Torres vs.

Gonzales

In 1978, Torres was convicted of two counts of Estafa. A year later he was pardoned by President Aquino
with the condition that he shall not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, he was charged with 20 counts of
estafa (pending trial) while in 1985, he was convicted of sedition (pending appeal).

The Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation of the
conditional pardon granted to the petitioner. Hence, the president cancelled the pardon. respondent Minister
of Justice issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and Recommitment against petitioner.
The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his
sentence. He then appealed the issue before the Supreme Court averring that the Executive Department
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 and that he was deprived of his rights under
the due process clause of the Constitution.

Whether conviction by final judgment necessary before a person may be validly rearrested and recommitted
for violation of the terms of his condition pardon.

RULING

No. The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are
purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the proper consequences
of such breach, may be either a purely executive act, not subject to judicial scrutiny under Section 64 (i) of
the Revised Administrative Code; or it may be a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation
of a conditional pardon under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. 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.

Because due process is not semper et unique judicial process, and because the conditionally pardoned
convict had already been accorded judicial due process in his trial and conviction for the offense for which
he was conditionally pardoned, Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code is not afflicted with a
constitutional vice.

People vs. Parete

The two accused were charged with murder for having killed a co-prisoner in the Bilibid Prison. Appearing
that said accused is a quasi-recidivist, the Court, pursuant to Art. 160 of said Code, sentences him to the
death penalty.

Whether the lower court erred in appreciating Quasi-recidivism as an aggravating circumstance.

No. The allegations in the information pertaining to quasi-recidivism is sufficient, its essence being that a
person shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment for another crime before
beginning the service of such sentence or while serving the same.

People vs. Peralta

The accused together with 4 other people were charged of the crime of murder. The accused who are
prisoners in the Bilibid Prisons help one another, armed with wooden club, hit the victim on the different
parts of his body and by strangling the neck of the victim thereby inflicting several wounds on the latter's
body which caused his death.

Counsels de parte for the accused, contend that the allegation of quasi-recidivism is ambiguous, in that it
fails to state whether the offenses for which the defendants were serving sentence at the time of the
commission of the crime charged were penalized by the Revised Penal Code, or by a special law.

Whether the accused are quasi-recidivist and can be considered an aggravating circumstance.

Yes. As regards the counsels’ contention it makes no difference, for purposes of the effect quasi-
recidivism, under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, whether the crime for which an accused is
serving sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls under said Code or under a
special law.

The SC have examined the records of said defendants in the Bureau of Prisons and found that, at the
time of the commission of the crime of murder charged in this case, one of the accused (Alfredo Peralta)
was serving two sentences for Robbery and Frustrated Murder. He is declared to be a Habitual
delinquent for having been previously convicted of theft, attempted robbery with physical injuries, and
robbery.

People vs. Peralta

Two warring gangs inside the New Bilibid Prison known as “Sigue-Sigue” and “OXO” were preparing to
attend a mass at 7 a.m. However, a fight between the two rival gangs caused a big commotion in the
plaza where the prisoners were currently assembled. The fight was quelled and those involved where led
away to the investigation while the rest of the prisoners were ordered to return to their respective
quarters.

In the investigation, it was found out that the accused, “OXO” members, Amadeo Peralta, Andres
Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Paramog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna (six among the twenty-two
defendants charged therein with multiple murder), are also convicts confined in the said prisons by virtue
of final judgments.

They conspired, confederated and mutually helped and aided each other, with evident premeditation and
treachery, all armed with deadly weapons, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously killed
“Sigue-Sigue” sympathizers Jose Carriego, Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts confined in
the same institution, by hitting, stabbing, and striking them with ice picks, clubs and other improvised
weapons, pointed and/or sharpened, thereby inflicting upon the victims multiple serious injuries which
directly caused their deaths.

Whether the accused are quasi-recidivists.

Yes. as all of the six accused at the time of the commission of the offenses were serving sentences in the
New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa by virtue of convictions by final judgments the penalty for each offense
must be imposed in its maximum period, which is the mandate of the first paragraph of article 160 of the
Revised Penal Code. Viada observes, in apposition, that the severe penalty imposed on a quasi-recidivist
is justified because of his perversity and incorrigibility.