Und 507 508; (November, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. UND Nos. 507-508 November 26, 1970
PRISONER ROMEO CANARY, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Romeo Canary filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging he was confined in the New Bilibid Prisons under judgments from two criminal cases (Criminal Case No. 73142 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and Criminal Case No. 990-R of the Court of First Instance of Rizal) arising from a single act of evasion of service of sentence for escaping on July 6, 1963. He contended this violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Court issued the writ. In his return, the respondent Director of Prisons, through the Solicitor General, stated that petitioner was in custody primarily by virtue of a final judgment for homicide (Criminal Case No. 29028, Court of First Instance of Manila) and a final judgment for evasion of sentence (Criminal Case No. 990-R, Court of First Instance of Rizal). The respondent acknowledged that after petitioner’s escape and recapture, he was charged with evasion in both Manila and Rizal courts, receiving different sentences, but the respondent was disregarding the Manila court’s judgment in the evasion case (Criminal Case No. 73142) for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent computed that petitioner would finish his homicide sentence on December 21, 1971, and then begin serving his evasion sentence from the Rizal court, completing it on October 24, 1973.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted on the ground of double jeopardy.
RULING
The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed. The Court held that while habeas corpus is a remedy to safeguard liberty from illegal confinement and a deprivation of a constitutional right (like double jeopardy) can oust a court of jurisdiction and make habeas corpus appropriate, petitioner failed to demonstrate such a deprivation warranting his immediate release. The respondent’s return showed petitioner was validly detained under a final judgment for homicide, which petitioner did not dispute. Therefore, his resort to habeas corpus was premature. The Court explicitly declined to rule on the anomalous situation of two courts sentencing petitioner for the identical evasion offense, as the validity of his ongoing detention for homicide rendered the petition without merit.