THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212945. January 27, 2016.]
FELIPE DE GUZMAN Y CASIPIT, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212945[Formerly UDK-15001] (Felipe De Guzman y Casipit vs. The Director, Bureau of Corrections and/or his representative). — Before this Court is a petition for habeas corpus1 dated October 29, 2013, signed by Felipe De Guzman y Casipit (petitioner) himself, an inmate in Cell No. 229, MSC, Camp Sampaguita, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, with Prison No. N91P-2582. The two-page, type-written petition is in English and was apparently prepared with help from a co-inmate of the petitioner, 2 and attached thereto is an unsigned computer printout 3 purportedly from the Bureau of Corrections containing a summary of the history of his incarceration.
As backgrounder, the petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case Nos. D-9793 and D-9794 of the crime of Rape on two (2) counts and was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count. On automatic review (docketed as G.R. Nos. 102409-10), the Court in its Decision 4 on December 21, 1992 affirmed the Joint Decision dated July 25, 1991 of the RTC.
The petitioner alleges that he has been in continuous incarceration for the above crimes since December 27, 1989: first, in the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), then at the Dagupan City jail, and in the national penitentiary since his conviction. Now he wants to avail of Republic Act No. 10592, 5 which provides for increased allowance for good conduct to an offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, or to a convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail. CAIHTE
In the Resolution 6 dated January 13, 2014, the Court required the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to extend assistance to the petitioner. Forthwith, Atty. Winston Clarence O. Gayapa (Atty. Gayapa), Public Attorney III entered his appearance as counsel for the petitioner. 7 On June 18, 2014, the Court directed the petitioner through PAO to submit a soft PDF copy of the petition and annexes. 8
On September 23, 2014, Atty. Gayapa filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Petition, 9 to which he attached a handwritten and signed statement 10 of the petitioner expressing his desire to withdraw his petition for habeas corpus. Thus, Atty. Gayapa begged to be excused from submitting the soft copy of the petition in portable document formal file, with apology for the belated filing of the said motion, and prayed that the same be granted.
However, on October 14, 2014, the petitioner himself filed a Manifestation 11 complaining to this Court that instead of assisting and representing him, Atty. Gayapa tried to discourage him in his first visit sometime in April of 2014 from pursuing his petition for reasons known only to him; that during his second visit, Atty. Gayapa presented to him a letter of withdrawal of his petition for his signature, handwritten by Atty. Gayapa himself, without however explaining to him its consequences; that he has lost his trust and confidence in Atty. Gayapa and requests that he be given a new lawyer to help him pursue his petition.
On January 21, 2015, the Court resolved to defer action on the Motion for Leave to Withdraw Petition and required Atty. Gayapa to comment on the petitioner's Manifestation. 12 On March 17, 2015, Atty. Gayapa filed a motion to extend the time to file his comment. 13
In his Comment 14 dated April 8, 2015, Atty. Gayapa explained that during his first visit to the petitioner at the national penitentiary, he asked to see proofs of his incarceration at the NBI on December 27, 1989 and at the Dagupan City jail from August 22, 1990, but the petitioner could not show any, so he advised him to seek his relatives' help to secure them. On his second visit on May 7, 2014, the petitioner still did not have the documents; thus, Atty. Gayapa advised him to withdraw his petition first since without the documents the same would not prosper. The petitioner was told to re-file the same once the documents are available. The petitioner agreed, and then sought his help to draft a letter of withdrawal of his petition. Atty. Gayapa complied, drafted a handwritten statement as above described, which the petitioner voluntarily signed. Atty. Gayapa therefore expressed dismay over the petitioner's Manifestation dated September 29, 2014 that he advised him to drop his petition without explaining the reasons or the consequences thereof.
In the Resolution 15 dated June 17, 2015, the Court resolved to note the Comment and grant the petitioner's Motion for Leave to Withdraw Petition.
Considering all the foregoing and finding the Public Attorney's Office's comment on Felipe De Guzman's manifestation to be in order, the Court resolved to CONSIDER the Petition for Habeas Corpus as withdrawn. This petition is now CLOSED and TERMINATED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2. See Comment of Atty. Winston Clarence O. Gayapa dated April 8, 2015; id. at 35.
3. Id. at 4.
4. 216 SCRA 754.
5. AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Approved on May 29, 2013.
6. Rollo, p. 6.
7. Id. at 9-11.
8. Id. at 16.
9. Id. at 18-20.
10. Id. at 22.
11. Id. at 24-25.
12. Id. at 27-28.
13. Id. at 29-31.
14. Id. at 34-38.
15. Id. at 43-44.