G.R. No. 168728 - Barredo y Golani vs. Vinarao

Samuel Barredo y Golani was convicted in two separate criminal cases tried jointly in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103.
Criminal Case No. Q-92-38559 involved the crime of carnapping – specifically, carnapping aggravated and qualified by the frustrated killing of Ciriaco Rosales.
Criminal Case No. Q-92-38560 involved the crime of illegal possession of firearms, prosecuted under PD 1866 as amended.
The RTC rendered a joint decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases, sentencing him to:

Thirty (30) years of imprisonment for the carnapping case.
Eighteen (18) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal for the illegal possession of firearms case.

After conviction, petitioner was initially detained at the Quezon City Jail as a detention prisoner, later transferred on July 23, 1994, to the maximum security compound of the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
As of the reference dates provided:

A certification dated August 2, 2004, showed that petitioner had served 18 years of imprisonment.
A later certification (as of April 3, 2007) indicated a total of 18 years, 4 months, and 26 days served, including time credited for good conduct and preventive imprisonment.

Petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, claiming:

He had “already served the sentence” imposed by the RTC.
He relied on the revised computation table by the Bureau of Corrections for good conduct credits which purportedly reduced his required duration of confinement.
The Board of Pardons and Parole’s recommendation of a commutation of his sentence (a recommendation that, in his view, purportedly should amount to immediate relief).

In the carnapping case, petitioner pointed out that the trial court erred in imposing a straight 30-year fixed sentence instead of an indeterminate sentence as required by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Under the law, because the crime involved violence or intimidation, the proper imposition should have been an indeterminate sentence with a range of 17 years and 4 months (minimum) to 30 years (maximum).

In light of the passing of RA 8294, which provides a reduced penalty for simple illegal possession of firearms, the penalty should be reduced.
The correct imposition for this offense, when combined with the principles of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, would be a sentence with a minimum of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day and a maximum of 6 years.

Petitioner contended that having served 18+ years meant that he had completed the “minimum” term in both cases, thus entitling him to his release or at least to be released via the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief through the writ of habeas corpus given that he was detained pursuant to a valid and final judgment.

Does the existence of a valid judgment preclude the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus even if claims regarding sentence computation or indeterminate sentencing exist?

Whether the petitioner’s arguments regarding the improper imposition of a fixed sentence instead of an indeterminate sentence in the carnapping case have merit.

If an indeterminate sentence should have been imposed, does that automatically entitle him to early release if he has served the minimum term?

Whether the reduction of penalty provided by RA 8294 for illegal possession of firearms should be applied retroactively.

If applied retroactively, would the petitioner have served the minimum required term for that offense?

Whether the petitioner’s claim that the Board of Pardons and Parole’s recommendation for commutation of his sentence justifies the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Is a mere recommendation sufficient to alter the execution of a sentence without confirmation by the Executive, specifically the President?