G.R. No. 2362. January 14, 1905

This was a petition for the writ of habeas corpus by the petitioner
herein against the respondent, upon the ground that he was being
illegally detained by the respondent as sheriff of the city of Manila.

The facts in the case may be briefly stated as follows:

1. The respondent has in his custody the petitioner by virtue
   of a warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of the city of
   Manila on the 14th day of October,1904, in criminal cases Nos. 1835,
   1836, 1837, 1838, and 1839, in all of which the said Frank de L.
   Garrington is the respondent. In each of the said causes a complaint
   was filed in the words following:

“That on or about the 15th day of January, 1904, in
the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Frank de L.
Carrington, being then and there a public official of the United States
Civil Government of the Philippine Islands, to wit, a duly appointed
and commissioned major of the First Infantry, United States Army, and
the duly designated, qualified, and acting commander of the Provisional
Battalion of the Philippine Scouts, and a duly appointed, qualified,
and acting disbursing officer for public funds of the said United
States Civil Government of the Philippine Islands, appropriated on
account of the said Provisional Battalion and on account of the
Louisiana Purchase Exposition at St. Louis, did, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, corruptly, and with the intent then and there to deceive
and defraud the United States Civil Government of the Philippine
Islands and its officials, falsify a public or official document,
namely a voucher for the expenditure of public funds, which voucher is
in words and figures following, to wit.”

2. A copy of the voucher to which reference is made
   in this complaint is found as Exhibit A in the petition filed for the
   writ of habeas corpus in this case, an examination of which discloses
   the fact that the petitioner herein signed said voucher in the
   following form: “F. de L. Carrington, maj., 1st Infantry, D. O.”
   Similar vouchers were made part of each of the complaints filed against
   said respondent and each were signed in the same form.

3. After the filing of the foregoing complaint, the petitioner herein was
   arrested and was taken before the judge of the Court of First Instance
   of the city of Manila, where he was informed of the nature of the
   charges against him.
4. That after the petitioner herein was
   informed of the nature of the charges preferred against him, he
   requested that he be admitted to bail, which request was granted.

5. That on or about the 27th day of October, 1904, the petitioner herein
   again appeared in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and
   was requested to plead whether he was guilty or not guilty of the crime
   charged in said complaint, whereupon he requested additional time in
   which to enter a plea, which extra time was granted.

6. On the 2d day of November, 1904, the petitioner herein again appeared
   in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and filed
   simultaneously with said court the following documents:

“(a) Now comes the defendant and hereby demurs to the complaint herein filed against him, for the following reasons:

“1. That the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a public offense.

“HARTIGAN, MARPLE, SOLIGNAC & GUTIERREZ,
“Attorneys for Defendant.

“(b)
Now conies the defendant by his attorneys and moves the court that the
complaint filed against him in this cause be made more definite and
certain in this:

“1. That there be stricken out of said
complaint all that there is set forth in said complaint relative to the
defendant being a major in the United States Army.

“2. That
there be set forth in the said complaint specifically what office the
defendant held under the United States Civil Government in the
Philippine Islands, when he was appointed thereto, by whom he was
appointed thereto, and when he qualified.

“HARTIGAN, MARPLE, SOLIGNAC & GUTIERREZ,
“Attorneys for Defendant.

and that no other motion, demurrer, or objection has been entered or filed in said causes.

7. The court, after a consideration of said
   demurrer and motion and hearing the arguments of counsel for the
   respective parties, did, on the 12th day of December, 1904, overrule
   each of said defenses interposed by the said petitioner herein.

8. On the 13th day of December, 1904, the petitioner herein appeared again
   in said court with his counsel and entered a plea of not guilty to said
   complaints, the said judge having theretofore assigned said causes for
   trial on the 19th day of December, 1904.

9. That
   on the said 13th day of December, 1904, the petitioner herein by his
   counsel asked the court for additional time in which to prepare for
   trial, which prayer or request the court granted, and assigned the 9th
   day of January, 1905, for the trial of said causes.

Section 528 of Act No. 190 provides :

“If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process
issued by a court or magistrate or by virtue of a judgment or order of
a court of record and the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue
the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ (of
habeas corpus) shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appear
after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason
of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order.” An
examination of the record in the cause discloses the following facts :

(a) That the petitioner herein is in the custody of Mr. Peterson as sheriff of the city of Manila.

(b)
That the petitioner herein is in the custody of said sheriff under a
warrant of arrest issued by the Court of First Instance of the city of
Manila.

(c) That the crime described in the
foregoing complaint is a crime of which the Courts of First Instance of
the city of Manila have jurisdiction to try. (See par. 6 of sec. 55 of
Act No. 136, and the provision of the Penal Code now in force in the
Philippine Islands relating to the falsification of public documents by
public officials.)

(d) That the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila has jurisdiction of the person of the petitioner herein by virtue of:

First, his arrest upon a complaint;

Second, his appearance in said court asking for bail, demurring, and
pleading to the said complaint without first having raised the question
of jurisdiction of the court over his person.

When a defendant in a criminal cause is brought before a competent
court by virtue of a warrant of arrest or otherwise, in order to avoid
the submission of his body to the jurisdiction of the court he must
raise the question of the court’s jurisdiction over his person at the
very earliest opportunity. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint,
or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the merits, lie thereby gives
the court jurisdiction over his person. (State ex rel. John Brown vs.
Fitzgerald, 51 Minn., 534.)

The petitioner herein having been arrested and placed in the custody
of the respondent under the lawful order of the Court of First Instance
of the city of Manila, issued upon a complaint charging the respondent
with a crime of which the court has jurisdiction, and thereafter having
appeared in said court, asked to be admitted to bail, and demurred to
the said complaint, as well as to plead to the merits of said cause, he
has thereby given the court jurisdiction over his person.

From all of the foregoing facts “it appears that the petitioner
herein is in the custody of the respondent on the process issued by a
court of record, and that the said court had jurisdiction to issue the
said process,” and therefore, by virtue of section 528 of Act No. 190,
the application for the writ of habeas corpus is denied and petitioner
is hereby ordered remanded to the custody of the respondent, James J.
Peterson, sheriff of the city of Manila, to await the orders of the
Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.