Case Digest (G.R. No. 1809)
Facts:
- The case is Narciso Alvarez y Cortes vs. The Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 1809, decided on March 19, 1948.
- Narciso Alvarez was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment.
- He received a conditional pardon from the Chief Executive, which remitted his murder penalty.
- Before the pardon, Alvarez committed evasion of service of his sentence and was convicted for it.
- The lower court denied his habeas corpus petition, stating the pardon did not apply to the evasion conviction.
- Alvarez argued that the evasion offense was dependent on the original murder sentence, citing People v. Jose.
- The court maintained that evasion of service of sentence is a distinct crime under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
- The court affirmed that the conditional pardon for murder did not extend to the penalty for evasion of service of sentence. ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court distinguished between the nature of the offenses involved.
- Evasion of service of sentence, under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, is a public offense that undermines legal authority.
- The crime is independent of the original offense for which the pardon was granted.
- A conditional pardon is likened to a contract, requiring compliance with specific conditions.
- Violating these conditions, ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1809)
Facts:
The case at hand is Narciso Alvarez y Cortes vs. The Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 1809, decided on March 19, 1948. The petitioner, Narciso Alvarez, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, which remitted the penalty for the murder conviction. However, prior to receiving the pardon, Alvarez had committed the offense of evasion of service of his sentence, for which he was also convicted. The lower court had denied his petition for habeas corpus, asserting that the pardon did not remit the penalty for the evasion of service of sentence. In his motion for reconsideration, Alvarez argued that the offense of evasion was dependent on the original sentence for murder, and thus, the pardon should also apply to the evasion conviction. He cited the case of People v. Jose, where it was held that a violation of conditional pardon is not an independent offense. The court, however, maintained that evasion of service of sentence is a distinct crime under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, and thus, the pardon for murder did not affect the separate penalty for evasion.
Issue:
- Does a conditional pardon fo...