[ G.R. No. L-1133. November 29, 1946 ] 77 Phil. 698
[ G.R. No. L-1133. November 29, 1946 ]
CATALINA G. INDAC, WIFE OF PRISONER SANTIAGO INDAC, IN HIS BEHALF, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
Petitioner, the wife of prisoner Santiago Indac, prays for his release from confinement, alleging in substance: (1) that in September, 1943, he was sentenced, for theft, by the Manila Court of First Instance, to imprisonment for not less than eleven nor more than twenty-four years, (2) that he has already served three (3) years and six (6) months, which is the maximum imposable under our laws for the offense he had committed, (3) that the penalty is illegal, excessive and unauthorized, (4) that his crimenished during Japanese occupation and (5) that such sentence, being tinged with political color, should be held to have ipso facto ceased upon the re having consisted of theft against the Japanese imperial army—of scrap iron, electrical cables and fixtures—was sabotage, heavily re-occupation of the Islands by the American forces and the restoration of the Commonwealth.
The Solicitor General states in his return that Santiago Indac is held in the respondent’s custody by virtue of two commitments, namely:
“1. Criminal case No. 2332 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, for qualified theft, the penalty imposed being from 2 years, 11 months and 10 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days and P920 indemnity.
“2. Criminal case No. 2333 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, for theft, the penalty imposed being from 8 years, 8 months and 1 day to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days, and P24,919.90 indemnity.”
He then explains that for the theft of supplies of the Japanese army valued at P24,919.90 (criminal case No. 2333) the prisoner could have been sentenced only to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum. He would not agree to the proposition that the crime and the judgment were political in nature. He finally concludes that, with the reduction of the penalty in criminal case No. 2333, the writ should be denied.
When the case was called for hearing, petitioner appeared without counsel. Asked whether she wanted legal assistance she answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, we designated Mr. Segundo L. A. Gonzales to assist her, and set the case again for oral argument. Said attorney de oficio reported to the court that after examining the expediente he had to agree to the Government’s conclusion and recommendation.
As there is no question about the commitment in criminal case No. 2332 wherein the maximum penalty extends to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days, and as the prisoner has served only three years and six months, it is clear that Santiago Indac may not legally be released at this time, even if his conviction in criminal case No. 2333 is annulled as prayed by petitioner. But should it be annulled? We have no copy of the decision. The mere fact that the stolen goods belonged to the Japanese army does not, in the eyes of the law, excuse the deed, specially if the thief committed the act for his own personal benefit—not in pursuance of the resistance movement. It must be remembered that criminal activities in opposition to the forces and agents of the Japanese empire are punishable under the laws of the Philippines, although the authors thereof may apply for the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation dated September 7, 1946. While it is true that the petition calls the prisoner’s offense as “sabotage,” however, it makes no assertion that it was performed in pursuance of guerrilla activities or in furtherance of the underground plans.
As to the reduction of the prisoner’s sentence in criminal case No. 2333, the record does not sufficiently describe the true circumstances surrounding the offense. On the other hand, this might be a case properly to be submitted to one of the Boards created by the above Amnesty Proclamation.
Wherefore, without presently deciding the extent to which the penalty in criminal case No. 2333 may be reduced, the court believes that prisoner’s release may not now be decreed. Of course, this will be without prejudice to any request that may be addressed to the Amnesty Board and to any subsequent petition after the prisoner shall have served or about to have served the sentence in criminal case No. 2332, Petition denied. No costs.
Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ, concur.