USA College of Law

MATORRES 1-D
Case Name William Peralta vs Director of Prisons, 75 Phil 285
Topic De facto Government / Postliminy
Case No. | Date G.R. No. L49 | November 12, 1945
Ponente SERIA, J
Postliminy - it is an international law wherein the right in virtue of which persons and things taken
Doctrine by the enemy are restored to their former state, when coming again under the power of the
nation to which they belong.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioner-Defendant Peralta was a member of Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila and was prosecuted for the
crime of robbery as defined and penalized by section 2 (a) of Act No. 65 of the same Assembly.
 He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, which he commenced to serve on August 21, 1944, by
the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created in section 1 of Ordinance No. 7 promulgated by
the President of the so-called Republic of the Philippines.
 The procedure followed in the trial was the summary one established in Chapter II of Executive Order No. 157 of
the Chairman of the Executive Commission, made applicable to the trial violations of said Act No. 65 by section 9
thereof and section 5 of said Ordinance No. 7.
 Peralta filed for a Habeas Corpus which was based on the following grounds:
- That the 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 the provisions of said Ordinance No. 7 are violative of the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines and "the petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional rights"; that the petitioner herein is
being punished by a law created to serve the political purpose of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines,
and "that the penalties provided for are much (more) severe than the penalties provided for in the Revised
Penal Code."

ISSUE: 1. W/N the creation of court by Ordinance No. 7 valid?

2. W/N the sentence of life imprisonment valid?
3. W/N by the principle of postliminy, did the punitive sentence cease to be valid from the time of the
restoration of the Commonwealth?
RULING: 1. Yes, there is no room for doubt to the validity of Ordinance No. 7 since the criminal jurisdiction
established by the invader is drawn entirely from the law martial as defined in the usages of nations.

2. Yes, the sentence rendered, likewise, is good and valid since it was within the power and competence
of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. 65.

3. Yes, all judgments of a 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.
 USA College of Law
MATORRES 1-D

RULING

The writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby granted and it is ordered that the
petitioner be released forthwith, without pronouncement as to costs.

NOTES

>> See Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945