US vs. Kepner (1902 and 1903)

United States vs.
Kepner
December 3, 1902 | Smith, J.
February 14, 1903 | Arellano, C.J.
Importation of US Political and Constitutional Law
Doctrine: Purpose of the legislator was to bring into the new law some of the provisions
previously in force on the subject, and to establish a criminal procedure that was not entirely new.
Case Summary: Thomas E. Kepner (attorney) was charged in the Court of First Instance of
Manila with the crime of Estafa by indorsing a warrant of the Insular Government made payable
to his client (Aun Tan) and collecting and appropriating to his own use the amount thereon
without the authority or consent of the latter. He was found guilty of the crime of estafa. An
appeal was made wherein the right to appeal was challenged.
Facts:
 Wong Cheong and Aun Tan (Chinese bakers) were charged before a military commission
with illegally having in their possession 400 sacks of commissary flour, which is the
property of the United States.
 While they were in confinement, O.C. Hing, a Chinese friend of the parties, retained
Kepner to obtain their release on bail and to defend them before the military court. They
agreed that he will be paid $300 for his professional services, and an additional $700 on
the condition that he save both from fine/imprisonment and secured release of flour.
 Kepner realized that he will not be able to procure the release of the flour because the 2
were guilty of the offense with which they were charged.
 The following recap of the next events showed incongruence between that of O.C. Hing’s
and Kepner’s accounts.
Thomas E. Kepner’s Account O.C. Hing’s Account

He allowed himself to continue with the case After Aun Tan had been released on bail,
with an unconditional fee of $500 payable upon Kepner declared he could not get flour back
determination of the cause. and proposed that the contingency should be
eliminated from the understanding.  this is
what Hing consented to and Kepner agreed to
secure both persons for an additional sum of
$500.
Trial took place and resulted in the acquittal of Wong Cheong and the conviction of Aun Tan,
who was fined $1000 gold. Kepner sent Hing a bill for services rendered of $500. Hing refused
on the ground that Aun Tan had been fined and that there was nothing due under contract.
Kepner say that he had agreed to get the fine Hing asked him to make an effort to get the
remitted for the sum of $500, and that no fine remitted and the confiscated flour returned,
agreement had been reached regarding flour which he agree to for the sum of $1000.
proposition.
Later on, Kepner notified Hing that the fine had been remitted by the military authorities and
asked Hing to settle his balance of $150 Mexican currency. Hing refused to pay saying that
nothing was due until the fine and flour were recovered.
Kepner had received $200 from Hing as a Kepner had received $200 from Hing as a
payment on the second contract. lessor.
Fine had been remitted but returned to the Insular Treasury, and that he could not get it without
an act of the Commission authorizing its payment. A warrant in favor of Aun Tan for $1000 gold
was drawn on the Insular Government – ordered financial institutions to pay the warrant. Kepner
requested Aun Tan to indorse it to him but was profusely declined.
Kepner wrote Aun Tans name on the back of the warrant; presented it to the bank, represented
himself to have a power of attorney and had the full amount credited to this account. He
continuously drew more checks amounting to more than $1,200.
 Kepner’s own store shows him to be a man lacking in principle and unworthy of the
honorable profession to which he unfortunately belongs.
Issue: Whether or not Kepner may be help criminally liable for Estafa under acting provisions.
Ruling:
 The warrant issued by the Insular Government in favor of Aun Tan was the property of
Aun Tan  he had the sole right to claim the amounts therein from the Insular Treasury
 Using the following provisions, Article 534-535, Nos. 1 and 5 and Article 58 of the Penal
Code concludes that Thomas E. Kepner willfully, illegally, fraudently and feloniously
misappropriated and converted to his own use said warrant and the sum of money which
he collected thereon, and that he is guilty of the crime of the estafa.
Disposition: Wherefore, by reason of the law in such cases made and provided and the articles of
the Penal Code above cited, the court orders and adjudges that the defendant, Thomas E. Kepner
is condemned to one year and eight months and 21 days of presidio correccional and to the
suspension from every public office, profession, trade and right of suffrage with costs.
[1903 CASE] – same facts

 Following the above decision, the prosecuting attorney appealed the matter.
 Under General Orders No. 58, Series of 1900 (Law of Criminal Procedure), the
Government has the right of appeal from all judgments of acquittal rendered in criminal
cases.
 Section 42 states that an appeal may be taken to the SC all final judgments of the Courts
of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all cases in which it was
formerly allowed by the local “exiting laws”
 If prior to the present law, the right of appeal in cases of acquittal was allowed, the right
of appeal from judgments will continue to be granted.
 Purpose of the legislator was to bring into the new law some of the provisions
previously in force on the subject, and to establish a criminal procedure that was
not entirely new.  majority of the provisions of the General Orders No. 58 are
based on American law, but it should be MIXED, preserving part of the local
legislation.
 Therefore, right of the government to appeal from a judgment of acquittal is well-
founded.

US vs. Kepner (1902 and 1903)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US vs. Kepner (1902 and 1903)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States vs.

Thomas E. Kepner’s Account O.C. Hing’s Account

[1903 CASE] – same facts

You might also like