G.R. No. L-1133; November 29, 1946
Catalina G. Indac, wife of prisoner Santiago Indac, in his behalf, petitioner, vs. The Director of Prisons, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Catalina G. Indac, wife of prisoner Santiago Indac, filed a petition for his release via habeas corpus. She alleged that in September 1943, Santiago was sentenced by the Manila Court of First Instance for theft (of scrap iron, electrical cables, and fixtures from the Japanese imperial army) to imprisonment ranging from 11 to 24 years, and that he had already served three years and six months. She contended this penalty was illegal and excessive, that the crime constituted sabotage against the Japanese forces, and that such a politically-tinged sentence should have ceased upon the re-occupation of the Philippines by American forces.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondent, clarified that Santiago Indac was held under two commitments: (1) Criminal Case No. 2332 for qualified theft, with a penalty of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days to 6 years, 8 months, and 20 days, plus indemnity; and (2) Criminal Case No. 2333 for theft, with a penalty of 8 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 18 years, 2 months, and 21 days, plus indemnity for property valued at P24,919.90 belonging to the Japanese army. The Solicitor General conceded that the penalty in Criminal Case No. 2333 could legally have a maximum of only 10 years of prision mayor but disagreed that the crime or judgment was political in nature. He recommended denial of the writ.

ISSUE

Whether Santiago Indac is entitled to immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Court held that Santiago Indac could not be legally released at that time. Even assuming the penalty in Criminal Case No. 2333 was subject to reduction or annulment, the commitment in Criminal Case No. 2332, with a maximum penalty of 6 years, 8 months, and 20 days, remained valid. Since the prisoner had served only three years and six months, he had not yet completed the sentence for that case.
On the merits of the petition, the Court found no basis to annul the conviction in Criminal Case No. 2333. The mere fact that the stolen goods belonged to the Japanese army did not, in itself, excuse the theft, especially absent any assertion that the act was committed in pursuance of guerrilla activities or the resistance movement. The Court noted that such criminal acts, even against Japanese forces, were punishable under Philippine law, though the perpetrator could apply for amnesty under the Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946. The record was insufficient to determine the circumstances for a penalty reduction, and the matter might be proper for submission to an Amnesty Board.
The denial was without prejudice to any request to the Amnesty Board or to a subsequent petition after the prisoner served or was about to serve the sentence in Criminal Case No. 2332.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Justice Perfecto, dissenting (with Justice Hilado concurring), argued for immediate release. He viewed the decisions from the Japanese-era court as null and void. He reasoned that stealing war materials from the Japanese army, which likely obtained them illegally from Filipinos, constituted sabotage that weakened the enemy and aided the resistance. Absent evidence the theft was for personal profit, he believed the prisoner committed no punishable act from the perspective of the Filipino people after liberation. Justice Hilado added that the Japanese army, as war criminals, could not have legitimate ownership over such properties.