G.R. No. 127904 - People vs. Victor y Penis

Arturo V. Escalante, the petitioner, is confined in the Bilibid Prison.
On November 14, 1928, Escalante was convicted of estafa.
He was sentenced to serve two years, eleven months, and eleven days of presidio correccional along with subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency, as well as the payment of costs.

The sentence imposed was the minimum of the maximum degree penalty under the Penal Code then in force (article 634, paragraph No. 3).
For the estafa in question (amount: P4,836.53) – which is less than P6,000 – the Revised Penal Code (article 315, paragraph 3) provided a penalty ranging from arresto mayor in the maximum degree to prision correccional in the minimum degree.
The pertinent penalties under the new Penal Code were detailed through comparative computations involving:

Minimum sentence: 1 year, 8 months, and 1 day.
Subsidiary imprisonment: 6 years, 20 months, and 2 days; plus an additional imprisonment of 2 years, 21 days.
Sentence for violation of conditional pardon: 2 months and 16 days.
Total computed term (excluding good conduct allowances): 2 years, 5 months, and 7 days.

Maximum sentence: 2 years and 4 months.
Subsidiary imprisonment: 9 years and 10 months.
Sentence for violation of conditional pardon: 2 years and 16 days.
Total computed term: 3 years, 3 months, and 26 days.
With good-conduct allowances (3 years, 1 month, and 10 days), the net term would be 2 years and 10 months.

Escalante entered the Bilibid Prison on January 17, 1929.
By the time of the petition, he had served more than three years, which exceeds the computed total term under either scenario presented.
The petitioner invoked Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the retroactive application of penal laws when they favor the convicted person, provided that such person is not a habitual criminal.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code states that penal laws shall have retroactive effect if they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal—even if a final sentence was already pronounced and is being served.
Article 366 of the Code clarifies that, without prejudice to Article 22, felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the enactment of the Code are to be punished according to the law in force at the time, unless a more favorable law applies.
Judicial and legislative commentaries were presented:

Judge Anacleto Diaz, chairman of the committee drafting the Code, testified that Article 22 (originating from Spain’s art. 23, P.C.) was intended to provide a retroactive benefit.
Representative Quintin Paredes reinforced that the Revised Penal Code was meant to apply retroactively when such application is favorable, even including the Code itself under the term “penal laws.”

Previous jurisprudence, particularly Laceste vs. Santos, reiterated the principle of retroactivity for favorable penal laws.

Whether the favorable retroactive application of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code benefits the petitioner, and if so, whether it mandates his immediate release.

Does the petitioner qualify as one who is not a habitual criminal, thereby satisfying the condition for Article 22's application?
Is the computation under the new Penal Code (both “minimum of the maximum” and “maximum of the maximum” scenarios) indeed more favorable than the sentence originally imposed?
Given that the petitioner has already served a period exceeding the computed penalty, does he become entitled to immediate discharge pursuant to the retroactive application of a favorable law?