GR 37914; (August, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37914; August 29, 1932
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to estafa and was convicted under the old Penal Code. The trial court imposed a penalty of one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional. After the Revised Penal Code took effect, Rodriguez filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming his detention had become illegal because he had already served the penalty corresponding to his offense under the more favorable provisions of the new code.
ISSUE
1. Whether the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on estafa are more favorable to the petitioner than the old Penal Code, warranting retroactive application.
2. Whether, in habeas corpus proceedings, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt under the Revised Penal Code can be considered to reduce the petitioner’s penalty retroactively.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
1. Yes. The penalty for estafa under the Revised Penal Code is more lenient than under the old Penal Code. Following Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides retroactive effect to penal laws that favor the accused who is not a habitual criminal, the more favorable penalty under the new code must be applied to the petitioner.
2. Yes. In habeas corpus proceedings, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt, as provided under the Revised Penal Code, can be taken into account to give full retroactive effect to the more favorable law. The petitioner’s voluntary confession was evident from the sentence and served as the basis for his conviction. Considering this mitigating circumstance, the penalty under the Revised Penal Code should be imposed at its minimum degree.
The Court computed the petitioner’s revised penalty at four months and one day of arresto mayor. Since he had already served more than this term, he was entitled to immediate release. The dissent argued that habeas corpus is not a revisory remedy and should not be used to re-examine final judgments for mitigating circumstances.
AI Generated by Armztrong.