CARLOS TOLEDANO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. FELIX SEVERINO, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Occidental Negros which denied the appellant’s petition for habeas
corpus.

The appellant appealed from the order denying his petition, and now submits
to this Court the following assignment of errors:

“1. The trial court erred in not finding that it lacks jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner, and over the crime he has committed.

“2. The trial court erred in sentencing him to serve the unexpired portion of
a sentence for a crime committed prior to the Japanese Invasion.

“3. The trial court erred in not giving him his liberty.”

(I) The first and third assignments of error do not deserve a serious
consideration.

Appellant’s contention that the court a quo had no jurisdiction over
the person of the appellant is untenable, for it is plain that the appellant,
having filed a petition for habeas corpus with the court, the latter had
acquired jurisdiction of the person of the appellant.

And as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the lower court over the crime
committed by the appellant, suffice it to say that said appellant was not tried
and convicted by the said court. In this habeas corpus proceeding the
lower court denied only the release of the appellant, because there was no
showing that the trial court which convicted him had no jurisdiction over the
crime and the person of the appellant, and to impose the penalty imposed upon
him.

(II) The second assignment of error is not meritorious also, for the lower
court did not sentence the appellant to serve the unexpired portion of the
sentence he was serving for a crime committed prior to the Japanese invasion.
What the lower court did was only to deny the petition for habeas corpus,
for the reason that the appellant was being legally detained since he was
serving the unexpired portion of his sentence. The lower court did not try the
appellant for evasion or violation of sentence under article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code, which requires a new prosecution, previous trial and the imposition
of another penalty if convicted of said offense.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed is affirmed with costs against
the appellant.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon,
Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.