Case Digest (G.R. No. 95523)
Facts:
Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera (petitioner) was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on October 28, 1988. Following this conviction, he was sentenced to a penalty of reclusion temporal ranging from 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 18 years, 8 months. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction on July 12, 1990. In response to the appellate court’s decision, Gonzales filed a petition for review on certiorari on November 13, 1990, contending that the decision was erroneous. While the review was pending, the legislative enactment of Republic Act 8294 came into effect, which amended the penalty for illegal possession of firearms. On August 18, 1997, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction but modified the imposed penalty, reducing it to a minimum of four (4) years and two (2) months and a maximum of six (6) years. The Court recognized that Gonzales had already served nine (9) years, nine (9) months, and twenty-three (23) days of incarceration, and thus ordered hiCase Digest (G.R. No. 95523)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera was convicted by the trial court on October 28, 1988 for illegal possession of firearm and was charged, among other things, for attempted homicide.
- The court acquitted him of the attempted homicide charge due to failure of the prosecution to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt, while finding him guilty of illegal possession of firearm.
- Proceedings Prior to the Supreme Court
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on July 12, 1990, sustaining the trial court’s decision regarding illegal possession of firearm.
- On November 13, 1990, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals decision.
- Impact of Legislative Change on the Case
- During the pendency of the petition for review, Republic Act 8294 was enacted, which lowered the penalty for illegal possession of firearm.
- In the August 18, 1997 decision, while affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court modified the imposition of the penalty pursuant to the new law.
- The revised penalty was set at a range of four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum.
- The modification reflected the legislative intent to reduce the severity of penalties for the offense.
- Issues Related to Preventive Detention and Release
- The computation of the total period of detention was initially based on the period from the conviction (October 28, 1988) to the promulgation of the modified sentence (August 18, 1997).
- Subsequent evidence from the Bureau of Corrections revealed discrepancies:
- The petitioner had only served one (1) month and twelve (12) days of preventive suspension, contrary to earlier records.
- The petitioner was not located immediately after the conviction, being rearrested on September 16, 1993, and was committed to the Bureau of Corrections only on July 4, 1997.
- Based on the accurate computation of his detention, the Court was compelled to re-examine the order of immediate release, initially granted because his served time exceeded the maximum penalty under the older imposition.
Issues:
- Whether the modification of the penalty pursuant to Republic Act 8294, which lowered the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, was proper and warranted a recalculation of the petitioner's period of detention.
- The issue involved determining if the imposition of the new indeterminate penalty should be applied retroactively despite the petitioner's subsequent detention records.
- Whether the computation of the total period of detention should be revised in light of the correct records from the Bureau of Corrections regarding preventive suspension.
- The issue focused on how to accurately compute the period served, taking into account the discrepancy between preventive detention and confinement after rearrest.
- Whether the order for immediate release, initially granted based on the assumption that the petitioner had served time in excess of the maximum penalty under the prior imposition, should be recalled in view of the revised computation and penalty.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)