G.R. No.

L-21805             February 25, 1967

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
FIDEL TAN, defendant-appellee.

Facts: Fidel Tan was convicted by the Court of First instance of Samar and was jailed
therein for TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS, as minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS
and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum. Tan was committed to the Director of prisons, but
the warden chose to retain Tan in Samar Provincial Jail for health reasons.
Subsequently, Tan was released under GCTA by the provincial jail warden. 

On 6 September 1962, the provincial fiscal moved for the re-arrest of the accused and
to order him recommitted to the national penitentiary, on the ground that the provincial
warden had no authority to release him with good conduct time allowance. The motion
was unopposed. Acting on the motion, the court required the warden to explain why
the prisoner was kept in the provincial jail and not "sent to Manila" and to answer the
fiscal's allegation. On 21 September 1962, the lower court issued an order requiring the
appearance of the warden to show the veracity of his information and, on 4 January
1963, it issued the order that is now the subject of this appeal denying the fiscal's
petition to recommit the accused.

Issue:

WON the re-arrest of Tan constitutes Double Jeopardy and deprive him of his liberty
without due process of law. 

Ruling:

No. The prisoner's re-arrests would not place him twice in jeopardy because his re-
incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalty that he had not completely served
due to the erroneous act of the warden, it is not a new or subsequent conviction.
Neither would his re-arrest deprive him of liberty without due process of law, because
he was not yet entitled to liberty at the time he was released.

However, The court denied the fiscal's motion for the rearrest of the accused-appellee
on the following grounds: (a) that when the accused-appellee commenced serving his
sentence and was committed to the warden, the court lost jurisdiction over the
prisoner's "person with respect to his imprisonment"; (b) that to re-arrest him after his
release would amount to double jeopardy or deprive him of his liberty without due
process of law; and (c) that the accused abided by the judgment and served it in good
faith, even if the act of the jailer was irresponsible and erroneous.

G.R. No. 141211            August 31, 2001

CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL, petitioner,

vs.
RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, RONEL N. AMPARO, ALFRED F. LEHNER, RONALD C.
RODRIGO, ANTHONY G. MUNSAYAC, ARIEL A. DEL ROSARIO, ORLANDO D.
DEL ROSARIO, VICTOR B. SAMSON, RICHARD S. NACUA, ALFONSO B.
RELLOSO, ARMANDO A. REYES, MARY GRACE H. TANUSAN, GARY ZALDE C.
VELARDE, ELISEO G. PEREZ, FEDERICO P. MALONZO, ROMEO D. DAPAT,
LETICIA M. SANTOS, NAGAMURA A. MACABUAT, SULAIMAN M. MACALIM,
RENATO S. MANLAPIG, JOSE P. REYES, JOCELYN V. IBAÑEZ, JOEL D.
AGUILAR, ISAGANI R. MANZO, MARVIN Q. PADRONES, CHARLIE Q.
QUIRMIT, ANDREW A. SALCEDO, EDUARDO E. GINETA, EDUARDO S.
MARTINEZ, MOLLY G. LALIK, GERARDO J. MALOGA, HENRY B. MANCILLA,
ARMANDO C. BUELAS, and-RICHARD C. MAGALLON, respondents.

Facts:

In the City Jail of Manila, they found thirty-four (34) prisoners (Estrella et. al.), whom
they believed were entitled to be released after deducting time allowances for good
conduct in the service of their respective sentences. City Warden issued certifications of
good behavior to Estrella et. al. stating that had Estrella et. al. been credited time
allowances for good conduct, they should have already been released. Thereafter,
Estrella et. al., represented by the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid, filed in the
Supreme Court a petition for habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court issued the writ of habeas corpus which it made returnable to the
Regional Trial Court, Manila. In his return, City Warden, through the Solicitor General,
opposed the release of Estrella et. al., arguing that while the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections no longer exercises authority over city and municipal prisoners, he remains
the sole authority under Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code who can grant time
allowances for good conduct to prisoners.

It turned out that 22 of the 34 prisoners had already been released. The RTC ruled that
the Bureau of Corrections, no longer has the authority to grant good conduct time
allowances to inmates in the provincial, city, and municipal jails (like Estrella et. al.) in
view of the enactment of R.A. No. 6975, otherwise known as the Department of the
Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, which places provincial, city, and municipal
jails under the supervision and control of the Bureau of Jail Management. Hence
petition for review on certiorari was filed by the Solicitor General. 

The Solicitor General contends that despite changes in the organizational structure of
the prison system, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections remains the exclusive
authority for granting good conduct time allowances and, therefore, it was error for the
lower court to order the release of Estrella et. al. on the basis of certifications issued by
the City Warden as to time allowances for good conduct that Estrella et. al. is entitled
to. 

Issue: WON the re-arrest would constitutes Double Jeopardy and deprive them their
liberty without due process of law.

Ruling: The Court are constrained to order the re-arrest of all of respondents. This can
be done without placing them in double jeopardy of being punished for the same
offense because their re-incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalties that they
had not completely served due to the invalid crediting of good conduct time allowances
in their favor.