Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/238/99.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 13:15:48+00:00

Document:
Mr. S. T. Ansell for appellant.
[238 U.S. 99, 101] No appearance for appellee.
The Philippine supreme court by final decree in a habeas corpus proceeding discharged charged appellee from custody [238 U.S. 99, 102] and the director of prisons has appealed. The controversy fairly involves the application of 5, organic act of the Islands (act of Congress, July 1, 1902, chap. 1369, 32 Stat. at L. 691, 692, 695, Comp. Stat. 1913, 3804, 3808, 3818); and under 10 of that statute we have jurisdiction of the appeal. Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174 , 51 L. ed. 142, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135, 7 Ann. Cas. 1018; Paraiso v. United States, 207 U.S. 368 , 52 L. ed. 249, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127.
General order No. 58, promulgated from the office of the United States military governor April 23, 1900, and now in effect, amended the Code of Criminal Procedure theretofore in force within the Islands. Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100 , 111 49 L. ed. 114, 117, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 797, 1 Ann. Cas. 655. It provides: 'Sec. 19. If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, he must be allowed a reasonable time, not less than one day, to answer the complaint or information. He may, in his answer to the arraignment, demur or plead to the complaint or information. . . .
The pertinent part of 5 of the organic act, approved July 1, 1902, 'The Philippine Bill of Rights,' is as follows: 'That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. That in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to demand the nature and cause of [238 U.S. 99, 105] the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. . . .' Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 117, 118 , 49 S. L. ed. 119, 120, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 797, 1 Ann. Cas. 655.
We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the supreme court that the judgment pronounced by the court of first instance was void and without effect. Under the circumstances disclosed denial of the request for time to answer and to prepare defense was at most matter of error which did not vitiate the entire proceedings. The cause-admitted to be within the jurisdiction of the court-stood for trial on appeal. The accused had known for weeks the nature of the charge against him. He had notice of the hearing, was present in person and represented by counsel, testified in his own behalf, introduced other evidence, and seems to have received an impartial hearing. There is nothing to show that he needed further time for any proper purpose, and there is no allegation that he desired to offer additional evidence or suffered substantial injury by being forced into trial. But for the sections in respect of procedure quoted from general order No. 58, it could not plausibly be contended that the conviction was without due process of law. The court of first instance placed no purely fanciful or arbitrary construction upon these sections and certainly they are not so peculiarly inviolable that a mere misunderstanding of their meaning or harmless departure from their exact terms would suffice to deprive the proceedings of lawful effect and enlarge the accused. Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 784 , 30 S. L. ed. 824, 825, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Re Wilson, 140 U.S. 575, 585 , 35 S. L. ed. 513, 517, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 870; Felts v. Murphy, 201 U.S. 123, 129 , 50 S. L. ed. 689, 692, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 366; Re Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 104 , 105 S., 51 L. ed. 105, 108, 109, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 , 59 L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582.
'Mere errors in point of law, however serious, committed by a criminal court in the exercise of its jurisdiction [238 U.S. 99, 107] over a case properly subject to its cognizance, cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus. That writ cannot be employed as a substitute for the writ of error. Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18, 21 , 23 S. L. ed. 787, 788; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 375 , 25 S. L. ed. 717, 718; Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 250 , 29 S. L. ed. 868, 871, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734; Re Frederich, 149 U.S. 70, 75 , 37 S. L. ed. 653, 656, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 793; Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284, 290 , 42 S. L. ed. 748, 750, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 323; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 105 , 43 S. L. ed. 91, 96, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 805; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U.S. 184 , 44 L. ed. 124, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76.' Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 , 59 L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582. Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219, 229 , 59 S. L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 54.
The decree of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, granting the writ of habeas corpus, and discharging the prisoner, must be reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.