[ G.R. No. L-6. November 29, 1945 ] 75 Phil. 494
[ G.R. No. L-6. November 29, 1945 ]
ANICETO ALCANTARA, PETITIONER, VS. DIRECTOR OP PRISONS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
FERIA, J:
This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the ground that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director of Prisons in the provincial jail at Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
Petitioner was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (Criminal case No. 23) of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon at Baguio modified said sentence (CA-G. R. No. 790) and sentenced the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of from four months and twenty-one days of arresto mayor to three years, nine months and three days of prision correccional. The sentence as modified became final on September 12, 1944, and on June 23, 1945, petitioner commenced serving his sentence.
Petitioner now questions the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, on the sole ground that said court was only a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation of the Islands; that the Court of Appeals was not authorized by Commonwealth Act No. 3 to hold sessions in Baguio, and that only two Justices constituted the majority which promulgated the decision in question. The petitioner does not question the validity of said decision on the strength of the Proclamation of General Douglas MaeArthur of October 23, 1944,.which according to our decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G. R. No. L-5 (p. 113, ante), does not refer to judicial processes.
In the said case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, this Court ruled that the so-called Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive Commission established in the Philippines during the Japanese regime were governments de facto organized by the belligerent occupant, and the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, except those of a political complexion. In that same case this Court held that the Court of Appeals which was continued throughout the Japanese occupation, was the same Court of Appeals that existed prior to the Japanese occupation and was lately abolished by Executive Order No. 37. The division of the Court of Appeals into several District Courts of Appeals, and the reduction of the number of Justices sitting in each division, during the regime of the so-called Republic, effected no substantial change in its nature and jurisdiction.
Even assuming that the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon was a new court created by the belligerent occupant or the de facto governments established by him, the judgments of such court, like those of the courts which were continued during the Japanese occupation, were good and valid and remain good and valid, and therefore enforceable now after the liberation or occupation of the Philippines, provided that such judgments do not have a political complexion, as this court held in its decision in the above- mentioned case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon supra, in accordance with the authorities therein cited.
Obviously, the sentence which petitioner is now serving has no political complexion. He was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable under the municipal law of the Commonwealth, the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the sentence of the Court of First Instance of Uocos Sur, as modified by the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, is valid and enforceable.
A punitive or penal sentence is said to be of a political complexion when it penalizes either a new act not defined in the municipal laws, or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime against the legitimate government, but taken out of the territorial law and penalized as new offenses committed against the belligerent occupant, incident to a state of war and necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. They are acts penalized for public rather than private reasons, acts which tend, directly or indirectly, to aid or favor the enemy and are directed against the welfare, safety and security of the belligerent occupant.
As examples, the crimes against national security, such as treason, espionage, etc., and against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, etc., were crimes against the Commonwealth or United States Government under the Revised Penal Code, which were made crimes against the belligerent occupant.
In view of the foregoing, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.