G.R. No. L-2766. August 25, 1949

PABLO ROBATON Y PASTRANA, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions August 25, 1949 REYES, J.:


REYES, J.:


For stealing personal property from a private party, petitioner
was, on November 23, 1943, convicted of theft by the Court of First Instance of
Manila and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 6 months of arresto
mayor
to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision correccional. Though
he commenced to serve this sentence on the following day, petitioner later
evaded it by escaping from prison on March 16, 1944. He was, however, recaptured
and turned over to the Bureau of Prisons on May 22, 1948.

Petitioner now asks for a writ of habeas corpus, contending
that the sentence rendered against him during the Japanese occupation is ho
longer valid, invoking in support of this contention the decision of this Court
in Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 42 Off. Gaz., 198 and a proclamation of
General MacArthur nullifying certain acts of the Government during said
occupation.

The petition is without merit. Petitioner was sentenced for
committing an act penalized by the territorial law (the Revised Penal Code) as a
crime against the legitimate government. The crime had no political complexion.
It was “one that would have been punished any time, anywhere.” Petitioner was
convicted of that crime by one of the regular courts. Under our ruling in such
cases, the sentence, though rendered during the enemy occupation, did not become
invalid thereafter. (Guinto vs. Director of Prisons, 45 Off. Gaz., 2890[1], Landicho vs. Superintendent G. R. No.
L-1498; Montebon vs. Director of Prisons, 44 Off. Gaz., p. 3312[2].)

The decision in Peralta vs. The Director of Prisons has no
application here, because there the accused was convicted of an offense which
had political complexion, an offense taken out of the territorial law and placed
under the punitive sanction of an Ordinance promulgated by the puppet government
for the protection of the army of occupation.

The petition for habeas corpus is therefore denied, without
special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Tuason,
and Montemayor, JJ., concur.


[1] 80 Phil., 55.

[2] 78 Phil., 427.