8/30/2019 G.R. No. L-246 March 27, 1946 - SILVERIO VALDEZ v. ANTONIO G.

ONIO G. LUCERO<br /><br />076 Phil 356 : MARCH 1946 - PHILIPPINE S…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > March 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. L-246 March 27, 1946 -
SILVERIO VALDEZ v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

076 Phil 356:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-246. March 27, 1946.]

SILVERIO VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Sur,
and CELESTINO JIMENEZ, Provincial Warden of Ilocos Sur, Respondents.

Severino D. Dagdag for Petitioner.

Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

No appearance for respondent Warden.

SYLLABUS

1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS OVER CRIME OF MURDER

COMMITTED BY PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW. — Granting all the facts alleged by petitioner and
that he was a regular member of the guerilla duly recognized by the United States Army and granting
further that his unit was incorporated into the United States Army, thus giving him the standing of a
regular member of the United States armed forces, and that he was subsequently incorporated into the
Philippine Army, the civil courts of the Commonwealth of the Philippines nevertheless are not deprived of
their jurisdiction over the petitioner herein, but have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or
general courts martial to try and take cognizance of the case of murder against him; for the reason that
article 93 of the Articles of War (Com. Act No. 408) is almost identical with the 92d Article of War of the
DebtKollect Company, Inc. United States Army, and the latter has been interpreted by the courts to mean that even in time of war
the civil courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction over murder cases committed by persons subject to
military law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID., DELIVERY OF OFFENDING SOLDIER TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES EXCEPT IN TIME OF WAR;
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS UPON CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. — Notwithstanding
the provisions in the Articles of War requiring a soldier to be delivered to civil authorities for trial for an
alleged crime be delivered to civil authorities for trial for an alleged crime except in time of war, the
jurisdiction of the military courts over a soldier is not exclusive of the civil court even during time of war,
if the soldier was stationed within one of the states where the civil courts were functioning and where no
actual hostilities were in progress. (Ex parte Koester [1992], 206 P., 116; 56 Cal. App., 621.)

3. ID., ID., ID., RIGHT OF PRIORITY TO BE INVOKED BY MILITARY COURTS. — The petitioner cannot
raise and invoke the right to be tried by a court martial without the military authorities’ claiming to try
him in accordance with the military law or Article of War.

DECISION

JARANILLA, J.:
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946marchdecisions.php?id=63 1/3
8/30/2019 G.R. No. L-246 March 27, 1946 - SILVERIO VALDEZ v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO<br /><br />076 Phil 356 : MARCH 1946 - PHILIPPINE S…
The above-entitled case came up to be regularly heard in this court by virtue of a petition filed by Silverio
Valdez praying that judgment be rendered" (a) annulling the proceedings in the lower court, (b) declaring
the respondent judge without jurisdiction of the case, (c)commanding the respondent judge to desist
from further proceeding in the cause, (d) ordering the provincial warden, Celestino Jimenez, to discharge
the defendant, Silverio Valdez from jail, (e) granting preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent
judge from hearing the case on the merits pending proceedings in the case, (f) assessing costs against
the respondents, and (g) granting such other or further relief or reliefs as may be equitable." cralaw virtua1aw library

The undisputed facts are: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That Silverio Valdez was prosecuted for murder under an information filed by the provincial fiscal in the
justice of the peace court in Vigan, ILocos Sur, which information, in part, reads as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 17th day of January, 1945, in the barrio of San Julian , municipality of Bantay,
province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the above named
defendant, Silverio Valdez, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the
suffering of one Juan Ponce, Kill the latter with bolo, dagger and other weapons and died instantly." cralaw virtua1aw library

That said Silverio Valdez moved for the dismissal of the foregoing information in the justice of the peace
court, alleging that the fiscal had no authority to file it and that the court acquired no jurisdiction of the
defendant, which motion was denied by the justice of the peace on September 5, 1945; and that since
that date the accused has been detained as a provincial prisoner in the provincial jail in Vigan, Ilocos
Sur;

That on September 13, 1945, the provincial fiscal reproduced the said information in the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Sur; and that the defendant filed a motion to quash it on December 18, 1945, which
motion was denied by the court on December 20, 1945;

That on December 29, 1945, petition for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to quash was filed
but was also denied on January 7, 1946.

The main issue here is whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the case
for murder filed against petitioner Silverio Valdez, as above stated, because he alleges, he was not only a
member of a recognized guerilla and hence a member of the United States armed forces in the
Philippines, in North Luzon, but was also later absorbed into the Philippine Army and therefore, he
claims, he should be tried by a general court martial, which has jurisdiction over the crime charged and
March-1946 Jurisprudence the person of the accused pursuant to article 93 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408).

G.R. No. L-128 March 2, 194 Petitioner also contends that the whole of Ilocos Sur was at the time imputed in the information overrun
by the enemy and that any place of hiding of the guerillas in the province was a military reservation for
JOSE GUEKEKO v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS the safety of the Philippine and American armed forces within the purview of the Articles of War.

076 Phil 237 Petitioner further contends that granting, without admitting, that he was the author of the crime charged,
nevertheless if the supposed victim were a spy, committing espionage admits Philippine and American
C.A. No. 20 March 12, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. armed forces and the enemy in actual combat, he may be exempt from liability or may justify the
v. BENEDICTO commission under section 2 of Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines, in military courts , provided
the procedure prescribed for the administration of military justice has been obeyed and followed in
076 Phil 253
making executions of spies.
Adm. Case No. 174 March 12, 1946 - JOSE B.
ESCUETA v. AQUILINO PANDO During the oral argument of this case, we understood from counsel appearing for the petitioner that
neither the United States Army nor the Philippine Army was claiming precedence or priority in the trial of
076 Phil 256 the herein petitioner, nor that either of was demanding that he be tried by a court martial. In fact, no
allegation to that effect may be found in his petition.
G.R. No. L-212 March 12, 1946 - NARCISA DE LA
FUENTE, ET AL v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL The petitioner relies mainly on the provision of article 93 of the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No.
408) which reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

076 Phil 262

"Art. 93. Murder. — Any person subject to military law who commits murder in time of war shall suffer
G.R. No. L-121 March 14, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE death or imprisonment for life, as a court-martial may direct."
PHIL. v. RUFO DIZON, ET AL
cralaw virtua1aw library

076 Phil 265 He argues that pursuant to said article 93 of the Articles of War only a court martial may have
jurisdiction to try his case for murder, he being a person subject to military law and the crime having
G.R. No. L-247 March 14, 1946 - MONSIG. CAMILO been committed in time of war.
DIEL v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL
Granting all the facts alleged by the petitioner and that he was a regular member of the guerilla duly
076 Phil 273 recognized by the United States Army and granting further that his unit was incorporated into the United
States Army, thus giving him the standing of a regular member of the United States armed forces, and
G.R. No. L-154 March 18, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE that he was subsequently incorporated into the Philippine Army, we are of the opinion , nevertheless,
PHIL. v. JESUS NUEVAS that the civil courts of the Commonwealth of the Philippines are not deprived of their jurisdiction over the
petitioner herein, but have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts martial to try
076 Phil 276 and take cognizance of the case of murder against the petitioner herein, for the reason that said article
93 of the Articles of War of the United States Army, and the latter has been interpreted by the courts to
C.A. No. 299 March 18, 1946 - FELIX ADAN v.
AGAPITO CASILI, ET AL mean that even in time of war the civil courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction over murder cases
committed by persons subject to military law. Such was the holding in Caldwell v. Parker (Ala., 1920; 40
076 Phil 279 Sup. Ct., 388; 252 U.S., 376; 64 Law. ed., 621): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

C.A. No. 9848 March 18, 1946 - VICTORIANO "That section 1564 of this Article (Art. 92), providing for punishment of murder or rape as the court-
VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ANGEL B. PINE, ET AL martial in time of peace, section 1565 of this Article (Art. 93), providing for the punishment of various
other offenses as a court-martial may direct, and this section(Art. 74),requiring military authorities to
076 Phil 285 deliver accused persons to civil authorities, except in time of war, do not give military courts exclusive
jurisdiction in time of war over offenses committed in violation of state laws by persons in the military
G.R. No. L-13 March 20, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE service, and a state court has jurisdiction over such offenses." (Emphasis added.) .
PHIL. v. FRANCISCO A. QUEBRAL, ET AL
Identical doctrines holding that the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over cases of murder
076 Phil 294
committed by persons subject to military law were laid down in the following cases: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

Adm. Case No. 4 March 21, 1946 - TRINIDAD

NEYRA v. TEODORA NEYRA, ET AL "Articles of War enacted August 29, 1916, do not deprive the civil courts, either in time of peace or war,
of the concurrent jurisdiction previously vested in them over crimes against either federal or state law."
076 Phil 296 (United States v. Hirsch [D. C., N. Y., 1918], 254 F., 109; emphasis added.) .

G.R. No. L-70 Mazo 22, 1946 - EMILIO GOMEZ v. "Prisoners of war are amenable for offenses malum in se and may be tried by ordinary tribunals in the
PERFECTO ALEJO country in which the crime is committed; and this though they may also be triable by courts-martial."
(Govt. v. McGregory [1780], 14 Mass., 499.)
076 Phil 311
"A court of oyer and terminer had jurisdiction to try all cases of murder committed within the country,
C.A. No. 601 March 22, 1946 - PETRA GATMAITAN
and that a murder committed by a soldier in military service of the United States, in time of war,
v. MODESTO J. PASCUAL
insurrection, or rebellion, forms no exception." (People v. Gardiner [N.Y., 1865], 6 Parker Cr. R., 143;
076 Phil 315 emphasis added.) .

C.A. No. 8977 March 22, 1946 - TORIBIO P. PEREZ "Any changes in Articles of War in years 1913 and 1916 did not alter the rule that courts-martial do not
v. SCOTTISH UNION & NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. have exclusive jurisdiction for trial of a soldier for murder committed in time of war, but that the state
courts have jurisdiction until it is assumed by military authorities." (People v. Denman [1918], 177 P.,

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946marchdecisions.php?id=63 2/3
8/30/2019 G.R. No. L-246 March 27, 1946 - SILVERIO VALDEZ v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO<br /><br />076 Phil 356 : MARCH 1946 - PHILIPPINE S…
461; 179 Cal., 497.)
076 Phil 320
In the instant case it also appears that when the information for murder was filed the Philippines had
G.R. No. 49183 March 23, 1946 - SERGIA MENDOZA already been liberated and the actual hostilities had already ceased. It is claimed, however, that up to
v. MODESTO CASTILLO, ET AL the present time a status of war still exists for the reason that the treaty of peace has not yet been
signed. But this contention cannot be upheld because although the formal termination of war by means
076 Phil 326
of the signing of the treaty has not yet been effected, at the time when the petitioner was prosecuted for
G.R. No. L-260 March 25, 1946 - FELIPE SAAVEDRA murder in the civil courts the actual fighting or hostilities were no longer going on; in other words, the
v. POTENCIANO PECSON actual fighting had already ceased and the Philippines had already been liberated. Thus it was held in the
following decision: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

076 Phil 330

"Notwithstanding this section (Art. 74), requiring a soldier to be delivered to civil authorities for trial for
Adm. Case No. 8075 March 25, 1946 - TRINIDAD an alleged crime except in time of war, the jurisdiction of the military courts over a soldier is not
NEYRA v. ENCARNACION NEYRA exclusive of the civil court even during time of war, if the soldier was stationed within one of the states
where the civil courts were functioning and where no actual hostilities were in progress." (Ex parte
076 Phil 333 Koester [1922], 206 P., 116;56 Cal. App., 621; emphasis added.)
G.R. No. 49126 March 25, 1946 - E. T. YU CHENGCO
It clearly appears also in the present case as aforesaid that the military authorities are not claiming
v. YAP ENG CHONG
priority to try the petitioner herein as provided in the Articles of War. Such being the case, we are of the
076 Phil 344 opinion that the petitioner cannot raise and invoke the right to be tried by a court martial without the
military authorities’ claiming to try him in accordance with the military law or the Articles of War. To this
C.A. No. 15 March 26, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. effect was the ruling in People v. Denman (supra): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

v. JACOB T. TANI
"Conceding paramount right of military authorities in time of war to custody of soldier notwithstanding
076 Phil 346 criminal charges against him in the courts of a state, the right inures solely to military authorities and
cannot be raised by the offender." (Emphasis added.)
G.R. No. L-306 March 26, 1946 - FERNANDO
VILLEGAS v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN In Funk v. State([1919], 208 S. W., 509; 84 Tex. Cr. R., 402), the following doctrines were also laid
down:
076 Phil 349
red:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. L-53 March 27, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE "A soldier of the United States who murders a citizen of the state offends both the military and the state
PHIL. v. MELANIO G. REYES laws and may be tried in the state courts.

076 Phil 354 "Although under this section (Art. 92), military authorities have the prior right to try the a soldier who
has murdered a citizen, the soldier who has committed the crime cannot object to being tried by a state
G.R. No. L-246 March 27, 1946 - SILVERIO VALDEZ court, where the military authorities have not asserted any right." (Emphasis added.) .
v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO
In view of all the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold that the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
076 Phil 356 Sur has jurisdiction over the murder case against the petitioner and cannot be deprived of such
jurisdiction. This being our conclusion, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other questions of law raised by
Adm. Case No. 475 March 27, 1940 the petition.
LIM TEK GOAN v. JOSE AZORES
Being without any merit whatsoever, the petition os hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
076 Phil 363
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-132 March 28, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE
FILIPINAS v. PABLO CELIS

076 Phil 369

G.R. No. L-200 March 28, 1946 - ANASTACIO

LAUREL v. ERIBERTO MISA
Back to Home | Back to Main
076 Phil 372

G.R. No. L-268 March 28, 1946 - NICASIO SALONGA

Y RODRIGUEZ v. J. P. HOLLAND QUICK SEARCH

076 Phil 412

G.R. No. L-319 March 28, 1946 - GO TIAN SEK

SANTOS v. ERIBERTO MISA 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
076 Phil 415
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 49108 March 28, 1946 - GONZALO D. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
DAVID v. CARLO SISON
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
076 Phil 418 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. L-279 March 29, 1946 - ENRIQUE BRIAS v. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
PACIFICO VICTORIANO, ET AL 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
076 Phil 425 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. L-286 March 29, 1946 - FREDESVINDO S.
ALVERO v. M. L. DE LA ROSA 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
076 Phil 428
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 48483 March 29, 1946 - PHIL. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BIBIANO L. MEER
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
076 Phil 436

G.R. No. L-131 March 30, 1946 - NARCISA DE LA

FUENTE, ET AL v. LUIS BORROMEO

076 Phil 442

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. L-252 March 30, 1946 - TRANQUILINO
CALO, ET AL v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL

076 Phil 445

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946marchdecisions.php?id=63 3/3