GUMABON

v THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISON

G.R No L-30026
January 30, 1971
(CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW: PROSPECTIVE)
J. Fernando


FACTS:
(DATES OF THE CONVICTION AND WHEN THE HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE WAS DECIDED IS
IMPORTANT so even if it wasnt in the case, I had to indicate the date when it was decided by
the SC )
Mario Gumabon pleaded guilty for complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
robbery, arson and kidnapping on May 1953; he was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua
along with Paterno Palmares ,Epifanio Padua, and Blas Bagolbol wherein the first two were
convicted on March 1954 and and the third on December 1955 respectively .All of them have
served more than 13 years.
Subsequently after their sentence, The Court decided in People v. Hernandez (1956)
that complex crime of rebellion with murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping was not warranted
under Art 134, there being no such complex offense. Afterwards this doctrine was applied in
People v. Lava (1969) wherein the petitioner has served more than the maximum penalty
imposed upon him was freed and his continued detention illegal.
Out of fear of experiencing the same negative judgment as Pomeroy v Director of Prison
(1960), the petitioners files this case on the basis of denial of a constitutional right that would
suffice to raise a serious jurisdictional question and the retroactive effect to be given a judicial
decision favorable to one already sentenced to a final judgment under Art 22 of the RPC.
(TRIVIA:The lawyer in this case of the petitioners is Dean Dioknos Father )

ISSUE:
Whether or not The Writ of Habeas Corpus should be made available to the petitioners?
(Should the ruling in Hernandez take retroactive effect in favor of the petitoners)

HELD/RATIO:
YES. The writ is the most important human rights provision (Chafee)
The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary and to relieve a person therefrom if
such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient
Justice Malcolm
If the detention finds its origin in what has been judicially ordained then the availability
of habeas corpus is narrowed, because the only ground which the court allows habeas corpus is
when another court wants jurisdiction over the person or cause or some other matter
rendering its proceedings void.
However, the fundamental exception: Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is
shown to exist, the court that rendered that judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and
habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention as decided in
the Hernandez case.
The petitioners in this case was asserting their constitutional right. The petitioners
were convicted by the CFI for which was similar to Hernandez et. al and were punished under
the same law and too were convicted. The court finds this in violation of equal protection
since our constitution guarantees uniform operation of legal norms so that all persons under
same circumstance should given the same privileges confirmed and liabilities imposed and
then Article 22 on retroactivity shall apply. The Court stated in Director v.Director of Prisons
that the only means of giving retroactive effect to a penal provision favorable to the accuse is
the writ of habeas corpus.