GR 211269; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211269 , June 15, 2016
RUBEN E. TIU, Petitioner, vs. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, Acting Chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Parole, HON. FRANKLIN JESUS BUCAYU, Director of the Bureau of Corrections, HON. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA of the Department of Justice, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., the Executive Secretary, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ruben E. Tiu was convicted of selling and delivering methamphetamine hydrochloride and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine. His conviction became final and executory in 2004. In 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted him a “conditional pardon without parole conditions,” but no individual pardon papers were issued. Subsequent requests for a certificate of pardon were denied because the pardon was not signed, and the Board of Pardons and Parole deferred action pending compliance with requirements. Petitioner also claimed entitlement to immediate release based on two grounds: (1) the efficacy of his conditional pardon, and (2) the automatic reduction of his life sentence to thirty (30) years due to his classification as a penal colonist on December 21, 2011, pursuant to the Bureau of Corrections Operating Manual (BuCor-OM). He further argued for the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10592 , which increased Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA).
ISSUE
Whether or not a writ of habeas corpus should be issued in favor of petitioner.
RULING
No. The petition for habeas corpus lacks merit. The writ of habeas corpus inquires into the legality of detention. Petitioner is detained under a final judgment of conviction and has failed to demonstrate that his continued incarceration is unlawful. First, the conditional pardon granted was not perfected and therefore not effective, as it lacked the President’s signature and the issuance of the necessary pardon papers. Second, the automatic reduction of a life sentence to thirty years under Act No. 2489 requires executive approval for the colonist classification. Petitioner’s colonist status, granted merely by the Director of Corrections under the BuCor-OM—an administrative rule—cannot amend Act No. 2489 and does not constitute the required executive approval. Consequently, his life sentence was not modified. His claims under RA 10592 were not substantiated. Since petitioner is lawfully detained under a valid final judgment, he is not entitled to the writ.