Title
Baking vs. Director of Prisons
Case
G.R. No. L-30364
Decision Date
Jul 28, 1969
Petitioners detained 18+ years sought release, claiming credit for preventive imprisonment and good conduct allowances; SC denied, ruling Article 97 applies only to convicts, not detainees.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30364)

Facts:

  1. Detention Period: Petitioners had been under detention for over 18 years under the charge of the Director of Prisons.
  2. Conviction: On May 16, 1969, the Supreme Court convicted petitioners for the crime of rebellion and sentenced each to 10 years' imprisonment. This decision became final.
  3. Habeas Corpus Petitions:
    • Angel C. Baking and Simeon G. Rodriguez filed a petition for habeas corpus on March 31, 1969, claiming denial of the right to a speedy trial.
    • After their conviction, they filed a motion for early decision and immediate release, arguing they had already served their sentences.
    • Jose Lava, Ramon Espiritu, Federico R. Maclang, Federico Bautista, Onofre Mangila, and Cesario Torres filed a similar petition on June 17, 1969.
  4. Arguments for Release:
    • Petitioners argued that under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, one-half of their preventive imprisonment (over 9 years) should be deducted from their 10-year sentence.
    • They also claimed entitlement to good conduct time allowances under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code for the entire 18-year detention period.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Interpretation of Article 97:
    • The phrase "any prisoner" in Article 97 is limited to convicts serving a sentence by final judgment.
    • The Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code governs, and the term "el penado" clearly refers to a convicted person, not a detention prisoner.
  2. Harmonization of Provisions:
    • Article 97 must be read in conjunction with Article 94, which provides that good conduct allowances are granted only to those serving their sentences.
    • Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, which allows credit for preventive imprisonment, does not imply that detention prisoners are serving their sentences during detention.
  3. Jurisprudential Support:
    • The Court cited People vs. Martin, 68 Phil. 122, which held that good conduct allowances are given in consideration of good behavior while serving a sentence, not during preventive imprisonment.
  4. Role of the Judiciary:
    • The Court emphasized that it cannot rewrite the law under the guise of interpretation. Any change to the law must come from Congress.

Dissent (Justice Fernando)

  1. Constitutional Due Process:
    • Justice Fernando argued that the continued detention of petitioners for over 18 years, despite a 10-year sentence, violated their right to due process.
    • He emphasized the importance of the writ of habeas corpus as a safeguard of personal liberty.
  2. Arbitrary Detention:
    • He viewed the prolonged detention as arbitrary and oppressive, regardless of whether it was labeled as preventive imprisonment or serving a sentence.
  3. Inapplicability of Article 29:
    • He suggested that Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, which limits credit for preventive imprisonment, may be unconstitutional as it disregards the due process and equal protection clauses.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.