G.R. No. L-17400 December 30, 1961
Epifania Cuenca y Mendoza, petitioner-appellant, vs. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Epifania Cuenca y Mendoza was convicted of theft in 1955 and sentenced by the Municipal Court of Manila to two months and one day of arresto mayor, plus an additional penalty of twelve years of prision mayor for being a habitual delinquent. She commenced serving her sentence. In 1960, after having served over five years, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Rizal. She contended that the allegations of habitual delinquency in the information were insufficient for failing to aver the dates of commission of her previous crimes, rendering the imposition of the additional penalty null and void. Alternatively, she argued that even if sufficient, the allegations only supported a fourth conviction for habitual delinquency, warranting a maximum additional penalty of ten years, not the twelve years imposed.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed her petition. The court found the allegations in the information, which included a tabulation with a column headed “DATE” preceding the dates of conviction, to be a sufficient, if inartful, averment of the dates of commission necessary to establish the sequence of crimes for habitual delinquency. The court agreed, however, that based on the information’s allegations, the petitioner’s record constituted only a fourth conviction, making the twelve-year additional penalty excessive. Nonetheless, it held that the writ of habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to correct this error.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is available to correct an excessive penalty imposed by a court that had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of the accused.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy. The Court clarified that the writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error. It is available to inquire into the jurisdiction of a court that rendered a judgment. If the court had jurisdiction over the crime and the person of the accused, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction—such as a mistake in appreciating the facts or in applying the law leading to an excessive sentence—is merely an error of judgment. Such errors must be corrected through the ordinary remedy of appeal in the manner prescribed by law, not via habeas corpus.
The Municipal Court of Manila undeniably had jurisdiction to try the theft case and to impose an additional penalty for habitual delinquency under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. Its alleged error in classifying the petitioner as a fifth offender instead of a fourth offender, resulting in a twelve-year instead of a ten-year additional penalty, was an error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. This did not deprive it of jurisdiction over the cause. The Court distinguished this case from precedents where habeas corpus was granted, which involved penalties that were absolutely unauthorized by law or beyond the court’s power to impose under any circumstance. Here, the court had the authority to impose a habitual delinquency penalty; the dispute was only over its duration. Consequently, the remedy was by appeal, and the petition for habeas corpus was correctly denied.