Case Digest (G.R. No. L-129)
Facts:
Tomoyuki Yamashita v. Wilhelm D. Styer, G.R. No. L-129, December 19, 1945, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moran, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tomoyuki Yamashita, former commanding general of the Japanese 14th Army Group in the Philippines, surrendered to Allied forces in early September 1945 and was initially treated as a prisoner of war and interned (New Bilibid Prison). Respondent Lt. Gen. Wilhelm D. Styer, Commanding General, United States Army Forces, Western Pacific, caused petitioner to be removed from POW internment and confined as an accused war criminal and, by command of General MacArthur, convened a Military Commission to try him.
On October 1, 1945, pursuant to orders from General MacArthur and communications from higher U.S. military authorities, a Military Commission was appointed; petitioner was served with a charge on October 2, arraigned October 8 (plea not guilty), and the prosecution filed a bill of particulars (64 items) and later a supplemental bill bringing the specified acts to about 123 items. The defense moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of charges (motion filed October 19 and denied October 29). During arraignment and early trial the prosecution offered affidavits and hearsay evidence (e.g., affidavit of Naokata Utsunomiya) which defense counsel objected to as violating Articles of War and recognized evidentiary safeguards. The prosecution admitted it had not given prior notice to a protecting power (Spain) as contemplated by the Geneva Convention.
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition in this Court seeking (a) restoration to POW status and internment rather than confinement as an accused war criminal, and (b) prohibition of the Military Commission from proceeding. He alleged: the commission was not duly constituted; the Philippines was not occupied so the commission lacked jurisdiction; the protecting power had not been notified as required by the Geneva Convention; no char...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s original petition for habeas corpus and prohibition against acts of the United States military authorities?
- Was the Military Commission that convened to try petitioner validly constituted and therefore within its jurisdiction to try him?
- Does the Military Commission have jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and over the offenses charged (i.e., are the Philippines an appropriate locus and are the acts charged war crimes cognizable by such a commission)?
- Does the alleged failure to notify the protecting power (Spain) under the Geneva Convention vitiate the Commission’s jurisdiction?
- Do the Commission’s rules on procedure and evidence (including admission of affidavits, hearsay, and provisions implying colle...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)