G.R. No. 1461 : March 24, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. WILLIAM A. WILSON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, William A. Wilson, was the disbursing officer of the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation of the Insular Government. On December 24, 1902, he drew a check for $50,293.74 (local currency) on the Insular Treasurer, payable to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, the agent of S. C. Farnham, Boyd & Co., Ltd. In the space provided on the check, he stated its object as “payments on vessels.” He presented the check to the bank and received in exchange two receipts from the company totaling $42,583.74 for valid claims on vessel construction, and the remaining balance of $7,710 (local currency), which he converted to and received as $3,000 in U.S. currency. The bank later collected the full amount of the check from the Insular Treasurer. Wilson did not use the $3,000 for government purposes. On December 27, 1902, he secretly departed Manila under a fictitious name.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, considering his contentions that: (1) the statement of purpose on the check was not an essential part of the instrument; (2) the government could not be defrauded by the check issuance since his accounts would only be credited based on vouchers; and (3) his arrest and the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over his person were illegal.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The statement of the object for which the check was drawn was an essential part of the instrument. Treasury instructions required disbursing officers to state the purpose on checks, and the Insular Treasurer testified that checks lacking such a statement would not be honored. Therefore, the false statement (“payments on vessels” for the entire amount) was material and enabled Wilson to obtain the money.

3. Alleged irregularities in the defendant’s arrest did not vitiate the court’s validly obtained jurisdiction over his person or invalidate the judgment. Where the accused is physically before the court under its custody, pleads to a sufficient complaint, and receives a fair trial free from error, the judgment is valid. Any defect in the manner of bringing the accused before the court is not a ground to set aside a conviction, though it may give rise to a separate civil action.