EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18755. August 31, 1961. ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE ANGEL MOJICA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CERTIORARI; SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION ORDERED BY RESPONDENT JUDGE; ACCUSED SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN REPRIEVE BY THE PRESIDENT; ISSUE HAS BECOME MOOT. — It appearing that the accused had been granted reprieve by the President subsequent to the respondent Judge’s order suspending execution of the convict, the question of whether or not the latter could have validly issued said order of suspension of execution, has become moot; consequently, the instant petition for certiorari should be dismissed.
R E S O L U T I O N
DIZON, J.:
The petition for certiorari before us alleges, in substance, that on April 29, 1961, in People v. Marcial Ama y Perez, Et Al., (G.R. No. L-14783), we affirmed on review the death penalty imposed upon Marcial Ama y Perez by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. 422-R; that on July 25, 1961, after the return of the record below, the court fixed the execution of Ama for Friday, August 4, 1961; that on August 3, 1961, on motion of counsel de oficio, Delfin L. Gonzalez, the respondent Judge issued an order suspending the execution scheduled for August 4, 1961 and ordering the Acting Director of Prisons to execute the convict on September 4, 1961 that on August 11, 1961 petitioner Acting Director of Prisons filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that under the Constitution of the Philippines only the President can suspend the execution of a prisoner, but said motion was denied by the respondent judge on August 18, 1961 in spite of the fact that His Honor had been informed that the President had already issued a reprieve for the same convict to end on September 3, 1961.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the reprieve granted by the Chief Executive will end on September 3, 1961 and that thereafter the corresponding authorities would be free to carry out the execution of the convict mentioned heretofore in accordance with the order of the respondent Judge issued on August 3, 1961. We believe, therefore, that the issue involved in the petition under consideration has become moot.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, with costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Barrera, Paredes, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., took no part.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the reprieve granted by the Chief Executive will end on September 3, 1961 and that thereafter the corresponding authorities would be free to carry out the execution of the convict mentioned heretofore in accordance with the order of the respondent Judge issued on August 3, 1961. We believe, therefore, that the issue involved in the petition under consideration has become moot.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, with costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Barrera, Paredes, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., took no part.
