GR 125834; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125834 December 6, 1999
VIOLETA SANTIAGO VILLA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Violeta Santiago Villa was convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs (two sticks of marijuana and fourteen decks of shabu) under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. The Regional Trial Court initially sentenced her to reclusion temporal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day to ten years. She began serving this sentence on August 14, 1993. Subsequently, she was also convicted and began serving a separate sentence for illegal possession of firearms.
While incarcerated, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of Sentence, invoking the retroactive application of the favorable penalty provisions under R.A. No. 7659 as established in People vs. Simon. She prayed for a reduction of her drug offense sentence to six months to two years and four months and for it to be declared fully served. The Court of Appeals denied her motion, reasoning that the retroactive application was irrelevant since she was also serving a sentence for another crime.
ISSUE
Whether the favorable and retroactive penalty provisions of R.A. No. 7659 should be applied to reduce petitioner’s sentence for illegal possession of prohibited drugs, notwithstanding her separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and modified the penalty. The Court ruled that under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws that are favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect, provided the accused is not a habitual criminal as defined therein. Petitioner was not a habitual delinquent, as her convictions were not for the crimes specified under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the ruling in People vs. Simon, which applied the reduced penalties under R.A. No. 7659 retroactively, squarely applies.
Following Simon, the proper penalty for her offense, given the minimal quantity of drugs involved, is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the correct indeterminate penalty is six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum. Since petitioner had been serving her sentence for the drug offense since August 14, 1993, a period exceeding the maximum imposable penalty, her sentence for that crime was declared fully served. However, her continued detention was ordered until she completes the separate sentence for illegal possession of firearms.