[ G.R. No. 13085. December 17, 1917 ] 37 Phil. 322
[ G.R. No. 13085. December 17, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EXEQUIEL S. VILLALON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The accused appeals from a decision of the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge of first instance, city of Manila, finding that the condition of a pardon granted by the Honorable Francis Burton Harrison, Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, has been violated, and ordering the recommitment of the accused in Bilibid Prison for the unexpired portion of his original sentence.
The application of the assistant fiscal of the city of Manila to the Court of First Instance for the arrest of Exequiel S. Villalon, the accused, and an investigation of the facts and action thereon, containing as it does the undisputed facts, is here quoted in full:
“Comes now the undersigned and to this Honorable Court respectfully states:
“1. That Exequiel S. Villalon about the 5th day of May, 1910, was convicted and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the crime of illegal marriage to imprisonment for eight years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs;
“2. That on the 17th of November, 1913, the Hon. Francis Burton Harrison, Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, pardoned the said Exequiel S. Villalon as to the unexpired portion of the said sentence on condition that the accused would not again be guilty of any infraction of the law punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, a copy of which conditional pardon is as follows:
" ‘Office of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.—Manila, November 17, 1913. By authority of the President of the United States, the unexecuted portion of the sentence of imprisonment in the case of Exequiel Villalon, convicted by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija of illegal marriage and sentenced on June 5, 1910, to imprisonment for eight years and one day, is hereby remitted, on condition that he shall not again be guilty of any infraction of the law punishable by imprisonment for one year or more. Should the condition stated be violated, Exequiel Villalon will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 1524.
" ‘Upon acceptance of this pardon, Exequiel Villalon will be released from confinement. Francis Burton Harrison, Governor-General.’
“3. That in violation of the conditional pardon above set out, the said accused Exequiel S. Villalon, on or about the 17th of November, 1915, in the city of Manila, committed and was charged with the crime of estafa, and after trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila the said accused was sentenced on the 25th day of March, 1916, in accordance with article 535, paragraph 1, in connection with article 534, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, to imprisonment for six months of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P269.25 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs; and
“4. That the accused Exequiel S. Villalon appealed from said sentence to the Supreme Court, which court after due hearing affirmed the sentence appealed from on November 24, 1916.
“Wherefore, the undersigned, assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respectfully asks this honorable court to order the appearance of the accused, Exequiel S. Villalon, before this court; that due investigation be made of the facts set forth in this petition; that it be declared that the accused, Exequiel S. Villalon, has violated the conditions of the pardon of November 17, 1913, and that the said accused be reincarcerated to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence, and further asks whatever else may be deemed proper by this court in the premises. Angel Roco, assistant prosecuting attorney.
“Subscribed and sworn to before me on June 7, 1917, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, by Angel Roco, assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila. Ramon Avancena, judge, Court of First Instance.”
The assignments of error concern the question of whether or not there has been a violation of the pardon granted by the Governor-General. The condition of the pardon is “that he (Villalon) shall not again be guilty of any infraction of the law punishable by imprisonment for one year or more.” Recall here that Villalon was prosecuted for the crime of estafa, that he was convicted and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor, etc., and that the limits of the penalty prescribed by the articles of the Penal Code under which convicted are two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years and four months of presidio correctional.
“Punishable” is defined in the dictionaries as “deserving of or liable to punishment.” The term refers to the possible not to the actual sentence. It is concerned with the penalty which may be, and not which is, imposed. Villalon, in committing the crime of estafa and in receiving sentence for six months, broke the condition of his pardon just as effectively as if he had been convicted of the same crime and sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment. The only difference is that the court did not, in its discretion, find and apply some aggravating circumstance. Undoubtedly what the Governor-General intended to except as favorable to the person pardoned were mere convictions for misdemeanors in contrast to what we may term, broadly speaking, felonies. Since, therefore, Villalon, in committing the crime of estafa, was liable thereby to imprisonment for more than a year, he violated both the letter and the spirit of his pardon. The American authorities are a unit in corroborating” the views here enunciated. (See U. S. vs. Watkinds [1881], 6 Fed., 152; People vs. Hughes [1893], 137 N. Y., 29; Benton vs. Commonwealth [1893], 89 Va., 570; 7 Words and Phrases, PP. 48, 49.)
The decision of the trial court is affirmed. The accused shall be reincarcerated in Bilibid Prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence imposed upon him for the crime, of illegal marriage by the judge of first instance of Nueva Ecija on June 5, 1910; the costs of both instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Araullo, and Avancena, JJ., concur.