G.R. No. L-442; May 23, 1946
JOSE CARAOS, petitioner, vs. IÑIGO S. DAZA, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, JOSE A. ALANO, Provincial Fiscal of Batangas, and THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Caraos was convicted of homicide on May 3, 1944, by the Court of First Instance of Batangas and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. He did not appeal and began serving his sentence. On November 9, 1944, he was released from the provincial jail. After liberation, the wife of the deceased filed a complaint, leading to an investigation by the Provincial Fiscal. Based on her ex parte motion, respondent Judge Iñigo S. Daza issued an order of commitment on March 6, 1946, for Caraos’s arrest and confinement to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Caraos filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari and habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, alleging his 1944 release was “pursuant to a pardon issued by the authority concerned” during the Japanese occupation. Respondents admitted the conviction and release but denied a valid pardon was granted, arguing the release was due to emergency conditions (bombing and scarcity of food) and that the judge had jurisdiction to order rearrest. The Solicitor General, representing the Director of Prisons, argued the alleged pardon was illegal and void. Testimony from the investigation showed the Provincial Governor ordered the release of prisoners in December 1944 due to bombing and food scarcity, but witnesses could not recall if Caraos was specifically included or pardoned.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a pardon or executive clemency was validly extended to Jose Caraos in November or December 1944, which would justify his release and nullify the subsequent order for his rearrest to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the release of Jose Caraos. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove he was granted a pardon. The testimony indicated his release, like that of other prisoners, was due to emergency conditions (bombing and food scarcity) and not an act of executive clemency. Furthermore, the Court noted a critical jurisdictional defect: there was a complete absence of official records of the criminal case and the sentence, as they were burned during the war. A sentence imposing imprisonment cannot be executed without a written decision that clearly expresses the facts and law upon which it is based, as required by the Constitution. Since no such decision could be produced, the lower court lacked a legal basis to issue the commitment order or mittimus compelling the petitioner to serve an imprisonment term. Therefore, his detention was illegal.