5/14/2016

G.R.No.168728

TodayisSaturday,May14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.168728August2,2007
SAMUELBARREDOyGOLANI,Petitioner,
vs.
HON.VICENTEVINARAO,Director,BureauofCorrections,Respondent.
DECISION
CORONA,J.:
This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Samuel Barredo y Golani prays for his
releasefromthemaximumsecuritycompoundoftheNewBilibidPrisoninMuntinlupaCityonthegroundthathe
hasalreadyservedthesentenceimposedonhiminCriminalCaseNos.Q9238559andQ9238560.
Criminal Case No. Q92385591 was for carnapping2 while Criminal Case No. Q9238560 was for illegal
possessionoffirearms.3BothcaseswerefiledintheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofQuezonCity,Branch103.4
Thecasesweretriedjointly.Aftertrial,thecourtrenderedajointdecisionfindingpetitionerguiltyofbothcharges.
Relevantpartsofthedispositiveportionread:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered in Q9238559 finding Samuel Barredo,5 xxx GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt xxx of the crime of Carnapping aggravated and qualified by the frustrated killing of Ciriaco
Rosalesand[heis]herebysentencedtoundergoanimprisonmenttermofTHIRTY(30)YEARS
xxxxxxxxx
In Q9238560, Samuel Barredo is hereby found GUILTY as principal beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violationofP.D.1866andheisherebysentencedtoanimprisonmenttermofEIGHTEEN(18)YEARSandONE
(1)DAYofReclusionTemporal.
xxxxxxxxx
SOORDERED.6
Noappealwasmade,hence,thedecisionbecamefinalandexecutory.
PetitionerwascommittedtothecustodyoftheQuezonCityJail(asdetentionprisoner)onMarch15,1993.7After
conviction, he was transferred to and confined at the maximum security compound of the New Bilibid Prison in
MuntinlupaCityonJuly23,19948whereheisnowstilldetained.
Accordingtopetitioner,asofAugust2,2004,healreadyservedatotalof18years.Heclaimsthat,onOctober9,
2001,theBoardofPardonsandParolepassedaresolutionrecommendingthecommutationofhissentencetoa
periodoffrom15to20years.Hefurtherpointsoutthat,basedontheBureauofCorrectionsrevisedcomputation
tablefordeterminingthetimetobecreditedprisonersforgoodconductwhileservingsentence,heshouldonly
serve14years,9monthsand18days.Thus,thispetition.
Ispetitionerentitledtothewritofhabeascorpus?No.
WritofHabeasCorpusWillNotIssueIfDetentionIsByVirtueOfValidJudgment
The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement, detention or deprivation of liberty.9 It was
devised as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.10 More specifically, it is a
remedytoobtainimmediatereliefforthosewhomayhavebeenillegallyconfinedorimprisonedwithoutsufficient
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_168728_2007.html

1/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.168728

cause and thus deliver them from unlawful custody.11 It is therefore a writ of inquiry intended to test the
circumstancesunderwhichapersonisdetained.12
The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid
judgment.13However,thewritmaybeallowedasapostconvictionremedywhentheproceedingsleadingtothe
convictionwereattendedbyanyofthefollowingexceptionalcircumstances:
(1)therewasadeprivationofaconstitutionalrightresultingintherestraintofaperson
(2)thecourthadnojurisdictiontoimposethesentenceor
(3)theimposedpenaltywasexcessive,thusvoidingthesentenceastosuchexcess.14
Theruleisthatifapersonallegedtoberestrainedofhislibertyisincustodyofanofficerunderprocessissuedby
a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record the writ of habeas corpus will not be
allowed.15Thus,Section4,Rule102oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec.4.Whenwritnotallowedordischargeauthorized.Ifitappearsthatthepersonallegedtoberestrained
of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a
judgmentororderofacourtofrecord,andthatthecourtorjudgehadjurisdictionto issue the process,
renderthejudgment,ormaketheorder,thewritshallnotbeallowedorifthejurisdictionappearsafterthe
writisallowed,thepersonshallnotbedischargedbyreasonofanyinformalityordefectintheprocess,judgment,
ororder.Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or
convictedofanoffenseinthePhilippines,orofapersonsufferingimprisonmentunderlawfuljudgment.
(emphasissupplied)
Petitioner was detained pursuant to a final judgment of the Quezon City RTC convicting him for the crimes of
carnappingandillegalpossessionoffirearms.Heisthereforenotentitledtothewritofhabeascorpus.
SentenceisVoidInsofarAsItFailedtoImposeanIndeterminateSentence
AscorrectlypointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral,however,thetrialcourterredinimposingastraightpenaltyof
imprisonmentfor30yearsinthecarnappingcase.Thesentenceimposedbythetrialcourtdeprivedpetitionerof
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.16 Hence, it was void insofar as it failed to impose an
indeterminatesentence.
Since the crime was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the imposable penalty
undertheAntiCarnappingActof1972wasimprisonmentfornotlessthan17yearsand4monthsandnotmore
than30years.17Furthermore,pursuanttotheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,thecourtshouldhaveimposedan
indeterminatesentencewithamaximumtermnotexceedingthemaximumfixedbythespecialpenallawanda
minimumtermnotlessthantheminimumtermprescribedbythesamelaw.18Therefore,theproperimposable
penaltyisimprisonmentnotfor30yearsbutforanindeterminatesentenceof17yearsand4monthsasminimum
to30yearsasmaximum.19
ReductionofPenaltyUnderAmendatoryLawShouldbeAppliedRetroactively
Petitionerislikewiseentitledtoareductionofthepenaltyimposeduponhimintheillegalpossessionoffirearms
caseinviewofthepassageofRA8294.Thelawreducedthepenaltyforsimpleillegalpossessionoffirearmsto
prisioncorreccionalinitsmaximumperiodandafineofnotlessthanP15,000.Beingfavorabletopetitioner,RA
8294 should be applied retroactively to benefit him.20 Further applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
proper imposable penalty is imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as
maximum.21
PetitionerHasNotYetServedThePenaltiesImposedonHim
Petitionerhastoservethepenaltiesimposedonhimsuccessivelyintheorderoftheirseverity.22Hence,hehas
tofirstservethemoreseverepenalty,i.e.,thatimposedinthecarnappingcase:imprisonmentfor17yearsand4
monthsasminimumto30yearsasmaximum.Onlyafterhehasservedthiswillhecommenceservingtheless
severepenaltyimposedintheillegalpossessionoffirearmscase:imprisonmentfor4years,2monthsand1day
asminimumto6yearsasmaximum.23
PerthecertificationissuedbytheBureauofCorrections,24asofApril3,2007,petitionerhasservedatotalof18
years,4monthsand26days,inclusiveofhisgoodconducttimeallowanceandpreventiveimprisonment.Thus,
while he has already served the minimum penalty in the carnapping case, he has not yet served the minimum
penaltyintheillegalpossessionoffirearmscase.Consequently,petitionerisnotentitledtotheissuanceofawrit
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_168728_2007.html

2/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.168728

ofhabeascorpus.Neitherisheeligibleforparolebecauseonlyprisonerswhohaveservedtheminimumpenalty
imposedonthemmaybereleasedonparoleonsuchtermsandconditionsasmaybeprescribedbytheBoardof
PardonsandParole.25
PetitionersclaimthattheBoardofPardonsandParolepassedaresolutionrecommendingthecommutationof
hissentencedoesnotjustifytheissuanceofthewritofhabeascorpus.Commutationofsentenceisaprerogative
of the Chief Executive.26 Hence, even if petitioners claim were true, the recommendation of the Bureau of
PardonsandParolewasjustthat,amererecommendation.UntilandunlessapprovedbythePresident,thereis
nocommutationtospeakof.
Accordingly,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13,Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Inthiscase,hewaschargedtogetherwithRomeoCamachoandIsaiasSolsona.
2PenalizedunderRA6539,otherwiseknownas"TheAntiCarnappingActof1972."
3PenalizedunderPD1866,asamended.
4PresidedbyJudgeJaimeN.Salazar,Jr.
5 His coaccused, Camacho and Solsona, were likewise convicted as they were found to have conspired

witheachother.
6JointDecisiondatedJune30,1994promulgatedonJuly21,1994.Rollo,pp.713.
7PercertificationdatedAugust17,1994,issuedbytheBureauofJailManagementandPenology,Quezon

CityJail.Id.,p.15.
8PercertificationdatedAugust2,2004,issuedbytheBureauofCorrections.Id.,p.16.
9Gov.Dimagiba,G.R.No.151876,21June2005,460SCRA451.
10Id.
11Id.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_168728_2007.html

3/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.168728

12Id.
13Id.
14Id.
15DeJoyav.TheJailWardenofBatangasCity,G.R.No.15941819,10December2003,417SCRA636.
16ActNo.4103.
17RA6539,Section14.
18Id.,Section1.xxxandiftheoffenseispunishedby[aspecial]law,thecourtshallsentencetheaccused

toanindeterminatesentence,themaximumtermofwhichshallnotexceedthemaximumfixedbysaidlaw
andtheminimumshallnotbelessthantheminimumtermprescribedbythesame.
19Peoplev.Viente,G.R.No.103299,17August1993,225SCRA361.
20SeeRevisedPenalCode,Article22.Gonzalesv.CourtofAppeals,343Phil.297(1997).
21Id.
22SeeRevisedPenalCode,Article70.
23 Thus, petitioner has to serve a total of 21 years, 6 months and 1 day as minimum and 36 years as

maximum.
24Rollo,p.90.
25ActNo.4103,Section5.
26Peoplev.Nardo,G.R.No.133888,01March2001,353SCRA339.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_168728_2007.html

4/4