Jose Victor Rigor y Danao v. Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose Victor Rigor y Danao was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City (Branch 214) in Criminal Cases Nos. MC-99-1235-D and MC-99-1236-D for the illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The trial court imposed penalties of six (6) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor maximum to four (4) years and four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, along with a fine of P5,000.00 for each case. Procedural History: The petitioner did not appeal the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court, rendering the conviction and sentence final and executory. As of the filing of the petition, Rigor had served one year and five months of his sentence. He then filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release from incarceration. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a reduction of his sentence to six months and one day of prision correccional in each case, arguing that he should be released based on the time served and citing various rulings where Republic Act No. 7659 was given retroactive effect. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner had not yet served the maximum penalty and that the sentences must be served successively. The Supreme Court, while denying the petition for release, modified the imposed penalties to conform to the law, sentencing the petitioner to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum for each case.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for habeas corpus can be granted to modify penalties in a final and executory judgment. Whether the penalties imposed by the trial court were erroneous and could be corrected. Whether Republic Act No. 7659 should be retroactively applied to petitioner's benefit for release. Whether the penalties should be served successively or simultaneously.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. However, the penalties imposed by the trial court are MODIFIED in the interest of justice to correct palpable errors and conform to law. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, in each criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of modifying penalties in a final and executory judgment: The Court held that a petition for habeas corpus cannot be granted to modify or alter penalties imposed by a final and executory judgment, as the court loses jurisdiction to revise such decisions. The petitioner's failure to appeal rendered the Joint Decision final and executory, precluding any revision of the imposed penalties. The Court emphasized that it is bereft of any jurisdiction to revise, modify, or alter penalties once a judgment has become final and executory, citing Rule 120, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and various jurisprudence. On the issue of erroneous penalties and correction: The Court noted a palpable error in the trial court's Joint Decision regarding the imposition of penalties. Specifically, the inclusion of an additional day to the maximum period of arresto mayor was incorrect as it falls outside the range of said penalty. Furthermore, the maximum penalty of four years, four months, and one day of prision correccional was also incorrect as it exceeded the range imposable under Republic Act No. 7659 for the quantity of drugs involved. The Court asserted its duty and inherent power to correct such errors to make the penalty conform to the law, citing People vs. Barro, Sr. and People vs. Gatward. On the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 7659: The Court clarified that even if Republic Act No. 7659 were to be retroactively applied, the petitioner could not be released at that point. The penalties imposed, once corrected, were within the ambit of Republic Act No. 7659, and there was no further reduction warranted. The petitioner's claim for release based on the retroactive application was based on an erroneous appreciation of the law and jurisprudence. On the successive service of penalties: The Court affirmed that the petitioner must serve the penalties for his two convictions successively, not simultaneously, as the nature of the sentences does not permit simultaneous service. This is in accordance with Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner must serve the penalty in the first case up to its maximum term before commencing the service of the penalty in the second case, also up to its maximum term, resulting in a total maximum period of eight years and four months. The Court cited Evangelista vs. Sistoza and In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete C. Lagran.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus cannot be granted to modify or alter penalties imposed by a final and executory judgment, as the court loses jurisdiction to revise such decisions. However, palpable errors in the imposition of penalties that are void or outside the range of lawful penalties may be corrected in the interest of justice.