G.R. No. 4919
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.
September 7, 1908

FACTS:
Petitioner Joseph J. Capurro was convicted by the Supreme Court on November 24, 1906, for a criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities. On December 7, 1906, his sentence was modified to three years and six months of prision correccional, a fine of 2,500 pesetas, and costs. The judgment explicitly stated that he was entitled to have one-half of the time he was imprisoned during the pendency of the action deducted from his sentence, in accordance with Article 93 of the provisional laws. A mittimus was subsequently issued, commanding his detention in Bilibid Prison.

Capurro filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was unlawfully detained. He alleged that his actual pre-conviction detention amounted to one year, seven months, and twenty-six days. Based on this, he claimed several allowances:
1. 100 days good conduct time for voluntary labor performed during pre-conviction detention, under Act No. 1533 .
2. Eight months and twenty-four days for good conduct during his sentence, also under Act No. 1533 .
3. Nine months and twenty-eight days as an “abono” (allowance) for one-half of his pre-conviction detention, as expressly provided by the court’s judgment.

Capurro contended that the sum total of these allowances (amounting to twenty-two months and two days) should have resulted in his discharge from imprisonment on August 9, 1908, when applied to his three-year and six-month sentence. The Director of Prisons, however, continued to detain him, refusing his release.

ISSUE:
Has the petitioner’s sentence, including all proper allowances for good conduct and pre-conviction detention, already expired, thereby entitling him to immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus?

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that Joseph J. Capurro was lawfully detained and not yet entitled to be set at liberty.

The Court held that Capurro’s claim for eight months and twenty-four days of good conduct allowance under Act No. 1533 was manifestly untenable. Act No. 1533 provides for a diminution of sentence of “five days for each full month” served, starting from the first day of arrival at jail or prison, provided there are no violations of discipline and labor is performed diligently.

Capurro began serving his sentence on December 7, 1906. As of August 9, 1908 (his claimed release date), he had served one year, seven months, and twenty-eight days, which amounts to nineteen full months. Under Act No. 1533 , this would only entitle him to 95 days of good-conduct time (19 months * 5 days/month). Even as of the date of his petition (August 25), he had served only twenty full months, entitling him to a maximum of 100 days of good-conduct time. Therefore, his claim of eight months and twenty-four days (approximately 264 days) was significantly excessive.

The Court concluded that even without fully examining his other claims for allowances (for voluntary labor during detention or the allowance provided in his sentence), his miscalculation regarding good conduct time alone demonstrated that the period to which he was sentenced had not yet expired. Thus, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus was denied.