G.R. No. L-442 - Caraos vs. Daza

Petitioner Jose Caraos, together with his brothers Ramon and Emilio Caraos, was prosecuted for the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 374 before the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
On May 3, 1944, the court rendered a judgment convicting Jose Caraos for homicide. The sentence imposed was:

Imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (minimum) to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal (maximum).
Payment of indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, Leoncio Ylagan, in the sum of Two Thousand Pesos.
Payment of one-third (1/3) of the costs incurred in the case.

While his two brothers were acquitted, Jose Caraos did not file an appeal, and he commenced serving his sentence on May 3, 1944, in the provincial jail of Batangas.

On November 9, 1944, petitioner Caraos was allegedly released from the provincial jail of Batangas.

He claimed that the release was effected by an order of the Provincial Governor of Batangas, purportedly pursuant to a pardon or an act of executive clemency issued during the Japanese military occupation.
It is mentioned that he received release papers which he later lost.

After Liberation, the widow of the deceased, Estrella Punzalan Vda. de Ylagan, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice.

In response, the respondent Provincial Fiscal, Jose A. Alano, conducted an investigation on February 8, 1946.
Witnesses during the investigation included:

Antonio Casanova, chief of police of Taal, Batangas.
Marceliano K. Medina, provincial warden of Batangas (June 1942–December 1944).
Maximo M. Malvar, provincial governor of Batangas during the Japanese occupation.
The petitioner himself.

On March 6, 1946, based on an ex parte motion filed by Estrella Punzalan Vda. de Ylagan requesting a warrant for arrest, the respondent Judge Inigo S. Daza ordered:

The issuance of an order of commitment for the confinement of petitioner Caraos.
The same day, the issuance of an order for his arrest.

The following day, March 7, 1946, petitioner Caraos was confined in the provincial jail of Batangas.

A petition for reconsideration was filed on his behalf but was denied on March 26, 1946.

Respondents (including the Provincial Fiscal and the Director of Prisons) admitted several allegations but denied that petitioner had been legally released by a pardon or executive clemency.
They contended that the orders for his arrest and confinement were legal, emphasizing that no valid pardon had been proven.

Copy of docket entries in Criminal Case No. 374.
Transcript of testimonies given by witnesses at the fiscal’s investigation (Annex B).
Copy of the ex parte motion filed by Estrella Punzalan Vda. de Ylagan (Annex C).
Copies of the orders issued by Judge Daza on March 6, March 7, and the denial of the petition for reconsideration on March 26 (Annexes B, E, and F respectively).

Relatives and friends engaged efforts for his release or pardon.
He had heard, one week before his release, that he would be released or pardoned.

Marceliano K. Medina confirmed that the provincial governor ordered the release of all prisoners in December 1944 for safety due to ongoing bombings, yet could not confirm petitioner’s inclusion specifically.
Maximo M. Malvar similarly testified regarding the mass release for safety reasons and mentioned earlier releases granted by executive clemency, without being able to specify if petitioner was among them.
Estrella Punzalan Vda. de Ylagan’s testimony, although stating a release date of November 9, 1944, was seen by the majority as potentially influenced by petitioner’s own claims, contributing to the ambiguity regarding the actual basis of his release.

Whether petitioner Caraos was released from confinement by virtue of a valid pardon or executive clemency extended by the proper authorities during the Japanese occupation.

Was the alleged pardon legally valid and supported by competent evidence?
Did the petitioner’s release papers, now lost, constitute sufficient proof of such executive clemency?

Whether the lower court (via Judge Daza’s orders) possessed the jurisdiction and authority to order the rearrest and subsequent confinement of petitioner Caraos in order to compel him to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.

Does the inherent power, as alleged under Section 5 of Rule 124, extend to this situation?
Does the action infringe upon the proper exercise of executive functions under the principle of separation of powers?

Concerning the evidentiary value of the petitioner’s own testimony and that of the widow in establishing the date and basis of his release.