Santos v. Misa 76 Phil 415

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > March 1946 Decisions > G.R. No.
L-319
March 28, 1946 - GO TIAN SEK SANTOS v. ERIBERTO MISA
076 Phil 415:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-319. March 28, 1946.]
GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, Petitioner, v. ERIBERTO MISA, Director of

Prisons, Respondent.
Mariano Trinidad for Petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor De los Angeles for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. HABEAS CORPUS; DETENTION UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 682;

ESPIONAGE; CITIZENSHIP, IMMATERIAL. — The foreign status of a political detainee does
not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of the provisions of section 19 of Commonwealth Act
No. 682, because he may be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship
of the offender, and considered as an offense against national security.
DECISION
BENGZON, J.:
The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the

Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army, turned over last September, to
the Commonwealth Government, and since then detained by the respondent as a
political prisoner. Such detention, he claims, is illegal, because he has not been charged
before, not convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may not be
confined under Act. No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor to
the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
The Solicitor General, for the respondent, admits the detention, for active collaboration
with the Japanese, doubts the allegation of citizenship, and maintains that, conceding
arguendo petitioner’s alienage, he may be charged for espionage, a crime against
national security wherein allegiance is immaterial, and may, therefore, be held in
custody under Commonwealth Act No. 682.
As the record stands, the petitioner must be deemed a Chinese subject. The
commitment order No. 291 issued by the United States Army authorities describes him
as such. But it does not follow that he is entitled to liberty now. But it does not follow
that he is entitled to liberty now. He is included among those contemplated by Section
19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682, which reads partly: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon delivery by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in
the Philippines of the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to Commonwealth
Government, the Office of Special Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents,
exhibits and such other things as the Government of the United States may have
turned over in connection with and/or affecting said political prisoners, examine the
aforesaid records, documents, exhibits, etc., and take, as speedily as possible, such
action as may be proper: Provided, however, . . . And, provided, further, That, in the
interest of public security, the provisions of article one hundred twenty-five of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be deemed, as they are hereby, suspended,
insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned , until the filing of the
corresponding information with the People’s Court, but the period of suspension shall
not be more than six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by
the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines to
the Commonwealth Government.
His foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of the provisions. As
stated by the Solicitor General, he might be prosecuted for espionage, (Commonwealth
Act. No. 616) a crime not conditioned by citizenship of the offender, and considered as
an offense against national security.
The contentions advanced during the oral argument, challenging the validity of said
section 19, Commonwealth Act. No. 682, upon constitutional grounds must be
overruled, in view of our decision in Laurel v. Director of Prisons (p. 372, ante), copy of
which will be furnished to petitioner by the clerk of this court. The petition is denied,
with costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Hilado, and Briones, J.J., concur.
Paras, J., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
We concur with the majority’s pronouncement to the effect that petitioner is not
excluded from the group of persons contemplated by section 19 of Commonwealth Act
No. 682, notwithstanding his foreign status as a Chinese subject. We also agree that, if
there are facts and evidence to justify it, he might be prosecuted for espionage, or any
other crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender. But we disagree as to the
denial of the petition, it appearing that the petitioner is being deprived of his personal
liberty without any due and legal process of law, and as to this question, we refer to the
stand we have taken in our dissenting opinion in case G.R. No. L-200. Laurel v. Director
of Prisons (p. 372, ante), the contentions therein we reiterate here.

Santos v. Misa 76 Phil 415

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos v. Misa 76 Phil 415

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos v. Misa 76 Phil 415

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > March 1946 Decisions > G.R. No.

076 Phil 415:

[G.R. No. L-319. March 28, 1946.]

GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, Petitioner, v. ERIBERTO MISA, Director of

Mariano Trinidad for Petitioner.

1. HABEAS CORPUS; DETENTION UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 682;

The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the

Paras, J., concurs in the result.

PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You might also like