G.R. No. 122338 - IN RE: Torres vs. Director, Bureau of Corrections

Wilfredo Sumulong Torres was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila on two counts of estafa, convictions later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
His maximum sentence was scheduled to expire on November 2, 2000.

On April 18, 1979, the President of the Philippines granted Torres a conditional pardon on the stipulation that he “not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.”
Torres accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement.

On May 21, 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole recommended the cancellation of Torres’s conditional pardon due to new charges: twenty counts of estafa filed previously and a conviction for sedition by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
On September 8, 1986, acting on the recommendation, the President formally revoked the conditional pardon.
Subsequently, on October 10, 1986, then Minister of Justice Neptali A. Gonzales issued an “Order of Arrest and Recommitment” under the President’s authority, resulting in Torres being re-arrested and recommitted to prison.

The case reflects earlier decisions such as Tesoro v. Director of Prisons, Sales v. Director of Prisons, Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol, and Torres v. Gonzales, establishing that the President’s exercise of discretion under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code need not await a final judicial determination of guilt for any subsequent crimes.
In Torres v. Gonzales, the court ruled that the executive’s decision regarding the breach of pardon conditions is beyond the scope of judicial review.

After the revocation, Torres faced additional criminal charges. Notably, he was acquitted in two of the three cases filed against him subsequent to his pardon, while the remaining case had been pending for thirteen years, drawing concerns regarding his right to a speedy trial.
Torres’s wife and children filed an original petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the President’s unilateral exercise of power in determining the breach and ordering recommitment violated his due process rights and the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Whether the President’s exercise of his executive prerogative under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code—specifically, determining the occurrence of a breach of the conditional pardon and ordering re-incarceration—violated Torres’s right to due process and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Whether a judicial pronouncement or final determination of guilt in subsequent criminal proceedings is necessary before the President may lawfully revoke a conditional pardon and recommit the pardonee to prison.
Whether the nature of a conditional pardon as an executive contract permits the courts to review or interfere with the decision to revoke the pardon when a breach is alleged.