G.R. No. L-3268
FACTS:
Petitioner Victor D. Gordon was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan on October 28, 1905, and sentenced to six months and one day of prision correccional, with credit for preventive imprisonment. While serving this sentence in the Bulacan provincial jail, he was brought to Manila, convicted of another estafa by the Municipal Court of Manila on November 11, 1905, and sentenced to four months and one day of imprisonment at Bilibid Prison. He was committed to Bilibid on that date. Subsequently, an executive order directed that he also serve his Bulacan sentence at Bilibid. Gordon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the two sentences should be served simultaneously and that, having served the longer term, he was entitled to be released.
ISSUE:
Whether the two distinct sentences imposed by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan and the Municipal Court of Manila should be served simultaneously or successively.
RULING:
The petition is denied. The sentences are to be served successively, not simultaneously. The Court, citing its prior decision in United States v. Carrington (5 Phil. Rep., 725) and the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Spain, applied Article 88 of the Penal Code. This article governs the service of multiple penalties, and the fact that the sentences were rendered by different courts at different times does not alter the rule that, absent a specific provision for concurrent service, penalties are to be served successively. The Court also noted that the Municipal Court clerk’s act of specifying a termination date for the sentence in the commitment order was void and without legal effect.