G.R. No. 182855 - Adonis vs. Tesoro

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182855)

Factual Background

In Criminal Case No. 48679-2001, Adonis was convicted of libel. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor maximum, and a maximum of four (4) years, six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium. He commenced service of the sentence on February 20, 2007 at the Davao Prisons and Penal Farm.

A separate libel prosecution, Criminal Case No. 48719-2001, was likewise pending against Adonis before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 14, initiated by Jeanette L. Leuterio. On December 11, 2007, the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) issued an order for the Discharge on Parole of seven inmates in various jails, including Adonis. The order was received by the City Parole and Probation Office of Davao on May 2, 2008.

Meanwhile, on January 25, 2008, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which laid down Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. In light of the parole order and the issuance of the circular, Adonis filed on April 18, 2008 a Motion to Reopen Case (With Leave of Court) before the RTC Branch 17, seeking immediate release and modification of his sentence to payment of fine pursuant to the circular.

In Criminal Case No. 48719-2001, Adonis sought provisional release. On May 26, 2008, the motion was granted by Presiding Judge George Omelio in open court, and Adonis was allowed to post bail of P5,000. On the same day, after Adonis filed a cash bond and an undertaking, the trial court issued an order directing the release of Alexis Adonis, unless he was being held for other crimes or offenses. The order was served to the respondent on the same date, but the release was not effected.

Habeas Corpus Filing and Respondent’s Position

On May 30, 2008, Adonis filed the petition for habeas corpus, alleging that his liberty was restrained by the respondent without valid reason. The petition was treated as contesting the continued confinement despite the parole process and despite court orders he claimed supported his release.

The respondent filed a Comment. Adonis then submitted an Urgent Motion to Resolve on October 27, 2008, and a Manifestation and Motion on November 7, 2008, reiterating the prayers contained in his earlier pleadings.

In a letter received by the Court on February 11, 2009, the respondent informed the Court that Adonis had been released from confinement on December 23, 2008, after he accepted the conditions of his parole and was advised to report to the City Parole and Probation Officer of Davao.

The Parties’ Arguments on Release and Retroactivity

Adonis anchored his prayer for immediate relief on two interconnected theories. First, he claimed that his liberty could not be withheld because he had been granted parole. Second, he sought the application of Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which preferred the imposition of a fine over imprisonment in libel cases under certain guidelines, and he contended that the benefit of the circular should be applied to his finalized conviction in Criminal Case No. 48679-2001.

In support of his position on the preference for a fine and the possibility of relief from imprisonment, Adonis cited Fermin v. People, where the Court preferred the imposition of the fine rather than imprisonment under the circumstances obtaining there. Adonis argued, in substance, for the retroactive application of the administrative circular to the case in which he had already been convicted and had already started serving his sentence.

Court’s Ruling on the Petition for Habeas Corpus

The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It began with the doctrinal purpose of the writ of habeas corpus: it exists to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and is an effective defense of personal freedom. The Court emphasized that the writ is issued only for persons illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis, and it is not available when the detainee is in custody by virtue of a judicial process or a valid judgment.

Applying Section 4, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court held that the writ must not be allowed or discharge authorized if the restrained person is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, provided the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or render the judgment. The Court further noted that the rule does not authorize discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense and suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

On the application of these principles, the Court ruled that Adonis was not entitled to habeas corpus. At the time the petition was filed, he was convicted by the RTC Branch 17 in Criminal Case No. 48679-2001 and was serving a sentence imposed by final judgment. The Court thus treated the restraint as anchored on judicial authority, not on unlawful detention.

Parole, Pending Cases, and the Timing of Adonis’s Release Claim

The Court recognized that a convict may be released on parole after serving the minimum period of the sentence. However, it stressed that the pendency of another criminal case serves as a ground for disqualification from release on parole. It found that when Adonis was granted parole on December 11, 2007, the second libel case, Criminal Case No. 48719-2001, was still pending before the RTC Branch 14. The Court added that even when the habeas corpus petition was filed, Criminal Case No. 48719-01 remained pending.

Given that status, the Court held that the respondent had a lawful basis to deny Adonis’s claim for immediate release at that time. The Court thus rejected the premise that the mere existence of the BPP parole order automatically entitled Adonis to immediate physical release notwithstanding the disqualifying circumstance of a pending criminal case.

Subsequently, Adonis was released from confinement on December 23, 2008 after accepting the conditions of parole. The Court treated this later development as confirming that release eventually occurred under the parole framework, but it did not alter the earlier finding that immediate release at the time of petition was proscribed.

Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 and the Rejection of Retroactive Application

The Court likewise rejected Adonis’s request to modify his sentence and to apply Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 retroactively to Criminal Case No. 48679-2001. It examined the circular’s contents and ruled that the benefits of the administrative circular could not be given retroactive effect under the attendant circumstances of the case.

The Court underscored that Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 did not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. It also noted that judges retained sound discretion, considering the peculiar circumstances, to determine whether a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 182855)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners Alexander Lex Adonis, represented by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) through its executive director and by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) through its chairperson, filed a petition for habeas corpus against Superintendent Venancio Tesoro, Director, Davao Prisons and Penal Farm.
The petition sought an order directing respondent to produce petitioner before the Court due to alleged unlawful restraint.
Petitioners also sought, in the alternative, the application of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 imposing a fine instead of imprisonment in relation to Criminal Case No. 48679-2001.
Respondent filed a Comment.
Petitioner later filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve and a subsequent Manifestation and Motion reiterating the reliefs.
During the pendency of the petition, the Court received information from respondent that petitioner had been released from confinement.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioners alleged that petitioner’s liberty was restrained by respondent without valid reason.
In Criminal Case No. 48679-2001, petitioner was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City (RTC), Branch 17 for libel, filed by then Representative Prospero Nograles.
Petitioner received an indeterminate sentence with five (5) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor maximum as minimum penalty and four (4) years, six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium as maximum penalty.
Petitioner began serving his sentence at the Davao Prisons and Penal Farm on February 20, 2007.
A second libel case, Criminal Case No. 48719-2001, was pending before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 14, filed by Jeanette L. Leuterio.
On December 11, 2007, the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) issued an order for the discharge on parole of several inmates, including petitioner.
The parole-related document was received by the City Parole and Probation Office of Davao on May 2, 2008.
On April 18, 2008, petitioner filed with RTC Branch 17 a Motion to Reopen Case (With Leave of Court) praying for immediate release and modification of sentence to payment of fine pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 08-2008.
In Criminal Case No. 48719-2001, petitioner moved for provisional release and the motion was granted in open court on May 26, 2008, with a bail amount of P5,000.
The trial court issued an order directing release unless petitioner was being held for other crimes or offenses, and the order was served on the respondent, but petitioner’s release was not effected.
On May 30, 2008, petitioner filed the instant habeas corpus petition alleging unlawful restraint.
On December 23, 2008, petitioner was released from confinement after accepting the conditions set forth in his parole and was advised to report to the City Parole and Probation Officer of Davao.

Statutory and Rule Framework

The petition was expressly anchored on Rule 102 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which governs petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
The Court emphasized that the ultimate purpose of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint, and it functions as a speedy and effectual remedy for personal liberty.
The Court held that habeas corpus is issued only to obtain relief for persons illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis.
The Court ruled that habeas corpus is not issued when the person is in custody due to judicial process or a valid judgment.
The decision cited Section 4, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court, particularly the rule that a writ shall not be allowed, or discharge shall not be authorized, when the restraint is by an officer under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.
The Court reiterated Section 4’s further limitation that the rule does not authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines or a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
The Court also relied on Fletcher v. Director of Bureau of Corrections for the general principles on when habeas corpus does not lie, citing Barredo v. Hon. Vinarao.

Issues Raised

The Court confronted whether petitioner was entitled to habeas corpus despite being detained by virtue of conviction and sentence.
The Court considered whether petitioner could obtain immediate release during the pendency of a separate case, despite the BPP’s parole grant.
The Court assessed whether Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 could be applied retroactively to Criminal Case No. 48679-2001, already final and executory.
T