A.M. No. CA-15-53-J - Re: Catherine Damayo

Petitioners Alfredo G. Lamen and Reynaldo A. Cortes filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Willy Bagawe y Pagalla.
Willy Bagawe had been previously convicted for violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (as amended) for selling and delivering marijuana and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.
The prohibited drugs involved included:

Three matchboxes containing marijuana flowering tops weighing 3.5 grams in total.
One matchbox containing a marijuana cigarette butt.
One brown paper bag containing 10 grams of marijuana flowering tops.

The trial court's judgment was affirmed in toto by the Court on April 7, 1992, in a decision that became final on May 11, 1992.
Willy Bagawe has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 14, 1987 and is currently serving his sentence in the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinglupa, Metro Manila.
The petitioners argued that the gross quantity of marijuana, amounting to 13.6 grams, should invoke the principle from People vs. Simon, thereby entitling Bagawe to a reduced penalty.

Petitioners contended that given the limited quantity of the drug, under People vs. Simon the maximum term should be reduced to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional.
They further argued that since Bagawe had already served more than six years, his continued incarceration exceeded the proper maximum penalty.
The Office of the Solicitor General agreed that People vs. Simon should apply but recommended a penalty range from a minimum of six (6) months of arresto mayor to a maximum of six (6) years of prision correccional, with no fine.
Reference was made to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which benefits an accused through the retroactive application of penal provisions when they are favorable and provided that he is not a habitual criminal.

It was noted that under R.A. No. 7659, the penalty which could be imposed under R.A. No. 6425 would range from six (6) months of arresto mayor to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional when the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied.
The precedent set in Directo vs. Director of Prisons (1932) was cited, stressing that retroactive amendments made to a final and executory sentence, even if intended to favor the accused, are void due to lack of jurisdiction.
The petition for habeas corpus was advanced as the only remedy to grant retroactive relief when the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the case.

Whether the retroactive application of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code can be used to reduce the sentence of a convicted individual once the judgment has become final and executory.
Whether the writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for addressing the discrepancy between the sentence imposed and the maximum penalty allowable under the favorable provision of R.A. No. 7659.
Whether the computation of the penalty, based on the quantity of marijuana (only 13.6 grams), supports the argument for early release since the actual term served exceeded the maximum penalty prescribed by law.