PEDRO BOTUYAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

Petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of prisoner Pedro Botuyan by his
wife Flora C. de Botuyan.

Her allegations are, in substance, that in December, 1941, Pedro Botuyan
entered jail to serve a sentence the minimum of which was ten years four months
and two days; on February 5, 1945, he was released upon a conditional pardon;
that he has not violated the terms of such pardon, and theretbre his recent
apprehension and current detention by the respondent are unauthorized and
illegal.

After giving due course to the, petition, this court received another
pleading by the prisoner himself practically confirming the above allegations,
but specifically sitting forth that after his release on February 5, 1945, he
was re-arrested in April, 1948 “for no just cause or reason.”

The Solicitor General, for the respondent, admitted |fis avermmts as to the
extent of the penalty and previous confinement. He denied, however, that the
prisoner had lawfully been discharged from custody, asserting that order far his
release was null and void, it having been issued by the Japanese Detachment
Commander in the New Bilibid Prison —(not by the Director of Prisons) — at a
time when the Japanese forces had already lost effective control of the City of
Manila and the province of Rizal.

These defensive allegations of fact by the Government have not been traversed
by petitioner, and the issue purely one of law. As to the validity of the orders
of release of prisoners in Bilibid made by Japanese officers on February 5,
1945, we decided in Sameth vs. Director of Prisons, 43 Official Gazette, p. 149,
that:

“The court takes judicial notice of the fact that on February 5, 1945, the
seat of the government of the so-called Philippine Republic had been transferred
to the City of Baguio, and that the Commander in Chief of the Japanese imperial
forces had likewise left the City of Manila, and that the Japanese imperial
forces no longer had effective control over the city of Manila and the Province
of Rizal, as they had been retreating to the mountains, pursued by the United
States Army and the Philippine Guerrilla Forces; and, consequently, with the
loss of effective control over the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal, the
authority of the enemy forces of occupation had ipso facto ceased. And
any order given or issued under the circumstances, by the President of the
so-called Philippine Republic, or by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese
imperial forces, on February 5, 1945, would be null and void. (Wilson,
idem., p. 316; Wheaton, idem., pp. 232, 233; Hyde, idem.,
Vol. III, p. 1881.) A fortiori, any verbal order for the pardon or
release of herein petitioner, allegedly given or issued on February 5, 1945, by
the Japanese detachment commander in the New Bilibid Prisons, in Muntinglupa,
Province of Rizal, before abandoning the said place, to avoid annihilation or
capture by the approaching United States Army and the Philippine Guerrilla
Forces, was absolutely null and void and of no legal force and effect
whatsoever.” (Italics ours).

The situation obtaining in this litigation is practically on all fours with
the Sameth incident. Consequently we must hold that the release of Botuyan was
not valid.

The petition is denied, the prisoner being under duty to serve the unexpired
portion of his sentence. So ordered.

Parás, Actg. C.J., Pablo, Briones,
Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.

---

DISSENTING

PERFECTO, J.:

This case being analogous to the Sameth case, L-351, decided on April 30,
1946 (43 Off. Gaz., 149) with five Justices dissenting, including ourselves, and
there being no reason why we should change the stand taken by us in said case,
we vote to the immediate release of petitioner.

Our written dissenting opinion in the Sameth case explains our
vote.