Barredo v. Vinarao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Samuel Barredo y Golani was convicted in Criminal Case Nos. Q-92-38559 and Q-92-38560 for carnapping aggravated by frustrated killing and illegal possession of firearms, respectively. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103, rendered a joint decision finding him guilty and imposing a straight penalty of thirty (30) years for carnapping and eighteen (18) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal for illegal possession of firearms. Procedural History: The decision became final and executory as no appeal was made. Petitioner was committed to the Quezon City Jail on March 15, 1993, and later transferred to the maximum security compound of the New Bilibid Prison on July 23, 1994. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming he had already served his sentence, citing a resolution from the Board of Pardons and Parole recommending commutation and a revised computation table for good conduct. The Petition: Petitioner prayed for his release from detention on the ground that he had already served the sentence imposed upon him.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should issue for the release of the petitioner. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was void for failing to impose an indeterminate sentence. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the retroactive application of RA 8294 to his illegal possession of firearms case. Whether the petitioner has already served the penalties imposed on him.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The writ of habeas corpus will not issue as the petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid judgment. However, the Court noted errors in the sentencing regarding the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the application of RA 8294, but these do not entitle the petitioner to immediate release as he has not yet served the full modified penalties.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the writ of habeas corpus should issue: The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for illegal confinement or detention. It cannot be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. In this case, the petitioner is detained pursuant to a final judgment of the RTC convicting him for carnapping and illegal possession of firearms. Therefore, he is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. On whether the sentence was void for failing to impose an indeterminate sentence: The trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty of thirty (30) years for carnapping, thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The proper imposable penalty under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, considering the aggravating circumstance and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, should have been an indeterminate sentence of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as minimum to thirty (30) years as maximum. This failure renders the sentence void only as to the excess, not the entire sentence. On whether the petitioner is entitled to the retroactive application of RA 8294: The petitioner is entitled to the reduction of the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under RA 8294, which is more favorable to him. Applying RA 8294 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper imposable penalty for illegal possession of firearms should be an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day as minimum to six (6) years as maximum. This amendatory law should be applied retroactively. On whether the petitioner has already served the penalties imposed: The penalties imposed in both cases must be served successively. The petitioner must first serve the more severe penalty for carnapping (17 years and 4 months to 30 years) before commencing the penalty for illegal possession of firearms (4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years). As of April 3, 2007, the petitioner had served 18 years, 4 months, and 26 days, inclusive of good conduct time allowance and preventive imprisonment. While this period covers the minimum penalty for carnapping, it does not cover the minimum penalty for illegal possession of firearms. Therefore, he has not yet served the total penalties imposed and is not eligible for release or parole.
Main Doctrine
The writ of habeas corpus will not issue if the detention is by virtue of a valid judgment of a court of record, unless there was a deprivation of constitutional right, the court had no jurisdiction, or the penalty imposed was excessive. However, a sentence that fails to impose an indeterminate sentence as required by law is void as to such failure and may be corrected.