Facts:
Eufemio P. Tesoro, here Petitioner and Appellant, was convicted on October 10, 1934, by the Court of First Instance of Manila for falsification of a public document and sentenced to an indeterminate term of from two years to three years, six months and twenty-one days, and to pay a fine of P100, the sentence to expire on October 28, 1937. On November 14, 1935, the
Governor‑General Frank Murphy granted the petitioner a
parole conditioned, inter alia, that he remain in the City of Manila, not commit any other crime and “conduct himself in an orderly manner,” and report to the
Executive Secretary of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence monthly for the first year and quarterly thereafter, with the express admonition that “should any of the conditions stated be violated, the sentence imposed shall again be in full force and effect.” On December 3, 1937, a complaint for adultery was filed against the petitioner before the justice of the peace of San Juan, Rizal, with supporting affidavits, and transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Rizal; the information was later dismissed for nonappearance of the complainant. In February 1938 the complainant lodged a separate complaint with the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence charging violation of the parole conditions. The petitioner was summoned, requested postponement, and denied the charge in a February 4, 1938 letter, while a parole officer submitted an investigative report to the board. On the strength of the report the acting chairman recommended arrest and recommitment, and on February 19, 1938 the
President issued an order under
Section 64(i) of the Administrative Code directing arrest and recommitment to the custody of the
Director of Prisons for the service of the unexpired portion of the maximum sentence. The petitioner was rearrested, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which the trial court denied, and appealed to this Court.
Issues:
Does
Section 64(i) of the Administrative Code survive the adoption of the Constitution such that the Chief Executive retains the power to grant and revoke paroles? Is the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence authorized to investigate a parolee’s conduct and to recommend revocation of parole? May the
President rely on administrative findings rather than a judicial conviction to determine violation of a parole condition? Will the courts review the
President’s factual determination of a parole violation? Does the period spent at liberty under parole count as time served so that, upon recommitment, the parolee need not serve any portion of the original sentence?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: