Cantos V Styer

G.R. No. L-492, Cantos v. Styer, 76 Phil.
748
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
June 28, 1946
G.R. No. L-492
TEODORO CANTOS (TEODORO TATISHI), petitioner,
vs.
WILHELM D. STYER, Commanding General, United States Army
Forces, Western Pacific, respondent.
Capt. John J. Greer, 1st Lt. John J. Berry, jr., 1st Lt. Everett W. Thode, and
2d Lt. John McCullough for petitioner.
MORAN, C.J.:
This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner Teodoro Cantos
(Teodoro Tatishi) against Lieutenant General Wilhelm D. Syer,
Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific,
upon the ground that petitioner is a Filipino citizen, residing in Ilang, Davao
City, and is now confined by order of the respondent at the residence of the
High Commissioner in Manila, Philippines, with no legal cause whatsoever.
Petitioner was born in Davao on December 7, 1913, his father
being Japanese and his mother, Filipino. At the age of 27 he elected to
become a Filipino citizen under the name of Teodoro Cantos, and was given
Philippine citizenship by the Court of First Instance of Davao on September
17, 1939. On March 25, 1946, he was indicted for war crimes before the
military commission duly constituted by order of General Styer, respondent.
The charges are as follows:
SPECIFICATIONS
1. In that Teodoro Tatishi, a Japanese civilian, and other persons connected

and acting with Japan, did, at or near Tibungko, Davao City, Mindanao,
Philippine Islands, on or about 28 December 1941, during a time of war
between the United States of America, its allies and Japan, willfully and
unlawfully kill Sixto Babao, Dalmacio Babao, Francisco Cobling and
Martin Marquez, unarmed, non-combatant Filipino civilians, by striking
them with a saber, and by shooting them, in violation of the laws of war.
2. In that Teodoro Tatishi, a Japanese civilian, and other persons connected
and acting with Japan, did, at or near Ilang, Davao City, Mindanao,
Philippine Islands, on or about 7 January 1942, during a time of war
between the United States of America, its allies and Japan, willfully,
unlawfully and forcibly take and loot personal property of Justina
Larracoecha Babao, in violation of the laws of war.
Dated: 25 March 1946
The military commission, after hearing, found petitioner guilty of the
charges and sentenced him to death by hanging.
There seems to be no question that petitioner is charged with war crimes
before a military commission duly constituted. It is maintained, however,
that the petitioner being a Filipino civilian when he allegedly committed the
crimes charged and the Philippine courts being open and capable to
administer justice, the military commission has no jurisdiction to try him. It
is well settled that war crimes may be committed not only by lawful
belligerents but by any "men and bodies of men, who, without being lawful
belligerents" "nevertheless commit hostile acts of any kind." (Par. 351,
Rules of Land Warfare.) "Persons of the enemy territory who steal within
the lines of hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, etc." are also
war criminals subject to the jurisdiction of military commissions. (Par. 352,
id., id.) And in the preamble to the Hague Convention it is declared that
"until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High
Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included
in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents
remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of
nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples,
from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."
All this goes to show that war crimes may be committed by any person
regardless of his nationality. Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States,
in Ex parte Quirin (317 U.S., No. 1 [Off. Rep. Sup. Ct.], pp. 37, 38), said
that "citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not
relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful
because in violation of the law of war. Citizen who associate themselves
with the military army of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance
and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents
within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
Here, the petitioner is a Filipino citizen though of a Japanese father, and
associating himself with Japan in the war against the United States of
America and the Philippines, committed atrocities against unarmed and
noncombatant Filipino civilians and looted Filipino property. He is, indeed,
a war criminal subject to the jurisdiction of the military commission, and his
confinement by the respondent is not illegal. (In re Yamashita, 66 Sup. Ct.,
340; 90 Law. ed., 499.)
It is argued that, by direction of the President of the United States of
America, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the America Military Forces, on
September 12, 1945, instructed General Douglas MacArthur, Commander in
Chief of the United States Army Forces, Pacific, to proceed with the trial
before appropriate military tribunals of such Japanese war criminals as have
been or may be apprehended, and that, therefore, the petitioner, who is a
Filipino citizen, cannot be a Japanese war criminal subject to the
jurisdiction of the Military commission constituted under such presidential

authority. There is before us no conclusive evidence that General Douglas
MacArthur's authority is thus limited. At any rate, we believe that the
military commission may look through the naturalization papers into the
real nationality of a person with Japanese blood charged with war crimes.
After due hearing the military commission found the petitioner to be a
Japanese mestizo. The certificate of Filipino citizenship was issued in his
favor after he had sworn to have renounced his allegiance and fidelity to
Japan and pledged faith and allegiance to the United States of America and
the Philippines. But there is evidence before the military commission to the
effect that during the war he was a member of the Japanese civilian army
and committed atrocities against unarmed and noncombatant Filipino
civilians. In his oath of naturalization he swore that he owned real property
in the Philippines worth P1,200 as required by the Naturalization Law. It
appears, however, from his sworn testimony before the military commission
that he never owned any property in the Philippines. If the military
commission believes, as it apparently does, that, by reason of the above
circumstances, the petitioner never acquired Filipino citizenship or he
already lost it, we certainly find no reason to interfere.
Fore all the foregoing, petition is dismissed, without costs.
Paras, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.

Cantos V Styer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cantos V Styer

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

Cantos V Styer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-492, Cantos v. Styer, 76 Phil.

1. In that Teodoro Tatishi, a Japanese civilian, and other persons connected

jurisdiction of the Military commission constituted under such presidential

You might also like