Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21805)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Fidel Tan, G.R. No. L-21805, February 25, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The People (plaintiff-appellant) sought reversal of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar's order of January 4, 1963, which denied the fiscal’s motion to re-arrest and recommit Fidel Tan (defendant-appellee) after the warden released him from provincial custody.Following a modified judgment, Tan was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of two years and four months (minimum) to four years and two months (maximum), plus accessory penalties and indemnity. He appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal by resolution dated August 1, 1958, and the sentence became final. On March 2, 1959, Tan was committed to the Director of Prisons through the provincial warden of Samar, but the warden retained him in the Samar provincial jail instead of sending him to the national penitentiary.
The provincial warden credited Tan with good conduct time allowances under his own interpretation of prison regulations (citing Article XI, Sec. 1(a) and (b) of the Revised Rules and Regulations for Insular and Provincial Prisoners and Act No. 2489) and released him on November 23, 1961, after actual confinement of two years, eight months and twenty-one days. The provincial fiscal moved on September 6, 1962, to have Tan re-arrested and recommitted to the national penitentiary, alleging the warden lacked authority to retain an insular prisoner or to grant good conduct credits reserved to the Director of Prisons. The warden explained he had delayed transfer because of instructions to withhold transfers during riots and because of Tan’s medical condition, and asserted his computation of good conduct credits justified the release.
The CFI requi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court lose jurisdiction over the execution of the sentence when the convict was committed to jail so as to bar ordering his re-arrest and recommitment?
- Would re-arrest and recommitment of the convict after his release violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy or deprive him of liberty without due process?
- Was the provincial warden authorized to retain an insular prisoner and to grant and apply good conduct time allo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)