GR 34228; (December, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 34228 , December 31, 1931
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL PONCE DE LEON Y BALLESTEROS, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The appellee, Miguel Ponce de Leon y Ballesteros, was convicted of parricide and sentenced to three years of banishment. He was granted a conditional pardon by the Governor-General on February 16, 1924, on the condition that he would not be guilty of any misconduct. He accepted the pardon. On October 6, 1928, he was convicted for illegal possession of cartridges and a pistol chip, violating the condition of his pardon. The prosecution filed an information seeking to compel him to serve the unexpired portion of his original banishment penalty. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the information, holding it had no jurisdiction to order the remedy sought because the original penalty was banishment, not imprisonment.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Government’s appeal from the order dismissing the information is allowable.
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to order the appellee to serve the unexpired portion of his banishment penalty after violating the conditional pardon.
RULING
1. Yes, the appeal is allowable. The general provision of section 44 of General Orders, No. 58 (the Code of Criminal Procedure), which allows the Government to appeal from an order dismissing an information, applies. The prohibition against appeals in cases of acquittal to avoid double jeopardy is inapplicable here. The proceeding is not for a new conviction but to enforce the conditions of the pardon and restore the appellee to his status before the pardon.
2. Yes, the court has jurisdiction. Under section 4 of Act No. 1524 , if a court finds a violation of a conditional pardon, it shall order the recommitment and confinement of the person for the unexpired portion of the original sentence. The term “recommitment and confinement” is interpreted to mean the enforcement of the original penalty, whatever its nature. Since the original penalty was banishment, the court has the power and jurisdiction to order the appellee to serve the unexpired portion of that banishment. The law aims to restore the accused to the exact situation he was in before the pardon was granted.
The appealed judgment is reversed. The accused is ordered to serve the unexpired period of his banishment sentence.
AI Generated by Armztrong.