G.R. No. 251954, June 10, 2020
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF INMATES RAYMUNDO REYES AND VINCENT B. EVANGELISTA, DULY REPRESENTED BY ATTY. RUBEE RUTH C. CAGASCA-EVANGELISTA, IN HER CAPACITY AS WIFE OF VINCENT B. EVANGELISTA AND COUNSEL OF BOTH INMATES, PETITIONER, V. BUCOR CHIEF GERALD BANTAG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS OF NEW BILIBID PRISON, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS AND ALL THOSE PERSONS IN CUSTODY OF THE INMATES RAYMUNDO REYES AND VINCENT B. EVANGELISTA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Rubee Ruth C. Cagasca-Evangelista, as counsel and wife of inmate Vincent B. Evangelista, filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for inmates Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista. They were convicted by the Regional Trial Court on December 14, 2001, for illegal sale of 974.12 grams of shabu under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court affirmed their conviction in a Decision dated September 27, 2007. Petitioner argues that with the abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346, the penalty for illegal sale of drugs should revert to the original penalty under R.A. No. 6425 (six years and one day to twelve years). She further contends that the inmates have already served 19 years and 2 months, and with the retroactive application of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under R.A. No. 10592, they have served more than the required sentence.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Procedurally, the petition was defective for disregarding rules on verified electronic submission and written explanation of service, and for ignoring the hierarchy of courts. The Court emphasized that direct recourse to it is proper only for questions of law, not fact-based issues like entitlement to GCTA. On the merits, the writ of habeas corpus is not proper as the detention is pursuant to a lawful judgment. The confinement is valid under Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as the court had jurisdiction. The abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346 did not repeal the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by R.A. No. 7659 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs; it only prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua remains valid. The claim that the inmates have over-served their sentence due to GCTA involves a factual determination not proper in a habeas corpus proceeding. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.