G.R. No. 182374 - Esteves vs. Sarmiento

Petitioner William F. Peralta, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila, was charged with robbery under Act No. 65 promulgated by the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, a government created during the Japanese occupation.
He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 issued by that Republic, following a summary procedure per Executive Order No. 157 of the Executive Commission.
The trial and conviction occurred during the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines.

The petitioner contended the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction was a political instrumentality of the Japanese Imperial Army, thus null and void ab initio.
He argued that the ordinance creating the court and the procedures violated the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth and deprived him of constitutional rights.
The petition emphasized the political nature of the law and the excessively severe penalties compared to the Revised Penal Code.

The Solicitor General agreed that the acts and proceedings of the special court lacked force and should be denied efficacy, thus supporting the grant of the writ.
The City Fiscal of Manila, as amicus curiae, opposed the petition, arguing:

The court and laws were created due to urgent necessity, thus not political in nature.
The right of appeal is not a constitutional right and the summary procedure did not violate due process.

The so-called Republic of the Philippines was a de facto government of the second kind (paramount force) established by the Japanese military occupant.
Its authority derived solely from the occupying power and was separate from the suspended Commonwealth Constitution.
Jurisprudential analogies and international law doctrines distinguished this government from the rebel Confederate States during the U.S. Civil War.

The Court focused on international law principles regarding belligerent occupation and the scope of authority of the occupying military power, particularly under the Hague Regulations of 1907.
It recognized that occupation permits the occupant to suspend or alter existing laws as necessary for military security and control.
The criminal jurisdiction created by the occupant is derived from martial law and military necessities, including summary procedures and heavier penalties for offenses affecting military order.

Established courts of special and exclusive jurisdiction throughout the Philippines with jurisdiction over specified crimes, including robbery and illegal possession of firearms.
Provided for the appointment of special prosecutors and summary procedures emphasizing expeditious trials.
Suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for persons charged under the ordinance.
Denied or limited appeal rights, except for death penalty cases reviewed by a special Supreme Court division.

The court’s authority to interrogate the accused and witnesses before trial and consider refusals to answer as unfavorable.
Immediate conviction if preliminary facts indicate guilt without full trial.
Absence of appeal for life imprisonment sentences.
Suspension of habeas corpus limited only to specific crimes under the ordinance.

The reestablishment of the Commonwealth Government and the U.S. sovereignty rendered Ordinance No. 7 and the judgments under it null and void by principle of postliminium and General MacArthur’s Proclamation of October 23, 1944.
The petitioner commenced serving his life sentence on August 21, 1944, but has since sought release under habeas corpus, arguing invalidity of his conviction and the court’s jurisdiction.

A total of 94 individuals were convicted under the special courts; most were for illegal firearms possession or robbery.
Only three, including petitioner, remain in confinement; many escaped, were released, or died.
High mortality rate and possible executions raised concerns about the fairness and humanity of the proceedings.

Whether the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 was a valid judicial body under international law and the laws of the Japanese occupying power.

Whether the summary criminal procedure employed by said court violated fundamental constitutional rights under the Commonwealth Constitution or international legal principles applicable at the time.

Whether the punishment of life imprisonment imposed on petitioner following conviction under said court was valid and enforceable.

Whether the reoccupation of the Philippines by Allied forces and restoration of the Commonwealth Government invalidated the laws, courts, and sentences established under the Japanese occupation, including petitioner’s conviction and imprisonment.

Whether petitioner is entitled to immediate release on the ground of nullity of the ordinance, court, and sentence.