G.R. No. C.A. No. 15 ; March 26, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JACOB TANI Y TANI, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Jacob Tani y Tani, was accused and convicted on March 30, 1944, for the crime of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition committed on or about February 12, 1944, in Sorsogon, Sorsogon. He was sentenced to a minimum imprisonment of six years and one day, a fine of two hundred pesos (P200) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. The court also ordered the confiscation of the revolver and ammunition. The conviction was based on a violation of Section 27 of Executive Order No. 226, issued by the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission on October 12, 1943, and approved by the director general of the Japanese military administration. This section prescribed a penalty of imprisonment from six to twelve years and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos for unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition. The appeal raises the question of the validity of the punitive sentence after the reoccupation or liberation of the Philippine Islands by Allied forces.

ISSUE

Whether the punitive sentence imposed upon the appellant, based on a violation of Executive Order No. 226 issued during the Japanese occupation, remains valid and enforceable after the reoccupation of the Philippines and the restoration of the Commonwealth Government.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the action against the appellant. The Court held that the punitive sentence, although valid during the Japanese occupation, ceased to be valid upon the reoccupation of the Islands and the restoration of the Commonwealth Government. This is based on the principle of postliminium, whereby all judgments of a political complexion rendered by courts during the Japanese regime became invalid upon reoccupation. The Court defined a punitive sentence of a political complexion as one that penalizes either a new act not defined in municipal laws or acts already penalized by them but taken out of territorial law and penalized as new offenses against the belligerent occupant, necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the occupier’s army. The crime of illegal possession of firearms, though penalized under the Revised Administrative Code, was taken out of that law and penalized under Executive Order No. 226 with a much heavier penalty as a new offense against the Japanese occupant. This order was directed mainly against the resistance movement and guerrillas, making it an act penalized for public reasons against the belligerent occupant’s security. Therefore, the sentence was of a political complexion and became invalid ipso facto upon reoccupation. The case was dismissed with costs de oficio.