G.R. No. 126170 August 27, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Emma Maquilan, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Emma Maquilan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte for drug-pushing (violation of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended) and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The court also ordered the destruction of 59 sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes and a matchbox of marijuana seeds seized from her. She filed a notice of appeal. Before the Supreme Court could act on the appeal, Maquilan moved to withdraw her appeal via a handwritten letter, stating she intended to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to seek release for the sake of her children. The Solicitor General interposed no objection to the withdrawal. However, it was later manifested that Maquilan had already been released from the Correctional Institution for Women on July 25, 1997, by virtue of an order from the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (Branch 71) in a habeas corpus case. In her habeas corpus petition, Maquilan falsely stated she was in custody “by reason of a final decision” from the trial court, without mentioning her pending appeal. The Superintendent of the correctional institution filed a comment interposing no objection to the habeas petition. The Pasig RTC, guided by jurisprudence on the retroactive application of a reduced penalty based on the weight of the marijuana (concluding it was below 250 grams, warranting only prision correccional) and considering Maquilan had already served 4 years, 10 months, and 13 days, granted the petition and ordered her release.

ISSUE

Whether the motion to withdraw appeal should be granted and whether the release of the accused-appellant via a writ of habeas corpus during the pendency of her appeal was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motion to withdraw the appeal. The release of accused-appellant through the habeas corpus proceeding was void. The Court held that the use of the writ of habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy presupposes a final judgment. Since Maquilan’s appeal was still pending, the decision of the trial court was not final. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig had no jurisdiction to issue the release order because it was misled by Maquilan’s misrepresentation that the decision was final. The case is analogous to People v. Bacang, which prohibits acts like pardon or release via habeas corpus during the pendency of an appeal unless the appeal is withdrawn. The Court ordered the Bureau of Corrections to effect the rearrest of Maquilan within sixty days and her reconfinement. Further action on the appeal was held in abeyance pending rearrest. The Court also required Maquilan, her PAO counsel (Atty. Editha C. Pio), and the correctional institution superintendent (Rachel D. Ruelo) to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for misrepresenting the status of the criminal case.