Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Torres v.

G.R. No. 76872. July 23, 1987
Topic: Evasion of service of sentence: Other cases of evasion of service of sentence [violation of
conditional pardon] (Art. 159)
 In 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
 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 Dep’t 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 required 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
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 President’s 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.

The Grant and Determination of breach of condition of pardon is purely executive acts and it is no
subject to judicial scrutiny under Sec. 64 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Violation of conditional pardon - prior conviction by final judgment of subsequent crime necessary
before parolee or convict may suffer the penalty prescribed in Article 159.