Alvarez v. Director of Prisons
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Narciso Alvarez y Cortes was convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Court of First Instance of Manila. Subsequently, while serving this sentence, he escaped from prison on two separate occasions. For these escapes, he was prosecuted and convicted for evasion of service of sentence in multiple cases. Procedural History: Following his convictions for murder and subsequent escapes, Alvarez was granted an absolute pardon by the President of the Philippines on December 23, 1946, which remitted the sentence for the murder conviction. However, the Director of Prisons maintained Alvarez's detention, asserting that the pardon did not affect the sentences imposed for the two separate instances of evading service of his original sentence, nor the conviction for illegal possession of a firearm. Alvarez then filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing his illegal detention. The Petition: The petitioner, Narciso Alvarez y Cortes, seeks release through a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his absolute pardon for the crime of murder should also encompass and nullify the subsequent sentences for evasion of service of sentence and illegal possession of a firearm. He argues that these subsequent offenses are dependent on the original sentence and thus affected by the pardon. The respondent, the Director of Prisons, counters that the pardon only applied to the murder conviction and not to the independent offenses of evasion of sentence and illegal possession of a firearm, for which valid sentences are still being served.
Issue(s)
Whether an absolute pardon for the crime of murder also remits the penalties for evasion of service of sentence committed prior to the pardon. Whether the petitioner is illegally detained despite the pardon.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is denied. The absolute pardon granted to the petitioner for the crime of murder does not affect or carry with it the remission of the penalties imposed upon him for the offense of evasion of service of sentence, which were committed prior to the pardon.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether an absolute pardon for the crime of murder also remits the penalties for evasion of service of sentence committed prior to the pardon: The Court held that the offense of evasion of service of sentence is a distinct and independent crime, defined and penalized under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. It is not merely an incident or dependent upon the original sentence for which the pardon was granted. The purpose of the law in penalizing evasion of service of sentence is to prevent criminals from defeating the ends of justice, whether through reform or punishment. Therefore, an absolute pardon for the underlying crime does not erase the subsequent offense of evading the service of that sentence. The Court distinguished this from the violation of a conditional pardon, which is not a substantive offense but an infringement of the terms of the pardon itself, leading to the enforcement of the original sentence. In this case, the petitioner committed the evasions of sentence while the original murder conviction and sentence were still in full force and effect, making them separate offenses. The penalties for these evasions are independent of the penalty for murder and are not affected by the pardon of the latter. On whether the petitioner is illegally detained despite the pardon: The Court found that the petitioner was lawfully detained because he had not yet completed serving the total penalty imposed for the evasions of sentence and illegal possession of firearm. These sentences, totaling six (6) years, four (4) months, and twenty-one (21) days, commenced from the date of his pardon for murder. Since the pardon did not remit these penalties, his continued detention to serve them was legal. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised the issue of double jeopardy for some of the convictions, and even if he had, it would not alter the fact that he was still legally serving sentences for distinct offenses.
Main Doctrine
An absolute pardon granted for a crime does not affect or carry with it the remission of penalties imposed for evasion of service of sentence committed prior to the pardon, as evasion of service of sentence is a distinct and independent offense.