GR L 27206; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27206 August 26, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. ANDRES S. CULANAG, petitioner-appellant, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Andres Culanag was convicted of falsification of a public document (Crim. Case No. 671) on December 16, 1961, and sentenced to prison. He was later released on parole on July 9, 1962, subject to conditions including not committing any crime. Subsequently, on March 31, 1964, he was charged with another falsification of a public document (Crim. Case No. 790) for a similar act committed on a different date and in a different province. On April 3, 1964, he was also charged with violation of conditional pardon under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code (Crim. Case No. 789). For violating his parole conditions, the Board of Pardons and Parole ordered his arrest on May 18, 1964, to serve the remaining portion of his sentence in Crim. Case No. 671. Culanag pleaded guilty to both new cases on December 4, 1964, and served the sentences imposed. After allegedly fully serving the sentences for Crim. Cases 789 and 790, he filed a petition for habeas corpus on December 13, 1966, contesting the need to also serve the remaining unexpired portion of his sentence from Crim. Case No. 671. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether a person released on parole, who is subsequently prosecuted, convicted, and serves a sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, can still be required to serve the remaining unexpired portion of his original sentence from which he was paroled.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus. The power of the Chief Executive under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code to arrest and re-incarcerate a parole violator remains effective even if the State prosecutes, convicts, and imposes a sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy because the sentences are for different offenses—the original crime (falsification in Crim. Case No. 671) and the subsequent violation of conditional pardon (Crim. Case No. 789). Nor is there a deprivation of liberty without due process, as the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced in both cases after due process. Until all sentences are fully served, the petitioner is not entitled to release.