MIGUEL FLORES Y CAUBALIJO, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus originally filed in
this Court claiming that petitioner is being deprived of his liberty
illegally by the respondent.

It is alleged that petitioner was on July 22, 1949, indicted
before the Court of First Instance of Bohol with other persons for
illegal possession of explosives, and that when petitioner was
arraigned, together with his co-accused, he pleaded guilty to the
charge; that he was sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
that he was committed to prison on May 17, 1950 to serve his sentence
which commenced to run on April 10, 1950; that he has fully served his
sentence, considering the allowance to which he is entitled for good
behavior; that about the end of June, 1952, he was notified by the
prison authorities that as a result of the appealed interposed by his
co-accused, the sentence imposed upon them was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and that, being one of those who appealed, he should be kept in
confinement pursuant to the sentence imposed by the latter court; that
it is not true that he appealed from the decision of the court of
origin, the truth being that he pleaded guilty and began serving his
sentence on April 10, 1950; and that, therefore, his continuance in
prison under the decision of the Court of Appeals constitutes a
deprivation of his liberty without due process of law.

The Solicitor General, in the return he submitted for
respondent, claims that petitioner has not yet served his sentence in
full for the reason that he is one of those who appealed from the
decision of the court a quo to the Court of Appeals, finding them
guilty of the crime charged; that the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision with respect to petitioner and acquitted seventeen (17) of his
co-accused; that, as a result of the appeal, petitioner began serving
his sentence on October 9, 1951, so that the penalty imposed upon him
should expire on June 8, 1954; and that, giving him credit for
preventive imprisonment (9 months and 3 days), for his work as sentenced
prisoner (2 months and 29 days), and allowance for good conduct (2
months and 25 days), he should be due for release on March 12, 1953 at
the earliest.

We have gone over the pertinent portion of the brief submitted
by the Solicitor General in connection with the appeal interposed by the
accused in the instant case, as well as the decision of the Court of
Appeals promulgated on October 9, 1951, and we are satisfied that the
claim of the Solicitor General that petitioner is one of those who
appealed from the decision in question, is correct. The Court of
Appeals, in affirming the decision of the trial court, stated petitioner
is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed the
sentence as to him. The court even went as far as stating that
petitioner is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty because he was indicted under a special law.

Petition is denied.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes
and Jugo, JJ., concur.
Pablo, J., no part.