on this point have been determined adversely to him by the decision in the case of Oehlersvs. Hartwig, No. 2030,1just decided (4 Off. Gaz. 123.) Upon the question of jurisdiction the only difference between that case and this one is that there the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance, while here the defendant was prosecuted in the Court of Customs Appeals, and the defendant says that while Congress has expressly confirmed the acts of the Commission organizing the Courts of First Instance, it has taken no such action in regard to the Court of Customs Appeals. By virtue of the instructions of President McKinley to the Philippine Commission, the latter was given power to establish courts. It established, on February 6, 1902, the Court of Customs Appeals (Act No. 355). The action of the President in authorizing the Commission to exercise the powers set forth in the said instructions was expressly ratified by Congress in the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. L., 691).
Upon the merits of the case the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment, which is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1 Page 487,supra.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-9876 December 8 v. Adriano Panlilio Pedro Abad Santos…1914both apply Act 355
- L-9861 November 19 v. Lim Cay Pit L. M. Southworth for…1914both apply Act 355
- L-9268 October 30 v. Bruhez1914both apply Act 355
- L-9235 November 17 v. Rubi1915both apply Act 355
- L-8746 October 30 v. Filipinas1914both apply Act 355
- L-7944 October 9 v. "Tean1914both apply Act 355
- L-6861-65 December 28 v. Gervasia Go Chanco G.r. No. L-6862…1912both apply Act 355
- L-5786 December 29 v. Grant1910both apply Act 355
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.