IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  ANDRES M. CULANAG, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

This is an appeal in a petition for habeas corpus filed by Andres
Culanag, who is serving sentence in our national penitentiary, praying that the
Solicitor Gene­ral be denied any further extension of time to file his brief
thereby showing his earnest desire that his appeal be given the necessary
priority in the disposal of cases pending in this Court.  The Solicitor General having filed his brief
late, We proceed to consider the merits of the case on the basis of the records
and appellant’s brief.

Andres Culanag was accused on November 6, 1961 of falsification of public document in
an information filed in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte (Crim.
Case No. 671).  Alleged therein was that
on or about June 19, 1960, in Iligan City, he subscribed and swore to a
petition for commission as notary public for and in the City and Province of
Cotabato, falsely claiming to be one Ross V. Pangilinan, to be a graduate of
the College of Law of the University of the Visayas, to have passed the bar
examinations and to have been admitted to the practice of law.

After trial, he was found on December 16, 1961 guilty as charged
and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one (1)
day of arresto mayor to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of P1,000.00.  Said judgment became final.  The accused was committed to the New Bilibid
Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal, for service of the sentence.

On July 9, 1962,
Culanag was discharged from the pe­nitentiary on parole.  Among the conditions of said re­lease were to
reside at Iligan City, not to change his residence without the consent of the
Board of Pardons and Parole, not to commit any crime, and that should he vio­late
any of the conditions, the remaining unexpired por­tion of the maximum sentence
imposed on him would again be in full force and effect.

Subsequently, on March
31, 1964, another information for falsification of a public
document was filed against him in the Municipal Court of Mamburao, provincial
capi­tal of Mindoro Occidental (Crim. Case No. 790).  Alleged this time was that on June 1, 1963,
he claimed to be one Ross V. Pangilinan and filed with the Clerk of Court of
the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro a sworn petition for commission
as notary public for and in the Province of Occidental Mindoro, falsely stating
that he is a law graduate of the University of Visayas, had passed the bar
examinations and been admitted to the practice of law.

Aside from this, an information was filed against him in the same
court on April 3, 1964, for
the offense of violation of conditional pardon under Article 159 of the Revised
Penal Code (Crim. Case No. 789).

Furthermore, on May 18, 1964, for violation of the condition of
his parole, Culanag was ordered arrested by the Board of Pardons and Parole and
delivered to the cus­tody of the Director of Prisons in Muntinlupa, Rizal, to
serve the remaining portion of his prison term imposed in Crim. Case No. 671 of
the Court of First Instance of La­nao del Norte.

After unsuccessfully moving to quash in Crim. Cases Nos. 789 and
790, pleading double jeopardy by contending that the falsification act charged
anew is the same as that involved in Crim. Case No. 671, Culanag pleaded guil­ty
on December 4, 1964 in said new criminal cases. 
And he was sentenced in Crim. Case No. 790, for falsifica­tion of public
document, to an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day
of arresto mayor to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional and a fine of P500.00 plus subsidiary
imprisonment.  As to Crim. Case No. 789,
for violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159, Revised Penal Code, he was
sentenced to imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor.

Andres Culanag started to serve these new prison sentences.  On December
22, 1964, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal (Sp. Proc. No. 5900). 
Petitioner’s contention therein was that the second falsification case
(Crim. Case No. 790) involved the same act of falsification as the first one
(Crim. Case No. 671), so that double jeopardy was attendant.  Said contention was rejected by the Court of
First Instance.  And this Court, on
appeal, affirmed the lower court, finding that the falsifications involved were
two different acts done at different times and in different places (Andres
Culanag v. Director of Prisons, L-25619, June 21, 1966).

Alleging that the prison sentences under Crim. Cases 789 and 790
have already been fully served by him, Culanag filed on December 13, 1966 another petition for habeas
corpus, in forma pauperis, in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal (Sp. Proc. No. 2004-P).  Raised as
issue was whe­ther petitioner has still to serve, in addition to the sentences
in Crim. Cases 789 and 790, the remaining unex­pired portion of his sentence in
Crim. Case No. 671; if so, he is not yet entitled to release;*
otherwise, he is.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the petition for
lack of merit.  Petitioner appealed.

Appellant’s stand is that a person released on parole cannot be
re-arrested and made to serve the remaining un­expired portion of his sentence
under Sec. 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, if the State prosecutes
and has him convicted for violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159,
Revised Penal Code.  And since he has
been convicted and has served sentence for violation of conditional pardon
under Art. 159 (Crim. Case No. 789), Revised Penal Code, he now argues that he
can no longer be made to serve the rest of his sentence in Crim. Case No. 671,
from which he was paroled.

The power of the Chief Executive under Section 64 (i) of the Rev.
Administrative Code to arrest and re-incarcerate any person who violates his
parole condition, stands even in the face of prosecution, conviction and
service of sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159, Rev.
Penal Code (Sales v. Director of Prisons, 87 Phil. 492).  There is no double jeopardy, because the sen­tences
refer to different offenses; in this case, to fal­sification (Crim. Case 671)
and to violation of conditio­nal pardon (Crim. Case 789).  Nor is there deprivation of liberty without
due process of law because in both cases he was found guilty and sentenced,
after due process of law.  And before
full service of said sentences, he is not yet entitled to liberty (People v.
Tan, L-21805, Feb. 25, 1967).

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from, dismissing the
petition for habeas corpus for lack of merit, is affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.

*
Appellant states that remaining portion of term unserved would extend up to May 29, 1969 (Brief for Appellant, p.
2).