CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. L-6. Promulgated: November 29, 1945

 ANICETO ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

Issue: Jurisdiction of CA to decide a Case, crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries

Law: Criminal Law, Jurisdictional Matter

Legal Queries raised: CA power to decide the case in US Government administration even if it is made under Japanese Government

Cited Law/Order: Revised Penal Code

Famous statement from this jurisprudence:

The crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries has no political complexion.

FACTS:

Petitioner was convicted by the Court First Instance of Ilocos Sur of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon on the ground that CA was a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation of the Islands.

RULING:

Yes. Valid, citing the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon

Supreme Court ruled that the so-called Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive Commission established in the Philippines during the Japanese regime were governments de facto organized by the belligerent occupant by the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid except those a political complexion.

The sentence which petitioner is now serving has no political complexion. He was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable under the municipal law of the Commonwealth, the Revised Penal Code.

A punitive or penal sentence is said to of a political complexion when

1. it penalizes either a new act not defined in the municipal laws, or

2. crime against the legitimate government like

⁃ the crimes against national security , such as treason, espionage, etc., and

⁃ crimes against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, etc.

They are acts penalized for public rather than private reason.

Lesson of this case:

Municipal law is not a political complexion cases. Political Complexion cases are considered as crimes against any state or government, directly or indirectly. Lower Courts can still try cases even if it is made by the previous conqueror government, as long as the cases has no political complexion.

Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1945/nov1945/gr_l-6_1945.html

Cited Jurisprudence:

Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. L-5. Promulgated: September 17, 1945

 CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondents

Issue: Courts’ Jurisdiction

Law: Political Law

Legal Queries raised: de facto government, principle of postliminy

Cited Law/Order: General MacArthur of October 23, 1944

Famous statement from this jurisprudence:

A legal maxim, “Law once established continues until changed by the some competent legislative power. It is not change merely by change of sovereignty.”

FACTS:

Respondent judge refused to continue the proceedings in this case because of the proclamation by General MacArthur and no law granting such jurisdiction to proceed the case as it believed that the pronouncement of Gen. MacArthur has an effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgements of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the court in the country in this time were good, valid and remained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces;

2)Whether the proclamation by General Douglas MacArthur in his declaration has invalidated all judgements and judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts; and

3) If not, whether the present courts of the Commonwealth may continue the proceedings pending in said courts at the time the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the United States and Filipino forces, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands.

RULING:

1. Yes. 

Since the philippines is considered as a de facto government, it follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments were good and valid. By virtue of principle of postliminy (postliminium), a territory occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty.

2. No. 

The proclamation by General Douglas MacArthur in his declaration has not invalidated all judgements and judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts

In the International law, the belligerent occupant forbids to make any declaration preventing the inhabitants from using their courts to assert or enforce their civil rights.

If a belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of justice in the territory occupied, the military commander of the forces of liberation or the restored government is restrained from nullifying or setting aside the judgments rendered by said courts in their litigation during the period of occupation.

3. Yes, it may continue.

Belligerent or military occupation is essentially provisional and does not serve to transfer the sovereignty over the occupied territory to the occupant.

The laws and institution or courts so continued remain the laws and institutions or courts of the occupied territory.

Therefore, even assuming that Japan had legally acquired sovereignty over these Islands and the laws and the courts of these Islands had become the courts of Japan, as the said courts of the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it necessarily follows that the same courts may continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, unless and until they are abolished or the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government.

The present courts have jurisdiction to continue, to final judgment, the proceedings in cases, not of political complexion.

Lesson of this case:

Status quo continues to be functional. Courts are still functional even if new conqueror of the state reached, unless it is amended by any law made by the legislative body or from the people.

Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1945/sep1945/gr_l-5_1945.html

Cited Jurisprudence:

Thorington vs. Smith

U. S. vs. Rice

Porter vs. Fruedenburg

Commonwealth vs. Chapman

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. L-4 and G.R. No. L-19. Promulgated: September 4, 1945

 ANGEL CRUZ Y ENCARNACION, petitioner-appellant, vs. GUILLERMO CABRERA, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, respondent-apellee.

Crime: Qualified Theft

Law: Criminal Law

Legal Queries raised: Jurisdiction, Bench Warrant, Habeas Corpus

Cited Law/Order: Com. Act No. 361

Famous statement from this jurisprudence:

The remedy of habeas corpus cannot be legally and properly invoked when the right of appeal exists because the main purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine if petitioner is legally detained

FACTS:

Petitioner-appellant, accused, commits a crime of qualified theft of eight (8) cases of storage batteries.

RULING:

1. Yes, City of Manila has jurisdiction to try theft cases, as long as the amount involved does not exceed P200 per Administrative Code.

2. That respondent judge of the municipal court of the City of Manila has authority to issue such a bench warrant is clearly shown by the provisions of section 2469 of the Revised Administrative Code.

3. At issue in the habeas corpus case, has become a moot question by reason that petitioner-appellant is already guilty of the crime and he appeal. The remedy of habeas corpus cannot be legally and properly invoked when the right of appeal exists because the main purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine if petitioner is legally detained. Habeas corpus cannot be properly invoked to correct alleged errors committed by the trial court, which had jurisdiction of the person and the subject-matter, unless such errors made the judgment absolutely void.

Lesson of this case: 

Jurisdiction and issuance of Bench Warrant be based in the law. Writ of Habeas Corpus be availed before judgment of the court as guilty and appealed the case to the higher court. The main purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine if petitioner is legally detained.

Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1945/sep1945/gr_l-4_1945.html

Cited Jurisprudence:

People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil., 437;

People vs. Kaw Liong, 57 Phil., 839, 841, 842;

People vs. Acha, 40 Off. Gaz., 2d Supp., No. 5, p. 252;

People vs. Del Mundo,

SC-G. R. No. 46531, Oct. 18, 1939;

People vs. San Juan, 40 Off. Gaz., 6th Supp., No. 10, p. 45

U. S. vs. Galanco, 11 Phil., 575

Cowper vs. Dade, 29 Phil., 222;

Abanilla vs. Villas, 56 Phil., 481;

Paguntalan vs. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil., 140, 144

Andres vs. Wolfe, 5 Phil., 60;

U. S. vs. Jayme, 24 Phil., 90.

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. L-3. Promulgated: January 29, 1946

 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ANSOYON, defendant-appellant.

Crime: Homicide, Self-Defense

Law: Criminal Law

Cited Jurisprudence: None

Cited Law/Order: Revised Penal Code (Article 249)

Famous statement from this jurisprudence:

To avoid criminal liability of the appellant, he must prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him — self-defense — to the satisfaction of the court by relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution.

FACTS:

Jose Ansoyon inflicted six stab wounds on Jesus Marasigan in the left side of the chest which cut the lower part of the heart.

ISSUE:

The only question to decide is whether Ansoyon did so in self-defense.

RULING:

            The Supreme Court cannot believe that:

1. the deceased could still struggle with his assailant not only to retain the possession of his own weapon but also to seize after receiving the mortal wound in the left side of the chest, which cut the lower part of the heart

2. the deceased had a revolver at that time, pulled it, aimed it at the appellant, never fired it nor made any other use of it to defend himself against the determined attack of his adversary, armed with a fan-knife and claims that he was forced to pull it from his hip pocket and open it and plunge it into the left side of the breast of the deceased after the latter had aimed his revolver.

3. Deceased would not at least use its barrel or handle to parry the blows of his adversary

4. repeatedly stabbed and killed Jesus Marasigan

It certainly would have taken the deceased much shorter time to pull the trigger of the revolver than the appellant to pull out his fan-knife from his hip pocket and open it.

The Supreme Court believe that: deceased block the successive blows of his adversary with his bare hand after he had received the stab wound in the back and before he fell and received the mortal wound in the left side of his chest

To avoid criminal liability of the appellant, he must prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him — self-defense — to the satisfaction of the court by relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution.

Hence, he cannot escape the penalty for homicide imposed by article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lesson of this case:

Accused is in burden of proof in criminal cases. His evidence matters, not the evidence of any other person/party. Accused must provide strong evidence against the prosecution and the witness.

Full text of the case: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1946/jan1946/gr_l-3_1946.html

CASE DIGEST: G.R. Nos. L-1 and L-2. Promulgated: December 4, 1945

 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN NAVARRO and ANACLETO ATIENZA

Crime: Illegal Detention

Law: Criminal Law

Cited Jurisprudence: None

Cited Law/Order: None

FACTS:

Defendants, being a public officials detain Esteban P. Beloncio in the Provincial Jail of Mindoro for more than fifteen days but less than six months.

RULING:

The defense thoroughly answered these points.

“if the informations must be quashed on the ground ‘that the facts charged do not constitute an offense’ xxxxx ‘in the informations’ must be the one examined and analyzed to determined the sufficiency of the allegations.”

He also maintains that it was error for the court to make findings of facts and decide the criminal cases on the merits, before issue had been joined, and before any evidence had been properly presented.

The Beloncios were thus deprive of their liberty by order of the military authorities, a few days after the liberation of Mindoro.

Lesson for this case: 

Illegal detention is prohibited. When an accused is detained by the authorities, he is already in detain. He cannot be detained from one law enforcement agency to the other.

Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1945/dec1945/gr_l-1-2_1945.html

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. L-1. Promulgated: October 18, 1901

THE UNITED STATES vs MANUEL SY-TAY

Crime: Seduction

Law: Criminal Law

Cited Law/Order: General Order No. 58

FACTS:

Accused was tried for seduction in the court of the justice of the peace of Binondo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not one law repeals another is not a question that involves the validity of the law which is alleged to have been repealed, within the meaning of the exception.

RULING:

In the present case there is no such contention that this case be qualified in the exception.

The said judgment is final and of such character that it can not be the subject of review in this court.

 

Lesson for this case: 

Supreme Court respects the decision of the Lower Courts.

Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1901/oct1901/gr_l-1_1901.html