G.R. No.

76872
July 23, 1987
WILFREDO TORRES Y SUMULONG, petitioner,
vs.
HON. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF PARDONS AND
PAROLE, and THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS, respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

This is an original petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of petitioner Wilfredo S.
Torres, presently confined at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa.

Sometime before 1979, petitioner was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila
of the crime of 2 counts of estafa and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term from
11 years, 10 months and 22 days to 38 years, 9 months and 1 day, and to pay an
indemnity of P127,728.75.

While serving his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted his pardon on 18
April 1979 with a condition of not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.
He will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law for any violation thereof.
Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from
confinement.

While on a conditional pardon, the petitioner had been charged and convicted with
several crimes which was supported by the records of the NBI showing the long list of
charges had been brought against the petitioner during the last twenty years for a wide
assortment of crimes. In view of the foregoing, the respondent Minister of Justice wrote
to the President the Resolution of the Board recommending cancellation of the
conditional pardon previously granted to petitioner.

Petitioner claims that he did not violate his conditional pardon since he has not been
convicted by final judgment of the crimes charged and contends further that he was not
given an opportunity to be heard before he was arrested and recommitted to prison
which deprived of his rights under due process.

ISSUE:

Whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before

the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his
conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence.

RULING:

The Court relied upon Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code which
empowered the Governor-General to grant to convicted prisoners reprieves or pardons,
either plenary or partial, conditional or unconditional; to suspend sentences without
parole, remit fines, and order the discharge of any convicted person upon parole,
subject to such conditions as he may impose; and to authorize the arrest and
recommitment of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with the
condition or conditions, of his pardon, parole or suspension of sentence.

The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the

proper consequences of such breach, may be either a purely executive act, not subject
to judicial scrutiny under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or it may be
a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon
under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.

It may be emphasized that what is involved in the instant case is not the prosecution of
the parolee for a subsequent offense in the regular course of administration of the
criminal law. What is involved is rather the ascertainment of whether the convict has
breached his undertaking that he would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the
Philippines" for purposes of reimposition upon him of the remitted portion of his original
sentence. Since Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code defines a distinct, substantive,
felony, the parolee or convict who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof
must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be made
to suffer the penalty prescribed in Article 159.