Ezra Hilary Ceniza

Philo of Law 6:00-8:00 M7

Case: PERALTA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

Facts:
Petitioner-defendant, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila
charged with the supervision and control of the production, procurement and
distribution of goods and other necessaries was guilty of the crime of robbery as
penalized by section 2 (a) of Act No. 65 of the same Assembly. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment, which he commenced to serve on August 21,
1944, by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created during
the so-called Republic of the Philippines. The procedures to be followed during
the hearing of his case should be the one provided by the Executive Order No.
157 of the Chairman of the Executive Commission.
Petitioner-defendant, petitioned for the writ of the habeas corpus for the reason
that Court of Special and Executive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance
No. 7 "was a political instrumentality of the military forces of the Japanese
Imperial Army, the aims and purposes of which are repugnant to those aims and
political purposes of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as well as those of
the United States of America, and therefore, null and void ab initio," that it
violated his constitutional rights and that his punishments were created to serve
the Japanese Imperial Army not the Philippines making the penalties more
severe than those provided in the RPC for the same crimes.
The Solicitor General in behalf of the Director of Prisons, agreed to such claim
saying that proceedings taken and had before the said Court of Special and
Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which resulted in the conviction and imprisonment
of the herein petitioner, should now be denied force and efficacy, and therefore
the petition for habeas corpus should be granted. He also added that the
procedure prescribed in Ordinance No. 7 does not afford a fair trial, violates the
Constitution of the Commonwealth, and impairs the Constitutional rights of
accused persons under their legitimate Constitution.
However, the city fiscal of Manila appeared to the court as amicus curiae and
claimed that the petition for habeas corpus be denied for the following grounds:
(1) The court of special and exclusive jurisdical crimes and acts is not a political
complexion because the court was created and the specified crimes placed
under it in response to the urgency of such court as stated in Ordinance 7. (2)
The right to appeal a criminal case is not against the constitutional rights.
Ordinance 7 does not violate Article III of the Commonwealth Act.

Issues:
1. Whether or not there is a validity of the creation of the Court of Special and
Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, and of the summary procedure adopted for that
court
2. Whether or not the validity of the sentence which imprisonment during the
Japanese military occupation;
3. if they were then valid, the effect on said punitive sentence of the reoccupation
of the Philippines and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government
Held:
1. The creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction and the
summary procedure is valid. The existence of such court is to serve as a
government instrumentality of the belligerent occupant, which in this case are the
Japanese Imperial Army. It functions solely to apply the law to any case that falls
within their jurisdiction.
With regards to the summary of procedure adopted by the Special court, such
procedure is also considered valid. An invader, the Japanese Army for this
matter, can set up military courts and provide laws to ensure their safety and
relations towards the inhabitants of the occupied territory to preserve public
order.
2. The validity of the sentence that imposes life imprisonment depends on the
competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the penalties provided in
Art. No. 65 of the National Assembly. In the present case, the sentence of life
imprisonment is within the power and competence of the Japanese to promulgate
such law.
3. All judgments of political complexion of the courts during Japanese regime
ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the Islands, as such, the sentence which
convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered
as having ceased to be valid by the principle of Postliminy. The sentence of life
imprisonment is lifted and the writ of habeas corpus is granted.