G.R. NO. L-21805.
FEBRUARY 25, 1967
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
VS.
FIDEL TAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
REYES, J. B. L., J.:
FACTS:
Appeal from the order, dated 4 January 1963, of the Court of First
Instance of Samar, in its Criminal Case No. 4097, denying the
government's motion for the re-arrest of the accused-appellee, Fidel
Tan.
The aforesaid appellee was, under a modified Judgment,
sentenced by said court to suffer.
"An indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS &
FOUR (4) MONTHS, as minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2)
MONTHS, as maximum, both of prision correccional, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, indemnify the... heirs of Sinforoso
Volfango P3,000.00, and pay the costs." The sentence having become
final, the accused was committed to the Director of Prisons, on 2 March
1959, through the provincial warden.
The provincial warden did not, however, commit the prisoner to
the national penitentiary but retained him in the Samar provincial jail.
Thereafter, the warden took it upon himself to apply the provisions of
Article 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code as well as Act No. 2489, and
credited the prisoner with good conduct time allowance. After the
prisoner's actual confinement in jail for 2 years, 8 months and 21 days,
the warden released him on 23 November 1961.
On 6 September 1962, the provincial fiscal moved for the re-arrest
of the accused and to order him recommitted to the national
penitentiary, on the ground that the provincial warden had no authority
to release him with good conduct time allowance. The motion was
unopposed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provincial warden had no authority to re-
arrest Tan with good conduct time allowance.
RULING:
The court's jurisdiction was not terminated by the commitment of
the convict to the jail authorities -- the commitment was but the start in
carrying out of the court's decision. It is the prerogative of the court
meting out the punishment to see to it that the punishment be... served
until, by act of lawfully authorized administrative agencies of the state,
the convict is pardoned or paroled or, on lawful grounds, set at liberty
sooner than the expiration of the sentence imposed.
The prisoner's re-arrest would not place him twice in jeopardy because
his re-incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalty that he had
not completely served due to the erroneous act of the warden; it is not
a new or subsequent conviction. Neither would his re-arrest deprive
him of liberty without due process of law, because he was not yet
entitled to liberty at the time he was released. Service of penalties and
allowance for good conduct are specifically, even elaborately, governed
by the Penal Code and do not depend upon the good faith of the warden
and of the prisoner.
For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order is hereby reversed and a
new one entered, ordering the re-arrest, and the continuance of the
imprisonment, of the accused appellee, Fidel Tan, for one (1) year, five
(5) months and eleven (11) days more.
