People v. Martin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Teodorico Martin, was initially convicted of abduction and sentenced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal. He commenced serving this sentence on January 17, 1917. On February 5, 1923, after serving eight years, one month, and seventeen days, he was granted a conditional pardon, with the condition that he not be found guilty of any crime punishable by Philippine laws. Subsequently, the appellant was tried for attempted robbery in band with physical injuries and was sentenced on October 27, 1932, to pay a fine of 330 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with violating the condition of his pardon due to his conviction for attempted robbery in band with physical injuries. The Court of First Instance of Rizal found him guilty and sentenced him to serve the remitted portion of his original sentence, which was six years, six months, and fourteen days of reclusion temporal. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The Appeal: The appellant contended that the Court of First Instance of Cavite, not Rizal, had jurisdiction over the case. He also argued that the violation had prescribed, asserting that the penalty for the violation was prision correccional in its minimum degree, which prescribes after four years under Act No. 3585. The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General, argued for the affirmation of the lower court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to try the violation of the conditional pardon. Whether the violation of the conditional pardon had prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, holding that the court of the province where the violation of the conditional pardon occurred has jurisdiction. The Court also ruled that the violation had not prescribed, as the penalty imposable was more than six years, making the prescription period ten years under the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Rizal had jurisdiction to try the violation of the conditional pardon. While the Court of First Instance of Cavite imposed the original sentence, the violation of the pardon's conditions, which is the subject of the present prosecution, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Rizal. The present proceeding is not a continuation of the former one but a new, independent proceeding concerning subsequent facts. Therefore, the venue for the prosecution of the violation of the pardon is properly Rizal. On Issue 2: The Court found no merit in the appellant's defense of prescription. The appellant argued that the violation was punishable by prision correccional in its minimum grade, prescribing after four years under Act No. 3585. However, the Court clarified that Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if the penalty remitted by the pardon is higher than six years, the convict shall suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence. In this case, the remitted penalty was six years, six months, and fourteen days, which is more than six years. Thus, the penalty imposable was the unexpired portion of the original sentence. The Court further reasoned that the allowance for good conduct under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the appellant had not served the remitted penalty, and thus, there was no basis to consider his good conduct during service. Since the penalty imposable was more than six years, it does not prescribe after four years but after eight years under Act No. 3585. Moreover, the violation is penalized by the Revised Penal Code, not a special law, and its prescription, as regulated by Article 90 of the same Code, is ten years. As eight years had not elapsed from the time the appellant was found guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in band with injuries by final judgment on October 27, 1932, nor from the time he committed the crime on October 27, 1930, the violation had not prescribed.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction to try a violation of a conditional pardon rests with the court of the province where the violation occurred, irrespective of the court that imposed the original sentence. Furthermore, the prescription period for such violations is determined by the penalty prescribed by law; if the remitted penalty exceeds six years, the convict must suffer the unserved portion of the original sentence, and the prescription period is ten years under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, not four years as contended by the appellant. Allowances for good conduct under Article 97 are not applicable as the sentence was not served.