PARTIES:

Petitioner: WILFREDO TORRES Y SUMULONG

Respondents: HON. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
PARDONS AND PAROLE, and THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS

FACTS:
1978, Torres was convicted of estafa. In 1979, he was pardoned by the
president w/ the condition that he shall not violate any penal laws again.
Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner
prescribed by law. Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was
consequently released from confinement. In 1982, Torres was charged with
multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986, Gonzales petitioned for the cancellation of
Torres pardon. Hence, the president cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed
the issue before the SC averring that the Exec Dept 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.

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.

HELD: In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned

and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon, the
Executive Department has two options: (1) Section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code, a purely executive act, not subject to judicial scrutiny,
or (2) Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, a judicial act consisting of trial
for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon.

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.

Under art. 159 of the RPC, parolee or convict who is regarded as having
violated the provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted and convicted
by final judgment before he can be made to suffer the penalty prescribed.
In the case at bar, President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner
under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That choice is an
exercise of the Presidents executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial
scrutiny.

*Who determines if violated? The PRESIDENT. When the person was

conditionally pardoned it was a generous exercise by the Chief Executive of
his constitutional prerogative. The acceptance thereof by the convict or
prisoner carrie[d] with it the authority or power of the Executive to determine
whether a condition or conditions of the pardon has or have been violated. To
no other department of the Government [has] such power been entrusted.