ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 10849   January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO<br /><br />033 Phil 202

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10849. January 14, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS IGNACIO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Irineo Javier for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PARDON; VIOLATION OF TERMS OF A CONDITIONAL PARDON. — A violation of the conditions of a conditional pardon, by the person pardoned, by which said person obtains his liberty, has the effect of forfeiting his right to liberty thereunder. When a pardoned person violates the conditions of his pardon, he is left in the exact situation that he was when the pardon was issued, and the original sentence may be enforced against him. If the conditions of the pardon have been violated, it thereby becomes void and the person may be arrested and compelled to undergo so much of the original sentence as he had not suffered at the time of his release.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte. It is an appeal from a decision of the lower court, finding that the defendant was guilty of having violated the conditions of a pardon. The lower court held an investigation and found that the defendant had violated the conditions of his pardon, and in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of Act No. 1524, ordered him returned to the institution wherein he had been confined before his pardon, for the purpose of serving the unexpired portion of the original sentence. The facts seem to be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On the 16th of February, 1912, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of lesiones graves, as defined and punished under paragraph 4 of article 416 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to be imprisoned in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 1438. Said sentence contained the following statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The guilt, therefore, of the accused Luis Ignacio of the crime charged against him having been satisfactorily proven by his own free and spontaneous confession, and said accused being under fifteen years of age, the court, in conformity with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 1438 of the Philippine Commission, orders that, instead of directing the incarceration of said accused in any jail or prison, he be confined in an establishment in Manila which the Governor-General designates to serve as a reform school, until said minor reaches his majority or until he be reformed as the said establishment deems expedient, with the consent of his father, Bernabe Ignacio, who has so manifested in the summons for his appearance, which is filed in the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later, and on the 6th of May, 1914, the Governor-General pardoned the defendant on the condition "that he shall not again be guilty of any misconduct," and ordered his release from confinement. On the 4th of January, 1915, the defendant was again sentenced for the crime of lesiones graves.

    On the 1st of February, 1915, the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte presented a complaint in the Court of First Instance, setting out the above facts, and prayed that the court should make an investigation of said facts, and if found to be true, to order the recommitment of the defendant to the institution in which he had been confined, under the sentence of February 16, 1912, for the purpose of complying with the sentence in that case. Upon the presentation of said complaint, the defendant was brought before the court and an investigation was held. After hearing the defendant and his counsel, the Honorable J. r. Burgett, judge, in a carefully prepared opinion, in which the foregoing facts are all set out, ordered the recommitment and confinement of the defendant, Luis Ignacio, in the institution in which he had been ordered imprisoned under said sentence of February 16, 1912, in order that he might be required to serve the unexpired portion of said sentence. The lower court further ordered that the recommitment and confinement of the defendant in said institution, in accordance with the sentence of February 16, 1912, should not take place until after he had served out the second sentence which he was then serving in the provincial jail of Ilocos Norte, in accordance with the sentence of January 4, 1915. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

    The defendant accepted the conditional pardon and thereby secured his release from imprisonment. Having accepted the conditional pardon, he is bound by its terms. The record shows that he had been guilty of misconduct after his conditional pardon. By such misconduct, he forfeited his pardon and his right to liberty thereunder. When a pardoned person violates the conditions of his pardon, he is left in the exact situation in which he was when the pardon was granted, and the original sentence may be enforced against him. (Ex parte Wells, 18 Howard [U. S. ], 307; Ex parte Hawkins, 61 Ark., 321; 30 L. R. A., 736; 54 Am. St. Rep., 209; Kennedy’s Case, 135 Mass., 48; Ex parte Marks, 64 Cal., 29.)

    If the condition of the pardon upon which the accused secures his release from imprisonment has been violated by him, after his release, the pardon thereby becomes void and the petitioner may be arrested and compelled to undergo so much of the original sentence as he had not suffered at the time of his release. (Alvarez v. State, 50 Fla., 24; 111 Am. St. Rep., 102; Fuller v. State, 122 ala., 32; 45 L. R. A., 502; Ex parte Marks, supra; State v. Horne, 7 L. R. A., N. S., 719.)

    The law is well settled that where the criminal accepts the pardon he accepts it subject to all its valid conditions and limitations, and will be held bound to compliance therewith. (Ex parte Alvarez, 50 Fla., 24.)

    For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10849   January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO<br /><br />033 Phil 202


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED