G.R. No. 121424 and G.R. No. 104992, March 28, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MAURO MAGTIBAY y PENTINIO, et al., petitioners, vs. Director VICENTE VINARAO, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, respondent. / PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAURO MAGTIBAY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The Commission on Human Rights filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus seeking the immediate release of Mauro Magtibay, the accused-appellant in a consolidated criminal case (G.R. No. 104992). Magtibay was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for selling ten grams of dried marijuana leaves during a buy-bust operation in 1989, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and had been under preventive detention since his arrest, amounting to over six years by the time of the petition.
The petitioners argued for Magtibay’s release on the ground that Republic Act No. 7659 , which took effect in December 1993, amended the penalties for drug offenses. Under this new law, the quantity of marijuana involved in Magtibay’s case (10 grams) would warrant a significantly reduced penalty. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation interposing no objection to the immediate release, confirming that Magtibay had already served more than the maximum possible imprisonment to which he could be sentenced under the amended statute.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Mauro Magtibay is entitled to immediate release via a writ of habeas corpus based on the retroactive application of the more favorable penalty provisions of R.A. No. 7659 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Habeas Corpus and ordered the immediate release of Mauro Magtibay. The legal logic is anchored on the retroactive application of penal laws that are favorable to the accused, a fundamental principle under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. R.A. No. 7659 , which reduced the penalties for the sale of marijuana where the quantity is below 250 grams to prision correccional, is such a favorable law. Following the Court’s precedents in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara, the new, lighter penalty must be applied to Magtibay even though his crime was committed before the law’s effectivity.
Consequently, with the penalty reduced, the period of Magtibay’s preventive imprisonment—which exceeded the maximum of the new penalty range—rendered his continued detention unlawful. The Solicitor General’s confirmation that Magtibay was eligible for release under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, which credits preventive imprisonment, solidified this conclusion. His release was therefore mandated unless he was detained for another lawful cause. The related criminal appeal was dismissed for being moot.