Scribd
Upload
3K views

Ruffy V Chief of Staff

Ruffy v Chief of Staff addresses whether Ramon Ruffy, a commander in the Philippine Constabulary who organized a guerrilla group, was subject to military law for a murder he allegedly committed. While Ruffy argued martial law was suspended during the Japanese occupation, the court held that as a member of the Philippine army resisting occupation, he remained subject to military law even amid the occupation.

Uploaded by

Thea Marie Pias
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

Ruffy V Chief of Staff

Ruffy v Chief of Staff addresses whether Ramon Ruffy, a commander in the Philippine Constabulary who organized a guerrilla group, was subject to military law for a murder he allegedly committed. While Ruffy argued martial law was suspended during the Japanese occupation, the court held that as a member of the Philippine army resisting occupation, he remained subject to military law even amid the occupation.

Uploaded by

Thea Marie Pias
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ruffy v Chief of Staff Facts: During the Japanese occupation, Ramon Ruffy, et al.

, petitioner, a provincial commander of the Philippine Constabulary, retreated in the mountains instead of surrendering to the enemy. He is organized and led a guerrilla outfit known as bolo combat tea, or bolo area. The said Bolo area was a contingent of the 6thh military district, which has been recognized and placed under the operational control of the US army in the South pacific. Sometime later, Col. Jurado effected a change of command in the bolo area. Major ruffy who was then acting as commanding officer for the Bolo area was relieved of his position. Later on or on Oct 19, 1944. Lieut. Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the petitioners. It was this murder which gave rise to petitioners trial. The trial court convicted petitioner and he now filled this instant petition with the contention that he was not subject to military law at the time of the offense for which he had been placed on trial was committed. Petitioners contended that by the enemy occupation of the Philippines, the national defese act and all laws and regulations creation the existence of the Philippine Army including the articles of war were suspended during such occupation. Issue: Whether the petitioner was subject to military law at the time the alleged offense was committed. Held: YES, petitioners were subject to military law at the time the alleged offense was committed. The rule that laws of political in nature or affecting relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for governing of the civil inhabitants of occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms (such as Philippine army)

You might also like