PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2092     April 6, 1948

JUSTO CAMAT, Petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Respondent.

PERFECTO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner Camat was committed to the new Bilibid Prisons on June 30, 1944, to suffer six years' imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000 or suffer one year's subsidiary imprisonment, imposed upon him by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, for illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner alleges that he was sentenced as a guerrilla. On February 5, 1945, he was released from confinement by virtue of a mass conditional pardon issued by the Japanese detachment commander for the new Bilibid Prisons. On February 20, 1947, he was arrested, charged with robbery, and committed as a detention prisoner to the new Bilibid Prisons on February 25, 1947.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A year later, on February 25, 1948, upon the theory that the pardon granted to petitioner on February 5, 1945, was null and void, the Director of Prisons transferred his status as a detention prisoner to that of a convict.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner claims that the action of the Director of Prisons is illegal and that, as a result, petitioner has been restrained of his liberty to talk and receive his visitors once a week, confined to cells of convicted criminals, and made to wear prisoner's garb and work like an ordinary criminal, all of which are not and cannot be done to a detention prisoner who has the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that the transfer has been made in bad faith and with full knowledge that it is illegal because, while respondent took official notice of the majority decision of the Supreme Court that the pardon granted to petitioner is null and void, he refused to take cognizance of the decision of the Supreme Court in Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, L-49, November 12, 1945, 42 Off. Gaz., 198, declaring that the crime of illegal possession of firearms during the occupation is a political crime and that the decision of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction ceased to be good and valid ipso facto upon the liberation of the Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner prays that the Director of Prisons be ordered to immediately restore petitioner to his status as a detention prisoner, that the judgment of the Court of Special and Exclusive Jurisdiction be declared null and void, and that respondent be ordered prosecuted for the illegal transfer of the petitioner from detention to convicted prisoner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Solicitor General, in behalf of respondent Director of Prisons, recommended in his return of March 23, 1948, that petitioner Camat be restored to his former status as a detention prisoner, upon the nullity of his conviction for illegal possession of firearms during the occupation by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, in accordance with the decision in the Peralta case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As prayed for, the Director of Prisons is ordered to immediately restore petitioner Justo Camat, also known by the name of Jose or Josefino in the pleadings on record, to his former status as a detention prisoner, his conviction by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction for illegal possession of firearms having become null and void.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner's prayer that the Director of Prisons be prosecuted for the allegedly illegal transfer he made may be file by petitioner with the corresponding administrative or prosecuting officers, no action by this Court on the matter being necessary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Paras, Bengzon, Briones, and Padilla, JJ., concur.