Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Ognir vs. Director of Prisons 80 Phil 401

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    1) The petitioner Antonio C. Ognir was convicted by a General Court Martial in 1943 for violating the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2) The petitioner claims the conviction is null and void because the General Court Martial was not legally constituted as the District Commander who convened it did not have the proper authority. 3) The court agreed and held that the judgment of the General Court Martial is null and void since the court was not properly convened according to law and therefore had no jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ognir vs. Director of Prisons 80 Phil 401

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    115 views1 page
    1) The petitioner Antonio C. Ognir was convicted by a General Court Martial in 1943 for violating the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2) The petitioner claims the conviction is null and void because the General Court Martial was not legally constituted as the District Commander who convened it did not have the proper authority. 3) The court agreed and held that the judgment of the General Court Martial is null and void since the court was not properly convened according to law and therefore had no jurisdiction over the case.

    Original Title

    67.-Ognir-vs.-Director-of-Prisons-80-Phil-401

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner Antonio C. Ognir was convicted by a General Court Martial in 1943 for violating the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2) The petitioner claims the conviction is null and void because the General Court Martial was not legally constituted as the District Commander who convened it did not have the proper authority. 3) The court agreed and held that the judgment of the General Court Martial is null and void since the court was not properly convened according to law and therefore had no jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    115 views1 page

    Ognir vs. Director of Prisons 80 Phil 401

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    1) The petitioner Antonio C. Ognir was convicted by a General Court Martial in 1943 for violating the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2) The petitioner claims the conviction is null and void because the General Court Martial was not legally constituted as the District Commander who convened it did not have the proper authority. 3) The court agreed and held that the judgment of the General Court Martial is null and void since the court was not properly convened according to law and therefore had no jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-1870 February 27, 1948


    ANTONIO C. OGNIR, Petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Respondent.

    FACTS

    The petitioner was convicted by the General Court Martial appointed or convened during the year 1943 in
    Lanao by Colonel Wendel W. Fertig, Commanding Officer of the 10th Military District of Mindanao, and
    sentenced to life imprisonment, for violation of the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army. He now
    claims that his imprisonment is null and void because the said General Court-Martial was not legally
    constituted, inasmuch as District Commander that appointed or convened it had no authority to do so, and
    therefore the judgment of said court is null and void for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Col.
    Wendel W. Fertig was not empowered by the President of the Commonwealth, or by General McArthur,
    Supreme Commander of the U.S. Army in Southwest Pacific Area to appoint a General Court-Martial and
    so hold that the judgment rendered by the General Court Martial is null and void, because said court was
    not duly convened or appointed in accordance with law and therefore, had no jurisdiction to render said
    sentence. A motion for reconsideration of our decision was filed in this case by the Judge Advocate
    General of the Philippine Army and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the decision of the General Court-Martial which convicted the petitioner may be given the
    same effects as the actuation of the civil courts during the Japanese occupation.

    HELD

    No. The contention that the proceedings of the General Court-Martial under consideration "may be given
    effect as the actuation of de facto officers in the same manner as the pronouncement of Civil Tribunals set
    up during the second Republic." is untenable; because there is no analogy between the decision of the
    courts established by the Military Government or the so-called second Republic, and that of the General
    Court-Martial which convicted the petitioner. The Courts of the Commonwealth legally constituted which
    were continued during the so-called Philippine Republic, and the other courts during the Japanese
    occupation were legally created by laws which, under the International Law, the military occupant had the
    right to promulgate. While the said General Court-Martial was created or convened by an officer having
    no power or authority to do so.

    You might also like