GR 156983; (September, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156983, September 23, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE VICTOR RIGOR Y DANAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT, NEW BILIBID PRISON, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Victor Rigor y Danao was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for illegal sale and possession of shabu. The Joint Decision sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty in each case, with the maximum terms being four years, four months, and one day of prision correccional in one case, and four years and one day in the other. Petitioner did not appeal, rendering the judgment final. Having served one year and five months, he filed this petition for habeas corpus. He sought a reduction of his penalties to six months and one day of prision correccional per case, arguing he should be released as he had already served more than a year. He cited jurisprudence where Republic Act No. 7659 was applied retroactively. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed, contending he must serve the maximum penalties successively.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for habeas corpus, seeking a modification of the final penalties imposed, should be granted.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Court cannot grant the primary relief of penalty reduction. A judgment that has become final and executory, due to the accused’s failure to appeal, is beyond the court’s jurisdiction to modify or alter. However, the Court noted a palpable error in the trial court’s Joint Decision regarding the imposed penalties. The penalties specified were incorrect as they fell outside the legal ranges for arresto mayor and prision correccional under the applicable law, R.A. No. 7659. For the quantity of drugs involved, the proper penalty is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the correct indeterminate sentence should be six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum for each case.
Following precedent, a penalty that is a nullity because it is not authorized by law can be corrected by the Court to conform with the law, as such a judgment can never become final and executory. This correction is not a reduction or increase but a duty to align the penalty with statutory prescription. The trial court had already applied R.A. No. 7659, and the corrected penalties are within its ambit. Petitioner’s request for retroactive application does not warrant release, as he must serve the maximum terms of his successive sentences. The writ of habeas corpus is not proper as his detention remains lawful under the corrected penalties. The sentences are modified accordingly.