GR 98362; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98362 September 5, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE AGUSTIN y POCNO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
George Agustin y Pocno was charged, tried, and convicted for selling 90 grams of dried marijuana leaves, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Regional Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in a 1992 resolution. Agustin had been in detention since his arrest.
Following the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659, which amended the penalties under the Dangerous Drugs Act, Agustin filed a motion for reconsideration and modification of his sentence. He invoked the ruling in People v. Simon, which held that the new law’s penalty provisions are favorable to the accused and should be applied retroactively. For the quantity of marijuana involved (90 grams, which is less than 250 grams), the newly prescribed penalty is prision correccional.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant George Agustin y Pocno is entitled to immediate release from detention based on the retroactive application of the more favorable penalty under R.A. No. 7659.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the motion, treating it as a substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus for invoking the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 7659, following its earlier resolution in Angeles v. Director of New Bilibid Prison. The legal logic is anchored on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates that penal laws with provisions favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect.
Applying the penalty structure from R.A. No. 7659 as construed in People v. Simon, the offense involving less than 250 grams of marijuana is punishable by prision correccional, which has a maximum duration of six years. The prison records showed that Agustin had already been incarcerated for eight years and nineteen days, a period exceeding the maximum imposable penalty under the new, more favorable law. Consequently, having served beyond the maximum sentence now applicable for his crime, his continued detention lacked legal basis. The Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.