Tesoro vs.

Director of Prisons
G.R. No. 46437
May 23, 1939
Petitioner-Appellant: Eufemio P. Tesoro
Respondent-Appellee: Director of Prisons
Ponente: J. Moran
Nature of Action: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance
Facts
Petitioner-appellant, Eufemio P. Tesoro was convicted with a crime of falsification of an official
document and ordered to serve the sentence provided by law.
On November 14, 1935, the Governor-General Frank Murphy granted the petitioner-appellant a
parole under certain conditions.
While serving the parole, the petitioner-appellant was charged with violation of the conditions
of his parole brought about by the alleged crime of adultery lodged to him by his brother-in-law.
Tesoro denied the said illicit relations with the complainants wife.
Given the strength of the report and papers supporting it, the Acting Chairman of the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence recommended to the President the arrest and reincarceration of the
petitioner-appellant.
And on February 19, 1938, the President issued an order to arrest and to commit the petitionerappellant under the custody of respondent-appellee, Director of Prisons by virtue of Section 64
(i) of the Administrative Code. Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the President, under Article VII of the 1987 Constitution has a right to order the arrest
and recommitment of petitioner-appellant herein.
Ruling
Yes. The order of arrest and recommitment of petitioner- appellant issued by the President is valid.
The Court held that the power to pardon given the President by the Constitution, upon such
conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose, includes the
power to grant and revoke paroles. If the omission of the power of parole in the Constitution is to be
construed as a denial thereof to the President, the effect would be to discharge unconditionally
parolees, who, before the adoption of the Constitution, have been released conditionally by the Chief
Executive. That such effect was never intended by the Constitutional Convention is beyond question.
Further, the Court ruled that the power to revoke paroles necessarily carries with it the power to
investigate and to inquire into the conduct of the parolees. Thus, in the exercise of this incidental
power, the President is allowed by law to seek assistance of any agency of the government or even of
any individual.
Hence, the determination of the violation of the conditional parole rests exclusively in the sound
judgment of the Chief Executive, the courts will not interfere, by way of review, with any of his findings.
1