THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS TAPEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On November 10, 1936, the defendant, Tomas
Tapel, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
violation of a conditional pardon committed, according to the
information, as follows:

“That on or about the 18th day of September,
1936, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused having been
granted on September 7, 1934, by his Excellency, the Governor-General,
a pardon remitting the unexecuted portion of the sentence of
imprisonment of 12 years, 4. months and 1 day imposed upon him in
criminal case No. 37838 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for
the crime of qualified theft, which sentence he began to serve on
December 5, 1929, conditioned upon the fact that he shall not again
violate any of the penal laws of the Philippine Islands, which was
accepted by the herein accused on September 8, 1934, as a consequence
of which he was released from Bilibid Prisons on the last mentioned
date, did then and there-willfully, unlawfully and feloniously violate
the conditions of such pardon by then and there committing the crime of
theft, for which he was received again in Bilibid Prisons to suffer 5
months’ imprisonment and 5 days’ subsidiary imprisonment in lieu of P14
indemnity imposed upon him by final judgment in criminal case No. 52232
of the Court of First Instance of Manila.”

The accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve the unexpired
portion of his original sentence of imprisonment in criminal case No.
37838, and to pay the costs. The defendant has appealed to this court.

The appellant claims that the trial court erred in imposing upon
him a punishment neither specified in the conditional pardon nor
alleged in the information. The pardon imposed the condition that the
appellant shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the
Philippines, which condition was accepted by him. It was not necessary
to specify in the pardon the penalty for the violation of that
condition. The law has taken care of that in article 159 of the Revised
Penal Code. Upon the other hand, the information charges a particular
offense to which the law attaches a particular penalty. A plea of
guilty justifies the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

The appellant also contends that the lower court was in error when
it modified its original decision of November 23, 1936 and reduced the
penalty from seven years, six months and twenty-eight days to six
years, six months and two days in accordance with a letter, dated
November 25, 1936, from the Bureau of Prisons. While we do not
subscribe to the irregular procedure followed by the trial court in
this regard, its action does not constitute a reversible error. It will
be observed that, in conformity with said letter, the trial court
reduced the penalty to be served by the accused by one year and
twenty-six days.

The appellant further contends that, in accordance with article 159
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of prision correctional in its
minimum period should have been imposed upon him as the time during
which he was out of prison should have been deducted from the
unexecuted portion of his original sentence which, in such a case,
would fall short of six years. We find no merit in this contention. .
When a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is placed in the
same state in which he was at the time the pardon was granted. He may
be rearrested and recommitted to prison. (See U. S. vs. Ignacio [1916], 33 Phil, 202, 204; U. S. vs.
Villalon [1917], 37 Phil., 322.) And the rule is well-settled that, in
requiring the convict to undergo so much of the punishment imposed by
his original sentence as he had not suffered at the time of his
release, the court should not consider the time during which the convict
was at large by virtue of the pardon as time served on the original
sentence. (20 RC. L., p. 570; State vs. Home [1906], 52 Fla., 125; 42 So., 388; 7 L. R. A. [N. S.], 719, 725. Vide, also, Ex parte Bell [1879], 56 Miss., 282.)

The original sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Court of
First Instance of Manila in criminal case No. 37838 was imprisonment of
twelve years, four months and one day. The appellant served his
original sentence from December 5, 1929 until he was pardoned and
released on September 8, 1934, or a total period of four years, nine
months and three days. Under article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, the
appellant is entitled to an allowance of one year and twenty-five days
for good conduct while in prison. The appellant, therefore, has
garnered to his credit a total of five years, nine months and
twenty-eight days of service, leaving unserved a period of six years,
six months and three days, which is one day more than the penalty
imposed by the trial court. The judgment of the lower court is
accordingly modified, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.