Scribd
Upload
672 views1 page

Digest Tiu-v-Dizon

Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking in 2000 and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, the president conditionally pardoned petitioner without parole, but no formal pardon documents were issued. The Board of Pardons and Parole deferred action on the pardon until requirements were met. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming unlawful detention, but the court ruled against this as the conditional pardon was incomplete without documents and requirements were not met. As pardon terms are an executive decision, the court could not evaluate compliance with requirements. Therefore, no writ of habeas corpus was issued.

Uploaded by

Rein Justin Nantes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
672 views1 page

Digest Tiu-v-Dizon

Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking in 2000 and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, the president conditionally pardoned petitioner without parole, but no formal pardon documents were issued. The Board of Pardons and Parole deferred action on the pardon until requirements were met. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming unlawful detention, but the court ruled against this as the conditional pardon was incomplete without documents and requirements were not met. As pardon terms are an executive decision, the court could not evaluate compliance with requirements. Therefore, no writ of habeas corpus was issued.

Uploaded by

Rein Justin Nantes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

RUBEN E. TIU v. NATIVIDAD G.

DIZON
GR No. 211269, June 15, 2016

Facts:
On June 16, 2000, petitioner was found guilty of selling "shabu". Consequently, they were
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The conviction became final and executory
in 2004. On March 24, 2009, the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) issued a resolution
recommending the grant of executive clemency to petitioner. On June 3, 2010, then President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted him "conditional pardon without parole conditions," but was still
"subject to the conditions indicated in [the individual pardon papers]." It turned out that no such
papers were issued in petitioner's favor and that the records of his case were referred back to the
BPP. Respondent Natividad G. Dizon, Chairman of the BPP, confirmed in a letter that petitioner's
Certificate of Conditional Pardon without Parole Conditions was not signed by PGMA and the
BPP had resolved to defer action thereon pending compliance with all the basic requirements for
executive clemency.
On July 7, 2014, petitioner filed the instant Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus, insisting
on the efficacy and enforceability of his conditional pardon without parole conditions, which
allegedly necessitates his release from prison.
On the other hand, respondents maintain that a prisoner serving a sentence of life
imprisonment and retaining classification as a penal colonist will automatically have his sentence
modified to 30 years of imprisonment only "when receiving the executive approval for this
classification." However, petitioner failed to obtain such executive approval. Petitioner's colonist
status granted merely by the Director of Corrections, without executive approval, did not modify
his sentence. Hence, there being no unlawful restraint, no writ of habeas corpus should be issued
in his favor

Issue:
Whether or not a writ of habeas corpus should be issued in favor of petitioner.

Ruling:
No. The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention,
and, if the detention is found to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee.
In this case, petitioner failed to show, however, that his further incarceration is no longer lawful
and that he is entitled to relief under a writ of habeas corpus. The executive clemency extended
by PGMA on June 3, 2010 to a number of prisoners including petitioner was made "subject to the
conditions indicated in the corresponding documents." It is undisputed, however, that no individual
pardon papers were issued in petitioner's favor, thereby rendering the grant of executive clemency
to him as incomplete and ineffective.
Notably, when the records of petitioner's case were referred back to the BPP, it required
compliance first with all the basic requirements for executive clemency before acting thereon. This
is not to say, however, that petitioner's pardon papers may not have been issued due to non-
compliance with the requirements, which is a matter that the Court shall not, and could not, resolve
here. This is because the grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a
conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

You might also like