Freeman v. United States

Citations

• 217 U.S. 539
• 30 S. Ct. 592
• 54 L. Ed. 874
• 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1981

Syllabus

<p>Provisions carried into the Philippine bill of rights ^by the statute of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691; such-as “that no person shall be imprisoned for debt,” are to be interpreted and enforced according to their well-known meaning at the time. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100.</p> <p>Statutes relieving from imprisonment for debt, as generally interpreted, relate to commitment of debtors'for liability on contracts, and not to enforcement of penal statutes providing for payment of money . as a penalty for commission of an offense and the provision against imprisonment for debt in the Philippiné bill of rights as contained in § 5 of the act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691.</p> <p>The fact that a money penalty imposed for embezzlement goes to-the creditor and not into the public treasury does not make imprisonment for non-payment of the penalty imprisonment for debt; and so held as to § 5, Art. 535, of the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands.</p> <p>Where the statute provides a penalty for embezzlement to the amount proved, to go to the creditor, and a subsidiary sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment, the court may, without violating fundamental principles of justice, find the amount wrongfully converted for the purpose of fixing sentence in the criminal action, leaving the creditor .his remedy in a civil action for any excess due him over the' amount of the sentence; and so held as to a conviction for embezzlement under Article 535 pf the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands.</p>