PRISONER ROMEO CANARY, PETITIONER, VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

Petitioner invokes the protection of the constitutional provision
on double jeopardy^[1] in
this habeas corpus proceeding filed with this Court on October 26, 1970.  He alleged that he is under confinement in
the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa,
Rizal, by virtue of judgments in two criminal cases^[2]
arising from the single crime of evasion of a service of sentence, he, having
escaped from Muntinlupa, Rizal
on July 6, 1963, while
legally serving his time for a previous offense.  It is his contention that in connection with
the afore­said escape on July 6, 1963,
which gave rise to one offense, two courts of first instance had imposed upon
him two different penalties, thus yielding the conclusion that the prohibition
against being twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense was
violated.

On the next day, the writ of habeas corpus prayed for was issued
by this Court, respondent Director of Prisons being required to file an answer
to the petition not later than November
2, 1970.

With the return and answer of respondent Director of Prisons
through the Solicitor General, an entirely different complexion was placed on
the matter.  As set forth therein:  ”Before the said writ of habeas corpus was
served upon respondent on October 28, 1970, the petitioner was and now is in
his custody in New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa, Rizal, by virtue of
the final judgment rendered and warrant of commitment issued by the Court of
First Instance of Manila in Criminal Case No. 29028 entitled People of the
Philippines vs. Romeo Canary, duly convicting petitioner of the crime of
homicide and sentencing him to eight years of prision
mayor as minimum of seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion
temporal as maximum, which sentence petitioner began to serve on
February 4, 1959 and has not yet completed serving.  Respondent is also detaining petitioner by virtue
of the final judgment rendered and warrant of commitment issued by the Court of
First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. 990-R
entitled People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Canary, duly convicting petitioner
of the crime of evasion of service of sentence and sentencing him to two years,
four months and one day of prision correccional, which petitioner will begin to serve
after he shall have served out his sentence for homicide.”^[3]

Then came this paragraph: 
“Respondent does not deny that after petitioner escaped from
respondent’s custody on July 6, 1963 and was recaptured and recommitted to
respondent’s custody on November 2, 1963, petitioner was charged with evasion
of sentence in both the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, and that the Court of First
Instance of Manila sentenced him upon his plea of guilty to a term of
imprisonment of three years, six months and twenty-one days, while the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, also upon hi s plea of
guilty, sentenced him to suffer an imprisonment of two years, four months and
one day.”^[4]

The circumstances of petitioner’s detention was explained in the
return and answer thus:  “Respondent
is detaining petitioner as aforesaid by virtue of petitioner’s conviction for
the crime of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Criminal Case
No. 29028 and of his conviction for the crime of evasion of sentence by the
Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No.
990-R, disregarding altogether the judgment of conviction and warrant of
commitment issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Criminal Case No.
73142 for having been rendered without jurisdiction.”^[5]
The lack of merit in the petition is apparent from this allegation in the
return and answer of respondent Director: 
“By respondent’s computation, petitioner shall have served his
sentence for homicide on December 21,
1971, whereupon he will begin to serve his sentence for evasion of
sentence and shall have served it out on October 24, 1973.”^[6]

Petitioner clearly is not thus entitled to liberty.  The petition for habeas corpus must be
dismissed.

While the petition for habeas corpus exists to provide a speedy
and expeditious remedy to safeguard the liberty of any individual from illegal
confinement, the power of inquiry by the judiciary is not as broad once it is
shown that the person alleged to be thus deprived of his liberty is in the
custody of an officer like respondent Director of Prisons by virtue of a
judgment or order of a court of record, unless the lack of jurisdiction of such
court could be shown.  It is now
well-settled, of course, that a deprivation of a constitutional right suffices
to oust the court of jurisdiction and, under the circumstances,
habeas corpus would be the appropriate remedy to assail the validity of such
detention.^[7]
If petitioner here were able to demonstrate that there was a transgression of
his right not to be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense,
our duty is clear.  His freedom should be
restored to him.  With the allegation in
the return and answer of respondent Director of Prisons, however, that he is
serving a sentence for homicide, the validity of which petitioner has not
disputed, his resort to the remedy of habeas corpus is, to say the least,
premature.  Without passing, then, on the
question of the anomalous situation arising from two courts of first instance
sentencing petitioner for the identical offense of evasion of service of
sentence, we rule that this special proceeding lacks merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition for habeas corpus is
dismissed.  Without
pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Teehankee, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Dizon and
Makasiar, JJ., on official leave.

^[1]
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.” Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 20, Constitution of the Philippines.

^[2]
Criminal Case No. 73142 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and Criminal
Case No. 990-R of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

^[3] Return and Answer, par. I.

^[4] Ibid, par. II.

^[5] Ibid, par. III.

^[6] Ibid, par. IV.

^[7]
Cf. Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924);
Harden v. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741 (1948); Abriol
v. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525 (1949); Chavez v.
Court of Appeals, L-29169, Aug. 19,
1968, 24 SCRA 663; Celeste v. People,
L-31435, Jan.
30, 1970, 31 SCRA 391.