Case Digest (G.R. No. 45267)
Facts:
Remigio Pontillas was charged with violation of conditional pardon. The information alleged that on September 8, 1922, the Governor-General granted him a pardon remitting the unexecuted portion of his sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor for illegal marriage, subject to the condition that he “shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippine Islands,” which he accepted upon release from Bilibid Prisons.On December 24, 1935, Pontillas committed damage to property through reckless imprudence, and he was again received in Bilibid Prisons on June 26, 1936 to serve thirty days’ subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay P61 fine and P60.30 indemnity imposed by the Municipal Court in a case that had become final and executory. The lower court sustained his demurrer, holding that the original penalty had long prescribed, and he could no longer be prosecuted for violation of the pardon’s conditions. The Provincial Fiscal on detail in the City Fiscal’s Off
Case Digest (G.R. No. 45267)
Facts:
- Accusation for violation of conditional pardon
- The appellee, Remigio Pontillas, was charged in the lower court for violation of conditional pardon.
- The information alleged that on or about December 24, 1935, in the City of Manila, the accused—having been granted on September 8, 1922 by His Excellency, the Governor-General, a pardon remitting the unexecuted portion of his sentence—willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously violated the conditions of that pardon.
- The information alleged the original conviction involved a sentence of six years and one day of prision correccional imposed in criminal case No. 21823 by the Court of First Instance of Manila for illegal marriage.
- The information alleged that the accused had begun serving the sentence on February 14, 1921.
- The information alleged the pardon was subject to the condition that the accused “shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippine Islands,” and that the accused accepted the condition on September 8, 1922, resulting in his immediate release from Bilibid Prisons on that date.
- The information alleged that the violation consisted of the commission on December 24, 1935 of damage to property through reckless driving, for which he was received again in Bilibid Prisons on June 26, 1936 to serve:
- thirty days’ subsidiary imprisonment in lieu of P61 fine and P60.30 indemnity imposed by the Municipal Court in criminal case No. H-47583.
- The information alleged that the Municipal Court judgment had become final and executory.
- The information ended with the allegation “Contrary to law.”
- Lower court proceedings on demurrer
- The appellee interposed a demurrer on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a public offense and, if true, would exempt him from criminal liability.
- The lower court sustained the demurrer.
- The lower court held that the penalty of six years and one day imposed on February 14, 1921, had already prescribed by June 26, 1936 when the appellee was convicted and began serving the subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay the fine and indemnity.
- The lower court reasoned that because the first penalty had already prescribed when the accused committed his second offense, he could no longer be prosecuted for violation of conditional pardon.
- The lower court further reasoned that the violation charge would effectively impose upon the appellee a perpetual duty to fulfill the conditions of the pardon, which the lower court viewed as cruel and unusual.
- The fiscal appealed from the resolution.
- Issue on appeal and procedural posture
- The appellant fiscal submitted the following question:
- Whether a person conditionally pardoned by the Chief Executive for illegal marriage or bigamy after serving nineteen months of the sentence of six years and one day of prision correccional could be criminally prosecuted for violation of conditional pardon solely because, contrary to the condition that he shall not again violate any penal laws, he committed damage to property through reckless imprudence and was sentenced to pay a P61 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the appellee could be criminally prosecuted for violation of a conditional pardon after the period of prescription allegedly had already run on the original sentence
- Whether the lower court correctly held that the penalty of six years and one day had prescribed by the time of the appellee’s subsequent conviction and imprisonment on June 26, 1936, thereby negating prosecution for violation of conditional pardon.
- Whether the condition of the conditional pardon required more than avoidance of “moral perversity”
- Whether the appellee’s subsequent offense could be treated as not violating the condition because it did not show moral perversity, as the appealed resolution had stated.
- Whether the condition of the pardon consisted in not again violating any penal law, regardless of whether the offense reflected moral perversity.
- Whether acceptance of a conditional pardon interrupts or affects prescription of the original penalty
- Whether the appellee’s acceptance of the conditional pardon interrupted the running of prescription of his original sentence even if conditional pardon was not expressly listed as a c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)