G.R. No.

L-30001 Director of Prisons vs Ang Cho Kio

Summarized by Miley Titus

A notorious foreign criminal is pardoned by the executive branch and allowed

to go home. He comes back and all hell breaks loose.

Important People: Ang Cho Kio also known as Kiwa, Philipp Ang, Ang
Tiu Kio, Ke Wa, Lucio Lee, Go Ong, Mr. Ang, Go Ang, Mr. Ong (These
names are all the same guy)

FACTS:

1. On July 4 1959, Ang Chong Kio is pardoned from prison after serving
six and a half years of his 45 years, 10 months, 21 days of
imprisonment, P6000 indemnity, P5000 moral damages, life
imprisonment and P6000 indemnity. (Apparently this guys done some
shit. The case doesnt say what he did.) The pardon was conditional as
it required that he be deported to Taipei and that he never return to
the Philippines or else he would continue his sentence in prison.
2. This pardon is recommended to the executive body by the Board of
Pardons and Parole
3. He returned on June 26, 1966 travelling under the name Ang Ming Huy
on a round trip. This was supposed to be a stopover for only 72 hours
as he was to board the next flight to Honolulu.
4. He contacted two of his friends, Lim Pin and Go Bon Kim who urged
him to stay longer.
5. While Lim Pin requested a fourteen-day extension stay, Mariano Cristi
of the Immigration Bureau identified the respondent as the man who
was pardoned and deported.
6. He was arrested and not allowed to continue his trip to Honolulu.
7. On July 5, 1966 the Executive Secretary by authority of the President
ordered him to be recommitted to prison as he violated the condition
of his pardon.
8. Ang Cho Kio filed with the Executive secretary for a reconsideration,
but it fell on deaf ears.
9. He then filed for habeas corpus with the CFI of Rizal (Pasay Branch)
marking Director of Prisons and Executive secretary as respondents.
This was dismissed on the grounds that he was validly recommitted.
(Why did he come back kasi. T_T)
10. He appealed with the Court of Appeals and it was affirmed.
However three of the five justices preceding the case recommended
that the Executive Secretary be sent out at once from the
country, only allowed to leave Muntinlupa Prisons under guard.
 The other two dissented and said that recommendation shouldnt be
there.
11. The SolGen filed for recommendation asking the Court of
Appeals to delete their recommendation. This was denied and
eventually appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court

ISSUE(s):
1. WON The court of appeals can make that kind of recommendation and
WON Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to this situation.

HOLDING:

NO THEY CANT

The recommendation is a political complexion that has no place in the

opinion of a court. There is no law that gives the court authority to make
recommendations on political questions.
The question posed to the Court of Appeals was whether or not the CFI
rightly dismissed Ang Cho Kios petition for habeas corpus. It had nothing
to do with what the Executive Secretary should have done with the
convicted foreigner as it had long become final. The opinion should have
been limited to the affirmance.
The recommendatory power of the court is only limited to what is expressly
provided in the law in RPC Section 5. Otherwise, they cant do that.
Its not proper for justices to make any recommendations as it violates the
separation of powers since conditions on pardons are up to the executive
body to decide and enforce.
Furthermore, even if the recommendation was the private opinion of the
justices, they should have kept it to themselves and keep the opinions in
the decision ones that are relevant to the actual decision

(Has Puno read this case?)

However only five justices could give their concurrence to this case, three
arent here right now and two have written concurring and dissenting
opinions.

PETITION DENIED

The Dissent of Makalintal and Castro:

They agree with everything else but thinks the recommendation should not
be deleted. Its not part of the judgement anyway and is merely an
 expression of their opinion on the case. They didnt mean to step on
anybodys toes and merely wanted to say what they wanted to say.

RPC Section 5

Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of penal legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.