Cansino v. Director of New Bilibid Prison
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Narciso Cansino filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Bayani T. Cansino, who was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act. The charge stemmed from an alleged sale of marijuana on October 28, 1983, in Manila. The information detailed the unlawful sale or offer for sale of dried flowering tops of marijuana, a prohibited drug. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila, found Bayani T. Cansino guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the said violation. The court imposed a penalty of life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. The petitioner did not appeal this judgment and began serving his sentence on January 5, 1985. As of March 13, 1995, he had served nine years, ten months, and seven days. 3. The Petition: This petition for habeas corpus seeks the benefit of Republic Act No. 7659, enacted on December 13, 1993, which amended R.A. No. 6425. The new law, particularly concerning the quantity of marijuana involved, reduces the penalty. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions, People v. Simon and People v. De Lara, clarified that for quantities below 250 grams, the penalty is six months and one day to six years of prision correccional. Given that the petitioner has already served a sentence exceeding this revised penalty and the Office of the Solicitor General expressed no objection, the petition argues for his release.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of R.A. No. 7659. Whether the petitioner has served sufficient sentence for his release via habeas corpus.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. A writ of habeas corpus shall issue immediately, ordering the Director of the New Bilibid Prison to release the petitioner from confinement unless there is some other lawful cause for his detention.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to the benefits of R.A. No. 7659: The Court found that the provisions of R.A. No. 7659, with regard to the penalty imposed for violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, favor the petitioner. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that penal laws that are favorable to the accused shall be applied retroactively. The enactment of R.A. No. 7659, which partly further amended R.A. No. 6425, introduced changes in the penalty for drug offenses. Specifically, subsequent jurisprudence, such as People v. Simon and People v. De Lara, clarified that for quantities of marijuana below 250 grams, the penalty is reduced to a range from six months and one day to six years of prision correccional. This reduction in penalty, being more favorable, should be applied to the petitioner. On serving sufficient sentence for release via habeas corpus: The Court noted that the petitioner had already served nine years, ten months, and seven days of his sentence. Considering the more favorable penalty established by R.A. No. 7659 and the subsequent jurisprudence, this period of service demonstrably exceeded the maximum penalty imposable under the amended law for the offense committed. Furthermore, the Office of the Solicitor General, after being required to comment, expressed no objection to the petition. This lack of opposition from the State, coupled with the petitioner having served more than the applicable sentence, justified the grant of the writ of habeas corpus for his immediate release, provided there was no other lawful ground for his continued detention.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus may be granted if the petitioner has already served a sentence that is longer than the penalty imposable under a new law that favors the petitioner, especially when the Office of the Solicitor General expresses no objection.