Humiwat y Buligan v. Director of Prisons or Representatives

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229366. April 2, 2018.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSEPH HUMIWAT Y BULIGAN, petitioner,vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS OR REPRESENTATIVES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

G.R. No. 229366 (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSEPH HUMIWAT Y BULIGAN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS OR REPRESENTATIVES, Respondent.) — We consider and resolve the petition for habeas corpus filed by Joseph Humiwat, an inmate at the Maximum Security Compound, New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City, to seek his release from his confinement thereat on the ground of his having exceeded the period of his imprisonment under the final judgment that had found and declared him guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 6425 and of malversation of public funds through falsification of commercial documents.

It appears that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, in Manila convicted Humiwat of the violation of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6425 and of several counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of commercial documents in Criminal Case No. 90-83818, Criminal Case No. 15024 to Criminal Case No. 15029, inclusive, and sentenced him to suffer three penalties of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine equivalent to the total amount of the funds malversed. 1 He was committed on January 16, 1996 to the New Bilibid Prison. 2

Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code relevantly provides:

Article 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:

xxx xxx xxx

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).

In accordance with the aforequoted provision, Humiwat's multiple sentence was adjusted to a maximum of 40 years.

By virtue of Resolution No. 06-2008 approved on November 26, 2008, the New Bilibid Prison Classification Board granted Humiwat a colonist status, by which he was to enjoy the privileges granted under Section 7, Chapter 3 of the Bureau of Corrections Manual, to wit:

Section 7. Privileges of a colonist. — A colonist shall have the following privileges:

a. credit of additional GCTA of five (5) days for such calendar month while retains said classification aside from the regular GCTA authorized under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code;

b. automatic reduction of life sentence imposed on the colonist to a sentence of thirty (30) years:3 (Bold emphasis supplied)

In view of his commuted sentence, Humiwat filed his petition for habeas corpus to obtain his release. He represented that his adjusted 40-year prison sentence expired on September 2, 2015 4 as the result of his colonist status and of the deduction of his good conduct time allowances.

In its comment, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) stated that it already forwarded a memorandum to the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Department Order No. 953 5 requesting approval of the release of Humiwat by virtue of his having already fully served his sentence; that the Secretary of Justice had still to act favorably upon the request to date; and that its Inmates Release Board deliberated on Humiwat's prison records and found that he was due for release on February 9, 2018 pursuant to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court GRANTS the petition for habeas corpus.

The Court, affirming the trial court's issuance of the writ of habeas corpus at the instance of inmate Rolito Go, opined as follows:

The BuCor Manual is very clear. No ambiguity attends that provision that once an inmate is granted a colonist status, his life sentence is commuted to 30 years. The RTC further held that, "[w]hile it is true that the President may commute the service of sentence of a prisoner, the law also recognizes partial reduction of sentences under Art. 97 of the Revised Penal Code which provides for allowances of good conduct." Contrary to petitioners' contention that the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot be commuted to 30 years, the RTC cited Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifically provides that for perpetual penalties like reclusion perpetua, the duration shall be computed at 30 years. Clearly, it is not correct that only the President can commute a sentence as these provisions, i.e., Articles 70 and 97, warrant partial extinguishment or commutation of sentence.

xxx xxx xxx

As correctly resolved by the trial court, while only the President can commute a prison sentence, Articles 70 and 97 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) recognize partial reduction or commutation of sentences by providing that "for penal penalties, the duration shall be computed for 30 years and the allowances of good conduct must be applied on top of the [good conduct time allowance] accorded to an inmate with a colonist status." CAIHTE

Accordingly, to implement the provisions of Article 97, the law has granted the Director of Prisons the power to grant good conduct allowances. The mandate of the Director of Prisons embodied in Article 99 of the RPC is clear and unambiguous. In fact, once granted, such allowances shall not be revoked. Article 99 of the RPC explicitly states:

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked. (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, after crediting his preventive imprisonment of nine (9) months and sixteen (16) days, and the regular Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under Act No. 3815 and Special Credit Time Allowance (SCTA) under Act No. 2409 granted upon him, Go has completed serving his sentence of thirty (30) years on 21 August 2013, which he commenced to serve on 30 April 1996.

The intent and spirit of the law in affording persons the remedy of writ of habeas corpus is to devise a speedy and effective means to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. To rule otherwise would render Article 99 of the RPC as a mere surplusage and would unduly impose excessive imprisonment on inmates in violation of the basic right to liberty. 6

Having certified that Humiwat's confinement expired as of May 31, 2017, 7 and the BuCor having already recommended his release to the Secretary of Justice, his continued confinement at the New Bilibid Prison is already without legal warrant. Hence, his immediate release from confinement at the New Bilibid Prison is in order.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for the writ of habeas corpus; and ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to RELEASE petitioner Joseph B. Humiwat from his confinement at the Maximum Security Compound, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City upon receipt of this resolution unless he is being confined thereat for any other lawful cause.

This resolution is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 9.

2.Id. at 11.

3. See Cruz III v. Go, G.R. No. 223446, November 28, 2016.

4.Rollo, pp. 4-5, 9.

5. Paragraph 2 of Department Order No. 953 states that:

xxx xxx xxx

   2. The said authority of the Director-General of the Bureau of Corrections to release national prisoners shall not apply to prisoners/inmates sentenced to Life Imprisonment or Reclusion Perpetua or high risk inmates, whose release due to expired sentences shall only be implemented upon prior approval of the Secretary of Justice.

6.Cruz III v. Go, supra note 4.

7. Records, p. 1.