ANDRES CULANAG, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This
is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in
its Special Proceeding No. 5099, dismissing appellant’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.

The records show that
in an information dated November 6, 1961, docketed with the Court of
First Instance of Lanao del Norte as Criminal Case No. 671, the
petitioner-appellant, Andres Culanag, was accused of the crime of
falsification of public document. The information alleged that on or
about June 19, 1960, in Iligan City, said appellant claiming to be one
Ross V. Pangilinan subscribed and swore to before a notary public a
petition for commission as notary public for and in the City and
Province of Cotabato stating, among others, that he was a graduate of
the College of Law of the University of Visayas, had passed the bar
examinations and was admitted to the practice of law, which statements
were all false and untrue. On the basis of said information, after due
trial, the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, on December 16,
1961, declared him guilty of the offense charged and sentenced him to
an indeterminate imprisonment of from four months and one day to two
years, four months and one day, and to pay a fine of P1,000.00. The
appellant was committed to the new Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa, Bizal,
to serve the sentence imposed on him. On July 9, 1962 the appellant was
discharged from the insular penitentiary on parole, subject to certain
conditions, among which are that he should reside at Iligan City and
not change his residence without the consent by the Board of Pardons
and Parole, that he should not commit any crime, etc., and 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.

On
March 31, 1964, the appellant was accused by the Provincial Fiscal of
Occidental Mindoro of the crime of falsification of public documents
before the Municipal Court of Mamburao, the provincial capital of
Occidental Mindoro, docketed in said court as Criminal Case No.790. The
information in this case alleged that on June 1, 1963 said appellant
claiming to be one Ross V. Pangilinan filed with the Cleric of Court of
First Instance of Occidental Mindoro a sworn petition for commission as
Notary Public for and in the province of Occidental Mindoro, stating in
his petition, among others, that he is a graduate of the College of Law
of the University of Visayas, had passed the bar examinations and had
been in the practice of law, all of which statements were false.
Likewise, on April 3, 1964 the Provincial Fiscal of Occidental Mindoro
filed an information before the Municipal Court of Mamburao, docketed
as Criminal Case No. 789, charging the appellant with the offense of
violation of conditional pardon as defined in Article 159 of the
Revised Penal Code. The appellant filed a motion to quash the
informations in the two criminal cases that were filed against him in
the Minicipal Court of Mamburao, upon the ground of previous conviction
of the same offense (double Jeopardy), claiming that the crime of
falsification of public document of which he was being charged in the
municipal court of Mamburao is the same offense of which he was charged
and convicted in Criminal Case No. 671 in the Court of First Instance
of Lanao del Norte, and that the charge of violation of conditional
pardon “is in effect a part and parcel or which includes or is
necessarily included in the former offense charged in criminal case No.
671 of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte which convicted
the defendant.”^[1]

The motion to quash was denied by the court. On December 4, 1964, the
day set for the trial of the two cases, the appellant, assisted by
counsel de. oficlo. Atty. Wenceslao M. Adviento, pleaded guilty to the
informations in both cases. Forthwith the municipal judge of Kamburao
declared the appellant guilty of the crime of falsification of public
document in Criminal Case No. 790 and sentenced him to an indeterminate
imprisonment of from four months and one day to two years four months
and one day and a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency; and in Criminal Case No. 789 the Municipal Judge
declared the appellant guilty of the offense of violation of
conditional pardon as defined in Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced him to an imprisonment of four months, with all the
accessory penalties as provided by law. The appellant did not appeal
from the decisions of the Municipal Court of Mamburao in these two
criminal cases.

Incidentally, on May 18, 1964, the Board of
Pardons and Parole issued an order for the arrest of the appellant and
for his delivery to the custody of the Director of Prisons in
Mintinlupa, Rizal, to serve the remaining unexpired portion of the
prison term imposed on him by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del
Norte in Criminal Case No. 671, for having violated the conditions of
his parole. The appellant was committed to the provincial jail of
Occidental Mindoro preparatory to his being sent to the new Bilibid
Prison at Buntinlupa, Risal. In due time the appellant was committed to
the new Bilibid prison to serve the penalties imposed on him by the
Municipal Court of Hamburao in Criminal Cases Nos. 789 and 790 of said
court.

On
December 22, 1964, while being confined at the provincial Jail of
Occidental Mindoro, and anticipating that he would be sent to the new
Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa, Eizal, the appellant filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of
Riial. The petition was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5099 of said
court. In his petition, the appellant alleged that he was illegally
detained pursuant to the decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 789 and 790 of
the Municipal Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. The appellant
claimed that the decisions in those two cases were contrary to law,
null and void, because he was declared guilty of the very same offense
of which he had been previously prosecuted and found guilty by the
Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. The appellant, in his
petition, practically repeated the grounds that he alleged in his
notion to quash the informations in Criminal cases Hos. 789 and 790 in
the Municipal Court of Maraburao, Occidental Mindoro — that is, that he
was placed in double jeopardy of being convicted of the same offense.
The appellant prayed that the Director of Prisons be ordered to release
him.

The Solicitor General, in behalf of the respondent
Director of Prisons, opposed the petition, maintaining that the
petition did not state a cause of action and the grounds relied upon in
the petition are not as provided by law for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

On
September 11, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Rlzal issued an
order dismissing the petition, precisely on the ground that the reasons
relied upon by the petitioner in his petition are not those that are
considered in a habeas corpus proceedings. From the order of dismissal the appellant has brought the present appeal before this Court.

The
appellant appeared before this Court In his own behalf, and by leave of
this Court he filed a typewritten brief. The appellant Is not a lawyer,
and the brief that he filed contains so many arguments that are clearly
irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is entitled to the writ
of habeas corpus that he prays for.

The principal contention
of the appellant in claiming that he is illegally detained is that he
is being made to serve the penalty of imprisonment pursuant to two
decisions of tile Municipal Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro,
which were rendered under circumstances which had placed bis in double
jeopardy of being convicted of the same offense. This contention of the
appellant is patently without merit. In the first place, the issue of
double jeopardy was squarely placed by the appellant before the
Municipal Court of Mamburao when he filed a motion to quash the
information in Criminal Cases Nos. 789 and 790 before said court. His
motion to quash was denied, and when the cases were called for trial he
pleaded guilty to the charge contained in the information in each of
those two cases. Incidentally, when he entered a plea of guilty in
those two cases he was assisted by counsel. He did not appeal from the
decisions rendered in those two cases. Secondly, the appellant was
really never placed in double jeopardy. The offense of falsification of
public document of which he was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 790 in
the Municipal Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro is clearly
different from the offense of falsification of public document of which
he was prosecuted and found guilty in Criminal Case No. 671 In the
Court of First Instance of lanao del Norte. The offense of violation of
jcanditional pardon of which he was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 789
in the Municipal Court of Mamburao, is definitely different from the
offense of falsification of public document of which he was prosecuted
and found guilty in Criminal Case No. 671 of the Court of First
Instance of Lanao del Norte.

The remedy of the appellant, if
he believes that the Municipal Court of Mamburao, Occidental Hindoro,
committed error in trying and convicting him in Crminal Cases Nos. 789
and 790 before said court was an appeal from the decisions rendered in
those two cases. Whatever error of procedure or of law that was
committed by the Municipal Court of Mamburao in those two cases can not
be reviewed in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as sought by the appellant in the present case. The ruling of this Court laid down in the case of Quintos vs. Director of Prisons, 55 Phil. 304, squarely disposes of the issue raised by the appellant in the present case.^[2] This Court held:

“The writ of habeas corpus
secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention
examined and determined by a court of justice, and to have ascertained
if he is held under lawful authority. The function of habeas corpus,
where the party who has appealed to its aid is in custody under
process, does not extend beyond the inquiry into the jurisdiction of
the court by which it was issued and the validity of the process upon
its face. It is not a writ of error. This court has held that a
commitment in due fora, based on a final judgment, convicting and
sentencing the defendant in a criminal case, is conclusive evidence of
the legality of his detention under such commitment, unless it appears
that the court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction
or exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalty (Trono Felipe vs.
Director of Prisons (1913), 24 Phil. 121). “Former jeopardy is a
defense which oust be pleaded at the time of the arraignment. The
general rule, with certain exceptions, is that the question of a second
jeopardy is not re viewable upon a writ of habeas corpus. The
reason is that such a defense does not go to the Jurisdiction of the
trial court but involves simply the judgment of the court which, if
wrongfully exercised, is but mere error not reviewable upon habeas corpus (Ex parte Bigelow (1885), 113 U. S., 328; In the Matter or Cardona (1947), 10 Perto Rico Fed., 40; Bailey on Habeas Corpus. sec. 40).”

The confinement of the appellant in the new Bllibid Prisons at
Muntinlupa is in accordance with the final judgments rendered by the
Municipal Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, in Criminal Cases Nos.
789 and 790 before said court. The record shows that the Municipal
Court of Mamburao has jurisdiction to try and decide those cases, and
the penalties imposed by the court are not excessive, either.

We find that the lower court did not commit any error when it dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order of the lower court appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C. J., Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] As quoted from the motion to quash.

^[2] See also: Collins vs. Wolf, 4 Phil. 534: Carrington vs.
Peterson, 4 Phil. 134; Davis vs. Director of Prisons, 17 Phil. 168;
Domingo and Reyes vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 1053; Talabon vs.
Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599.