B2_Villamarin

WILLIAM F. PERALTA vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

GR No. L-49, November 12,1945

FACTS:

William Peralta was a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila. He was prosecuted and found
guilty for the crime of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Special and Exclusive
Criminal Jurisdiction. The court was created in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 7 of the so-called Republic of the
Philippines. The said ordinance laid out the procedure to be followed in the trial.

Peralta petitioned for habeas corpus arguing that Ordinance No. 7 violates his constitutional rights and that he
was punished by a law created to serve the political purpose of the Japanese Imperial Army.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent, contended that the Court of Special and Exclusive
Jurisdiction was created with political complexions. It impairs the Constitutional rights of the accused as it does
not afford a fair trial.

The City of Fiscal of Manila denied the petition for habeas corpus declaring that the said court was not created
for a political complexion, that the heavy penalties were in response to urgent necessity, and that the right to
appeal is not a constitutional right. Therefore, Ordinance No. 7 did not violate Article III, Section 1(18) of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth. This article provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself, nor of the provision of section 1(1) of the same Article that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.

ISSUE:

Whether the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction and its procedures and
penalties were valid.

RULING:

The Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, its procedures and penalties were valid. However,
the punitive sentence under consideration, although good and valid during the military occupation of the
Philippines by the Japanese forces, ceased to be good and valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation of these Island
and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government.

APPLICATION:

The Republic of the Philippines, being a governmental instrumentality of the belligerent occupation, had
therefore the power or was competent to create the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No
question may arise as to whether or not a court is of political complexion, for it is mere governmental agency
charged with the duty of applying the law to cases falling within its jurisdiction.

Internal law provides, “The criminal jurisdiction established by the invader in the occupied territory finds its
source neither in the law of the conquering or conquered state—it is drawn entirely from the law martial. The
authority thus derived can be asserted either through the special tribunals, whose authority and procedure is
defined in the military code of the conquering state, or through the ordinary courts and authorities of the
occupied district.

By virtue of the principle or right of postliminium, however, it was held decision in the case of Co Kim Cham
vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, supra, that all judgments of political complexion of the courts during the
Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon the reoccupation of the islands.

CONCLUSION:

In this case, the crime to which the petition was convicted was of political complexion. The court held that all
judgments of political complexion of the courts during the Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon the
reoccupation of the islands by virtue of the principle or right of postliminium. Therefore, it has ceased
considering the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur declaring null and void all laws.

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.