FACTS: Appeal from a judgement of the CFI of Occidental Misamis, for appelant was stenced to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal  and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased with the amount of P1,000. The crime charged against the accused is homicide. 

In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in a tuba wineshop. Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Faustino Paca's wife Tibay. She refused because she already have one, but Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. Emigdio Omamdam who came to the wine shop to see what;s happening, instead got stabbed in the chest by Bindoy. This happened when Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand towards the left behind the accused  and with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest who was then behind Bindoy.

HELD: Corroborated by Gaudencio Cenas of the testimony of the accused, Pacas and Bindoy were actually for the possession of the bolo. When Pacas let go of the bolo, Bindoy had pulled so violently that it flew towards his left side, at the very moment when Emigdio Omamdam came up and who was therefore hit in the chest without Bindoy seeing him. Bindoy alleges that it was caused accidentally and without malicious intent because he was only defending his possession of the bolo which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him and his conduct was perfectly lawful. The Court therefore acquitted Bindoy based on the facts stated.

FACTS: Original petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of petitioner Wilfredo S. Torres, presently confined at National Penitentiary in Muntilupa.

Sometimes before 1979, petitioner was convicted by the Court of First Instance of the crime of estafa (2 counts) and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of from 11 years, 10 months and 22 days to 38 years, 9 months and 1 day. The convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the maximum sentence would expire on November 2, 2000.

On April 18, 1979, a conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner by the President of the Philippines on condition that petitioned would not again violate any of the penal laws.

On May 21, 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon. The evidence before the board showed that on March 22, 1982 - June 24, 1982, petitioner had been charged with 20 counts of estafa, which cases were then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Quezon City). It also showed that on June 26, 1985, he had been convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the crime of sedition. The said conviction was then pending appeal before the Appellate Court. There also letter report from the NBI that a long list of charges had been brought against the petitioner for the last 20 years.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not conviction of crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence?

HELD: The Grant and Determination of breach of condition of pardon is purely executive acts and it is no subject to judicial scrutiny under Sec. 64 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Violation of conditional pardon - prior conviction by final judgment of subsequent crime necessary before parolee or convict may suffer the penalty prescribed in Article 159.