Case Digest (G.R. No. 251954)
Facts:
In re: In the Matter of the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista, G.R. No. 251954, June 10, 2020, the Supreme Court Third Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is Atty. Rubee Ruth C. Cagasca‑Evangelista (petitioner), who filed the petition both in her capacity as counsel for the two inmates and as the wife of respondent‑inmate Vincent B. Evangelista; respondents are Gerald Bantag, in his capacity as Director General of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), the Bureau of Corrections, and those who have custody of Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista. Petitioner sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent BuCor to show legal authority for the detention of Reyes and Evangelista, to present them personally before the Court, and to order their release from New Bilibid Prison.
Reyes and Evangelista were convicted by Branch 103, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on December 14, 2001 for violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by RA 7659; the conviction was for the illegal sale of 974.12 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), and they were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and fined PHP 500,000 each. Their conviction was affirmed by this Court in People v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 175281, September 27, 2007.
More than a decade after affirmation, petitioner argued that with abolition of the death penalty by RA 9346 the penalties imposed under RA 7659 should be treated as repealed or reverted to the pre‑RA 7659 penalty under RA 6425 (i.e., an imprisonment term of six years and one day to twelve years), and that therefore Reyes and Evangelista have already served their sentences — more than 19 years — and, with application of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under RA 10592 (and its 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations issued by DOJ and DILG), they are entitled to release.
The petition was filed directly with this Court. The Court found procedural defects (no verified declaration of electronic submission and no written explanation of service under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court) and viewed the petition as an impermissible direct recourse because its central question — entitlement to GCTA and resulting release — depended on factual determinations. The Court therefore dismissed the petition on procedural and substantive grounds, holding that (a) the writ will not lie where detention is pursuant to a lawful judgment of a court of record that had jurisdiction (Section 4, Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court), (b) RA 9346 only abolished the imposition of death and did not repeal RA 7659’s amendment imposing reclusion perpetua, and (c) the 2019 IRR and RA 10592 exclude those convicted of heinous crimes from entitlement to GCTA; illegal...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the direct petition for a writ of habeas corpus properly filed before the Supreme Court in the first instance, or should the petitioners have proceeded in the lower courts under the hierarchy of courts?
- Does the abolition of the death penalty by RA 9346 operate to repeal or revert the penalty imposed by RA 7659 (reclusion perpetua) such that the conviction's sentence is invalid or excessive?
- Are Reyes and Evangelista entitled to Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under RA 10592 (as construed by the 2019 IRR) such that they ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)