Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 332 views

    Torres V The Director

    Uploaded by

    MariaAyraCelinaBatacan
    Torres was convicted of estafa in 1979 and granted a conditional pardon by the president that if he committed another crime, his original sentence would be imposed. In 1982, Torres was charged with new crimes and his pardon was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential cancellation of a conditional pardon does not require a final conviction, as the president has authority to determine if terms were breached. It does not violate due process to recommit the person to serve the original sentence before judicial proceedings conclude for the new alleged crimes. The cancellation and recommitment in this case were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Torres V The Director

    Uploaded by

    MariaAyraCelinaBatacan
    332 views1 page
    Torres was convicted of estafa in 1979 and granted a conditional pardon by the president that if he committed another crime, his original sentence would be imposed. In 1982, Torres was charged with new crimes and his pardon was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential cancellation of a conditional pardon does not require a final conviction, as the president has authority to determine if terms were breached. It does not violate due process to recommit the person to serve the original sentence before judicial proceedings conclude for the new alleged crimes. The cancellation and recommitment in this case were valid.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Torres v the Director

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Torres was convicted of estafa in 1979 and granted a conditional pardon by the president that if he committed another crime, his original sentence would be imposed. In 1982, Torres was charged with new crimes and his pardon was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential cancellation of a conditional pardon does not require a final conviction, as the president has authority to determine if terms were breached. It does not violate due process to recommit the person to serve the original sentence before judicial proceedings conclude for the new alleged crimes. The cancellation and recommitment in this case were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    332 views1 page

    Torres V The Director

    Uploaded by

    MariaAyraCelinaBatacan
    Torres was convicted of estafa in 1979 and granted a conditional pardon by the president that if he committed another crime, his original sentence would be imposed. In 1982, Torres was charged with new crimes and his pardon was cancelled. The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential cancellation of a conditional pardon does not require a final conviction, as the president has authority to determine if terms were breached. It does not violate due process to recommit the person to serve the original sentence before judicial proceedings conclude for the new alleged crimes. The cancellation and recommitment in this case were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TORRES V THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

    G.R. No. 122338


    December 29, 1995
    FACTS:
    In 1979, Torres was convicted of estafa and was pardoned by the president with the condition that if he
    shall violate any penal law again, his sentence will be carried out. Petitioner accepted the conditional
    pardon and was released from prison. However, by 1982, the Board of Pardons and Parole
    recommended to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to Torres because
    Torres had been charged with twenty counts of estafa before, and convicted of sedition. His pardon was
    cancelled. He appealed the issue before the Supreme Court. He contended that his pardon should not
    have been cancelled since the judgment on the new estafa cases were still on appeal. Through his wife
    and children, he petitioned to be released from prison alleging that he was denied due process, and that
    his constitutional rights to be presumed innocent and to a speedy trial were violated upon his
    recommitment to prison.
    Issue: Whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before the
    petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon
    and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence.

    Ruling: Where a conditional pardonee has allegedly breached a condition of a pardon, the President
    who opts to proceed against him under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code need not wait for
    a judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime or for his conviction therefore by final
    judgment, in order to effectuate the recommitment of the pardonee to prison.
    It did not matter that Torres was allegedly been acquitted in two of the three criminal cases filed against
    him subsequent to his conditional pardon, and that the third case remains pending for thirteen (13)
    years in apparent violation of his right to a speedy trial.
    Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been judicially adjudged as illegal or
    unlawful. The incarceration of Torres is legal since he would have served his final sentence for his first
    conviction until November 2, 2000, had he not violated the conditions of the pardon and had thus had it
    revoked.
    Lastly, only the President has the prerogative to reinstate the pardon if in his own judgment.Courts have
    no authority to interfere with the grant by the President of a pardon to a convicted criminal.A final
    judicial pronouncement as to the guilt of a pardonee is not a requirement for the President to
    determine whether or not there has been a breach of the terms of a conditional pardon.

    You might also like