GR L 1782; (February, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1782; February 2, 1948
FIDEL B. FORTUNO, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Fidel B. Fortuno, a prisoner serving an aggregate sentence of more than twenty years, filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking immediate release. He challenged: (1) the legality of his recommitment by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for violating parole conditions, arguing his one-day trip to Santa Rosa, Laguna, did not violate his residence condition and that mere filing of estafa complaints (later resulting in convictions) did not violate the condition against committing crimes absent final conviction at the time of recommitment; (2) the legality of an additional 10-year penalty for habitual delinquency, contending a prior conviction for illegal possession of counterfeit bills should not count as it is not among the crimes specified for habitual delinquency (robbery, theft, estafa, falsification) and that the information failed to allege habitual delinquency; and (3) his entitlement to a special allowance of one-fifth of his sentence for not escaping during the war.
ISSUE
1. Whether the recommitment order was illegal or premature.
2. Whether the additional 10-year penalty for habitual delinquency was illegal or in excess of jurisdiction.
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to a special allowance for loyalty under the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The petition is denied.
1. The recommitment order was valid. Regardless of the trip, petitioner violated the parole condition not to commit any crime, as he was later convicted of estafa committed during the parole period. The issue of prematurity is academic.
2. The alleged errors in the imposition of the habitual delinquency penalty—whether an incorrect prior conviction was counted or the information lacked proper allegation—are errors of judgment or procedure, not jurisdictional. They are not reviewable via habeas corpus, which is not a substitute for appeal.
3. The special allowance for loyalty under Articles 98 and 158 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to convicts who escape and voluntarily surrender within two days, not to those who never escaped. Petitioner is not entitled.
The Court held petitioner has not served his full term and is not entitled to release.
AI Generated by Armztrong.