GR 117568; (January, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995
ROLANDO ANGELES y BOMBITA, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Angeles y Bombita was convicted for selling 0.13 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. He subsequently filed this petition for habeas corpus, invoking the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 7659, which reduced the penalties for drug offenses, as confirmed in the case of People v. Simon.
Under the amended law as construed in Simon, the penalty for his offense is reduced to prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, his modified penalty would range from six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum. However, the records indicate that petitioner had only served the minimum of his original sentence at the time of his petition.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted to effect the immediate release of the petitioner based on the retroactive application of the reduced penalties under R.A. No. 7659.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for being premature. The legal logic is clear: while R.A. No. 7659, applied retroactively per People v. Simon, does reduce the penalty for petitioner’s offense, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy at this stage because he had not yet served the maximum of the newly applicable indeterminate sentence. The writ of habeas corpus secures release from unlawful detention, but here, his continued confinement under the recalculated penalty was not yet unlawful, as he had only served the minimum term.
The Court clarified that his proper recourse, having served the minimum, was to apply for parole under Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, subject to the discretion of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence based on his rehabilitation and fitness for release. Nevertheless, recognizing the plight of similarly situated prisoners, the Court issued an extraordinary directive: courts may liberally entertain habeas corpus petitions from those who have already served the maximum of the penalties newly prescribed by R.A. No. 7659, even if filed informally. The Court also referred the resolution to the Commission on Human Rights and the Public Attorney’s Office for appropriate assistance to qualified inmates.