Piao v. Director of Prisons
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Co Piao (alias Cho Chi Lip), was initially convicted on July 27, 1943, by the Court of First Instance of Manila for robbery in an uninhabited house. He received a sentence of 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional plus an additional 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day for being a habitual delinquent. His sentence commenced on July 27, 1943. 2. Procedural History: On February 5, 1945, the petitioner was granted a conditional pardon and released on February 9, 1945. Subsequently, on July 19, 1945, he was convicted for violating Article 190 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. On May 7, 1946, he was convicted for violating his conditional pardon and sentenced to 8 months and 1 day of prision correccional. He has been detained since July 9, 1945. 3. The Petition: This is a habeas corpus proceeding initiated by the petitioner. The respondent Director of Prisons endorses the prayer for release, acknowledging that the conditional pardon granted on February 5, 1945, was void as it was issued by Japanese Army authorities after their power had ceased. Consequently, the conviction for violating this void pardon is also considered ineffectual. Based on the valid sentences from criminal cases Nos. 2302 and 71005, and considering good conduct time allowances, the respondent calculates that the petitioner's term of imprisonment expired on December 25, 1946.
Issue(s)
Whether the conditional pardon granted by the Japanese Army Detachment Commander was valid. Whether the conviction for violation of conditional pardon was valid. Whether the petitioner is entitled to release via habeas corpus.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is granted, and an order for the petitioner's release will issue forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the conditional pardon: The Court declared the conditional pardon granted to the petitioner on February 5, 1945, by the Japanese Army Detachment Commander to be absolutely null and void and of no legal force and effect. This ruling was based on the principle established in the case of Sameth (76 Phil., 613), which held that any pardon granted by the Japanese authorities after the cessation of their power in the Philippines was invalid. The pardon was granted on February 5, 1945, a date when the power of the enemy forces of occupation had already ipso facto ceased, rendering the pardon legally ineffectual. On the validity of the conviction for violation of conditional pardon: Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner in criminal case No. 74317 for the violation of the aforementioned void pardon was also deemed ineffectual. Since the pardon itself had no legal standing, there could be no violation thereof, and thus, the subsequent conviction based on such a violation could not stand. The information in criminal case No. 74317 explicitly stated that the pardon was granted by the "Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Army of occupation of the Philippines" while the petitioner was serving sentence, reinforcing the conclusion that it was an act of the occupying forces. On the entitlement to release via habeas corpus: The respondent Director of Prisons, through the Solicitor General, submitted a computation of the petitioner's sentence, acknowledging the invalidity of the pardon and the conviction for its violation. This computation indicated that the petitioner's term of imprisonment under the only two valid sentences against him (criminal cases Nos. 2302 and 71005) had already expired. The computation, including deductions for good conduct time allowance as provided by Articles 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code, showed that the petitioner's service would have expired on December 25, 1946. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to immediate release.
Main Doctrine
A conditional pardon granted by the Japanese Army during its occupation of the Philippines, after the cessation of the enemy's power, is void and without legal force and effect. Consequently, a conviction for the violation of such a void pardon is also ineffectual.