Trono v. United States, 199 U.
, followed as to the power of the Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands to increase the sentence of one convicted in
the court of first instance and appealing to the Supreme Court.
One is not placed in second jeopardy within the meaning of the
Philippine bill of rights by being tried for an assault on an
officer because he has already been convicted for a breach of the
peace and assault upon another
Page 207 U. S. 373
person at the same time and place, and where it appears that the
assault on the officer was not relied on or proved as part of the
offense for which he was first convicted.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of a criminal attempt
against an agent of the authorities by striking one Feliciano
Page 207 U. S. 374
Celimin, a policeman, who was trying to arrest him, and by using
vile, abusive, and threatening language to the same officer,
contrary to Article 249, clause 2, of the Penal Code of the
Philippines. He was sentenced under Article 250, which provides the
punishment for such attempts. He was convicted in the court of
first instance of the same facts, but was sentenced under Article
252, which punishes those who, without being included in Article
249, should resist the authorities or their agents. He then
appealed, whereupon the supreme court decided that the offense fell
within Article 249, and increased the sentence. The errors assigned
are that the supreme court had no jurisdiction to increase the
sentence, this being stated in various forms, and that
"[t]he decision of the court places the accused in jeopardy for
the same offense according to the corresponding provisions of
Section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902."
There is also the usual averment that the decision deprives the
accused of his liberty without due process of law, but that may be
passed over, as there is nothing in the record to justify it. It is
not necessary to consider what would amount to denial of due
process of law. The plaintiff in error was convicted after a full
trial, with all the usual forms, upon a specific and definite
complaint and evidence warranting the result.
The objection to the power of the supreme court to increase the
sentence is disposed of by the recent decision in Trono v.
United States, 199 U. S. 521
only assignment of error that needs a words is that which was
intended to rely upon a previous conviction that was pleaded and
put in evidence. This was a conviction by a municipal court of a
violation of ordinances of the City of Manila by disorderly
conduct, a breach of the peace, and the assault upon one Domingo
Salvador at the same time and place as the assault alleged in the
complaint before us. Perhaps it should be added that a second
complaint under the ordinances for slanderous, threatening, and
abusive language to Captain Jose Crame of the Manila Police
Department was dismissed by the municipal judge on the
Page 207 U. S. 375
ground that the offense could not be split up. None of the acts
alleged in these complaints was the assault upon Celimin, relied
upon in the present case, and it does not appear that the assault
upon Celimin was relied on or proved as part of the disorderly
conduct for which the plaintiff in error was punished in the
municipal court. It is unnecessary to consider whether the same
conduct could be punished at the same time on the same grounds by
both a superior and subordinate authority in the same jurisdiction.
There is nothing in the Philippine Bill of Rights that forbids
assaults on two individuals being treated as two offenses, even if
they occur very near each other, in one continuing attempt to defy
the law. We cannot revise the finding of the courts below that the
two offenses were distinct.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents.