Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 359 views

    Torres Vs Director of Bureau of Prisons

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    Petitioner Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. In 1986, the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole petitioned to cancel Torres' pardon. The president then cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still pending appeal and not yet final. The Supreme Court held that under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial conviction is needed for the president to determine a conditional pardon has been violated, as it is an executive act. The president opted to proceed under Section 64(i) and has authority

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Torres Vs Director of Bureau of Prisons

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    359 views2 pages
    Petitioner Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. In 1986, the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole petitioned to cancel Torres' pardon. The president then cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still pending appeal and not yet final. The Supreme Court held that under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial conviction is needed for the president to determine a conditional pardon has been violated, as it is an executive act. The president opted to proceed under Section 64(i) and has authority

    Original Description:

    xxxxxxx

    Original Title

    Torres vs Director of Bureau of Prisons

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. In 1986, the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole petitioned to cancel Torres' pardon. The president then cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still pending appeal and not yet final. The Supreme Court held that under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial conviction is needed for the president to determine a conditional pardon has been violated, as it is an executive act. The president opted to proceed under Section 64(i) and has authority

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    359 views2 pages

    Torres Vs Director of Bureau of Prisons

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    Petitioner Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. In 1986, the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole petitioned to cancel Torres' pardon. The president then cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still pending appeal and not yet final. The Supreme Court held that under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial conviction is needed for the president to determine a conditional pardon has been violated, as it is an executive act. The president opted to proceed under Section 64(i) and has authority

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PARTIES:

    Petitioner: WILFREDO TORRES Y SUMULONG


    Respondents: HON. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
    PARDONS AND PAROLE, and THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS

    FACTS:
    1978, Torres was convicted of estafa. In 1979, he was pardoned by the
    president w/ the condition that he shall not violate any penal laws again.
    Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner
    prescribed by law. Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was
    consequently released from confinement. In 1982, Torres was charged with
    multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986, Gonzales petitioned for the cancellation of
    Torres pardon. Hence, the president cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed
    the issue before the SC averring that the Exec Dept erred in convicting him
    for violating the conditions of his pardon because the estafa charges against
    him were not yet final and executory as they were still on appeal.

    ISSUE: whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is


    necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted
    for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve
    the balance of his original sentence.

    HELD: In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned


    and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon, the
    Executive Department has two options: (1) Section 64 (i) of the Revised
    Administrative Code, a purely executive act, not subject to judicial scrutiny,
    or (2) Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, a judicial act consisting of trial
    for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon.

    Where the President opts to proceed under Section 64 (i) of the Revised
    Administrative Code, no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent
    crime is necessary, much less conviction therefor by final judgment of a
    court, in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his
    conditional pardon.

    Under art. 159 of the RPC, parolee or convict who is regarded as having
    violated the provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted and convicted
    by final judgment before he can be made to suffer the penalty prescribed.
    In the case at bar, President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner
    under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That choice is an
    exercise of the Presidents executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial
    scrutiny.

    *Who determines if violated? The PRESIDENT. When the person was


    conditionally pardoned it was a generous exercise by the Chief Executive of
    his constitutional prerogative. The acceptance thereof by the convict or
    prisoner carrie[d] with it the authority or power of the Executive to determine
    whether a condition or conditions of the pardon has or have been violated. To
    no other department of the Government [has] such power been entrusted.

    You might also like