GR L 6; (November, 1945) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6; November 29, 1945
ANICETO ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Aniceto Alcantara was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon at Baguio modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty. This modified sentence became final on September 12, 1944, and the petitioner began serving his sentence on June 23, 1945. The petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon. He argued that this court was a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation, that it was not authorized by Commonwealth Act No. 3 to hold sessions in Baguio, and that only two Justices constituted the majority that promulgated the decision. The petitioner did not base his challenge on General Douglas MacArthur’s Proclamation of October 23, 1944.
ISSUE
The sole issue is the validity of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon during the Japanese occupation, which modified the petitioner’s criminal sentence.
RULING
The petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Supreme Court, applying its ruling in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (G.R. No. L-5), held that the de facto governments established during the Japanese occupation, including their judicial acts, were valid and remained so after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, except for those with a “political complexion.” The Court found that the Court of Appeals, even if reorganized into district courts like the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, was essentially the same court that existed prior to the occupation. Furthermore, even if it were considered a new court created by the belligerent occupant, its judgments were still valid and enforceable provided they lacked a political complexion. The Court defined a sentence with a political complexion as one that penalizes either a new act not defined under pre-existing municipal law or acts already penalized by that law as crimes against the legitimate government but are repurposed as offenses against the belligerent occupant. The petitioner’s sentence for a violation of the Revised Penal Code (illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries) was deemed to have no political complexion, as it was purely a crime under the municipal law of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the sentence is valid and enforceable.