LEON ABANILLA, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. PASTOR VILLAS, ACTING WARDEN OF THE LEYTE PROVINCIAL JAIL, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

On March 8, 1931, the petitioner, Leon Abanilla, and two others were charged
with the crime of theft in the court of the justice of the peace of San Isidro,
Leyte. The subject of the alleged theft was a small quantity of corn, and the
offense was one properly within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace.
The justice of the peace before whom the case was presented inhibited himself in
the case against the petitioner, for the reason that he was related to the
petitioner within the sixth civil degree; but he heard the case and convicted
the two other accused, namely, Benjamin Garrido and Catalino Gabarda. From that
judgment Garrido and Gabarda appealed, and in the Court of First Instance the
case against them was dismissed at the request of the provincial fiscal on the
ground that the acts imputed to the accused were not constitutive of a crime,
but involved merely a civil liability. The case against Abanilla, owing to the
fact that the justice of the peace had inhibited himself, was taken before
another justice of the peace, who likewise convicted the petitioner, as his
coaccused had been convicted before the first justice of the peace. From this
conviction the petitioner took no effective appeal, with the result that he was
committed to prison, and is now absolving sentence in the provincial jail. Upon
these facts the application for writ of habeas corpus now before us was
instituted by the petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and upon
denial of the petition in that court the present appeal was instituted.

It is quite obvious that the decision of the trial court was right and that
there is no merit in this appeal. The petitioner was lawfully convicted in a
court of competent jurisdiction, and he is now absolving sentence under the
judgment. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to obtain the release of a
person lawfully sentenced to imprisonment by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Nor is the writ of habeas corpus available in lieu of appeal, for the purpose of
inquiring into the merits of the crime for which the petitioner was committed.
It is regrettable that the accused should be now undergoing punishment, when his
two coaccused, who might possibly have been as guilty as the appellant, or more
guilty, were discharged; and if the attention of the Chief Executive had been
promptly called to the matter, the present petitioner would doubtless have been
released upon pardon. But it is not competent for this court to interfere with
the execution of this sentence under the circumstances stated.

We should perhaps add that the recommendation of the fiscal for the dismissal
of the case against Garrido and Gabarda on the ground that the alleged offense
merely involved civil liability was based, not upon the insufficiency of the
complaint but upon lack of material proof on the part of he prosecution to show
the existence of a crime.

The petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez Villa-Real,
and Imperial, JJ., concur.