G.R. No. L-1540; January 26, 1948
SIMPLICIO MAG. GUINTO, in behalf of prisoner, his cousin, LEONARDO ANDRES, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Simplicio Mag. Guinto filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of his cousin, Leonardo Andres, a prisoner in Bilibid. Andres was convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance of Manila on December 15, 1943, during the Japanese occupation. Petitioner contends this judgment is null and void because it was rendered by a court not of the Commonwealth or Republic, and the penalty imposed is not under present laws. The respondent Director of Prisons opposes, noting Andres is also serving time under three other valid convictions rendered after liberation in 1946.

ISSUE

Is the judgment of conviction rendered by a court during the Japanese occupation for a crime under the Revised Penal Code valid and enforceable after the liberation?

RULING

Yes. The petition is denied. The Court, through Justice Paras, held that the judgment convicting Andres of robbery remains valid. The offense is defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code, a law of general application without political complexion. Following the doctrine in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez, judgments rendered by de facto courts during the Japanese occupation for crimes under pre-existing general laws remain valid after the occupation ends. The case cited by petitioner (Luangco) is inapplicable as it involved convictions under a special law ( Act No. 65 ) enacted by the Philippine Republic during the occupation, not the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, Andres is also validly confined under three post-liberation judgments, and his minimum term expires only in 1949. Justices Hilado and Perfecto filed separate opinions, with Perfecto dissenting on the validity of the occupation-era judgment but concurring that Andres must serve the valid 1946 sentences.

AI Generated by Armztrong.