People v. Tapel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Tomas Tapel, was granted a conditional pardon on September 7, 1934, remitting the unexecuted portion of his sentence for qualified theft. The condition was that he shall not violate any penal laws of the Philippines. On September 18, 1936, he committed the crime of theft, for which he was again imprisoned. Procedural History: The accused was charged with violation of the conditional pardon. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence. The trial court later modified its decision regarding the duration of the unserved sentence based on a letter from the Bureau of Prisons. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, claiming the trial court erred in imposing a punishment not specified in the pardon or information, in modifying its decision, and in the computation of the unserved sentence under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in imposing a punishment not specified in the conditional pardon or alleged in the information. Whether the trial court erred in modifying its original decision. Whether the penalty should be computed by deducting the time spent at large under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the computation of the unserved sentence. The judgment of the lower court was modified, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of punishment not specified in the pardon or information: The Court held that it was not necessary to specify the penalty for violating the condition of a pardon in the pardon itself. The law, specifically Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, provides for the penalty. Furthermore, the information charged a particular offense to which the law attaches a specific penalty, and a plea of guilty justifies the imposition of the corresponding penalty. On the issue of modifying the original decision: While the Court noted that the procedure followed by the trial court in modifying its decision was irregular, it found that the action did not constitute a reversible error. The modification, which reduced the penalty to be served by the accused, was ultimately in conformity with the computation of the unserved sentence. On the issue of computing the penalty under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court found no merit in the contention that the time spent at large should be deducted. It reiterated the well-settled rule that when a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is returned to the same state as when the pardon was granted. The time during which the convict was at large by virtue of the pardon is not considered time served on the original sentence. The Court then recalculated the unserved portion of the sentence, considering the time served and the allowance for good conduct, and found that the unserved period was slightly more than what the trial court imposed, leading to a modification of the judgment.
Main Doctrine
When a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is placed in the same state as when the pardon was granted, and the time spent at large by virtue of the pardon is not considered time served on the original sentence. The penalty for violating the condition is provided for in Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.