ROSAIDA QUINTOS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE DIEECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, a petition for habeas corpus was
filed by the mother of Joseph L. Wilson on behalf of her son. The principal
allegation of the petition was that Wilson was illegally confined in prison for
three cases arising from the same facts, in violation of the constitutional
guaranty “That no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law; and no person for the same offense shall be twice put in
jeopardy, * * *.” The trial judge declined to grant the writ, and from that
decision an appeal has been taken to this court.

Joseph L. Wilson was convicted in the Court of First Instance in four cases.
He appealed from the judgments in all four cases to the Supreme Court, and they
were there submitted for consideration. The twenty-second assigned error for the
appellant advanced the proposition that the facts alleged in the three
complaints in three cases did not constitute more than one crime. Before the
decisions had been rendered, the appellant fled the jurisdiction of the court.
Thereupon, on motion of the Attorney-General, the judgments against Wilson were
declared final and his appeal was dismissed. An attempt was made to take the
cases to the United States Supreme Court and to obtain a stay of execution of
the judgments, but the motion to this effect was unsuccessful. Subsequently,
another motion which relied on the point of double jeopardy was denied. Wilson
was eventually placed in Bilibid Prison to serve his sentences.

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 an 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 form, 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 must be pleaded at the time of the
arraignment. The general rule, with certain exceptions, is that the question of
a second jeopardy is not reviewable 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 of Cardona [1917], 10 Porto Rico Fed., 40; 1 Bailey on
Habeas Corpus, sec. 40).

Applying the foregoing principles to the facts, the entire lack of merit in
appellant’s contention is plainly apparent. Judgments of conviction were
properly handed down after a trial in accordance with the law. That appeals from
those judgments did not gain the attention of the appellate court was the fault
of the appellant and not of the court. The trial court had jurisdiction of the
offenses described in the informations and it had jurisdiction to hear and
decide upon the defenses offered by the accused. The question now submitted is
one of those defenses. The petition savors of an attempt to secure in an
indirect manner a ruling from the appellate court on a question which, on
account of the dismissal of the appeal, was not passed upon. That cannot be
permitted.

Resolving the various errors assigned against the appellant, the judgment of
the trial court will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the
appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez
and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.