GR 122954; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122954 February 15, 2000
NORBERTO FERIA Y PACQUING, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA (IN PLACE OF THE JAIL WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL), THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, and THE CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been detained since May 21, 1981, following his conviction for Robbery with Homicide by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2. In 1993, his planned transfer to the national penitentiary was hindered because the required commitment documents could not be located. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the entire records of his criminal case were lost or destroyed in a fire at the Manila City Hall in 1986.
Consequently, Feria filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, arguing that his continued detention without a physical copy of a valid judgment was illegal. The Supreme Court issued the writ, and the case was raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 9. The RTC dismissed the petition, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the loss or destruction of the judicial records of a criminal case after a final conviction renders the judgment void and entitles the convict to release via a writ of habeas corpus.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the appellate court’s ruling. The Court held that the mere loss of case records subsequent to a final conviction does not nullify the judgment of conviction or justify release through habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus tests the legality of detention, not the correctness of a judgment. The legality of Feria’s detention was established by competent evidence presented during the habeas corpus proceedings, including certifications from court and prosecution officials confirming the fact of his conviction and the loss of records due to fire. The existence of the final judgment was thus sufficiently proven.
The proper remedy for the loss of records is reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 , not habeas corpus. The Court clarified that the duty to initiate reconstitution lies with both the prosecution and the defense, reiterating its ruling in Gunabe v. Director of Prisons. The subsequent case of Ordonez v. Director of Prisons did not abandon this principle; it merely emphasized the State’s role in the process without absolving the convicted party of responsibility. The Court modified the CA decision by ordering the RTC of Manila, Branch 2, to immediately commence reconstitution proceedings. Feria’s transfer to the Bureau of Corrections was also ordered to proceed without the missing documents, pending reconstitution.