Case Summary (G.R. No. 109902)
Factual Background and Loss of Records
Petitioner was convicted in Criminal Case No. 60677 (jeepney hold-up resulting in the killing of a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer) and sentenced to imprisonment "habang buhay." In June 1993 petitioner sought transfer from Manila City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections; the warden required submission of the mittimus, decision, and information. Officials discovered that the entire records, including the judgment, were missing. Certifications from the City Prosecutor’s Office and the RTC clerk attributed the loss to a fire at Manila City Hall on November 3, 1986.
Procedural History in Habeas Corpus and Trial Court Ruling
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in October 1994 asserting illegal detention because no copy of a valid judgment could be produced. The Supreme Court issued the writ and raffled the matter to RTC-Manila, Branch 9, ordering a prompt hearing. After hearing, Branch 9 dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that loss of records does not invalidate a judgment or authorize release and that the proper remedy is reconstitution of records.
Court of Appeals Decision and Modification
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal but, in the interest of orderly administration and under the peculiar facts, allowed petitioner’s transfer to the Bureau of Corrections without the submission of mittimus, decision, and information — explicitly without prejudice to reconstitution of the original records. Motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues Presented on Certiorari
Petitioner raised two principal legal questions: (I) whether continued incarceration is justified where records of conviction were lost and whether the Court of Appeals’ resolution affirming denial of habeas corpus could itself serve as a substitute judgment to justify detention; and (II) whether reconstitution of destroyed official records should be initiated by the government custodians of those records or by the prisoner whose liberty is restrained.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner argued his continued detention violated due process because Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 120 require a written judgment and, absent a copy of a valid judgment, detention is unlawful. He also maintained that prior precedent obligating the prosecution to join the defense in reconstitution was modified by Ordonez v. Director of Prisons (1994), which recognized that prisoners are not custodians of records and that government responsibility for reconstitution is primary.
Respondents’ Contentions
Public respondents (through the Office of the Solicitor General) contended that the sole inquiry in habeas corpus is whether legal ground exists for detention. They asserted that there was sufficient proof of a valid conviction (including petitioner’s admissions and other documentary evidence) and that, under Rule 102 Section 4, a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment is not entitled to discharge by habeas corpus. They urged reconstitution, not relief by habeas corpus.
Legal Standards Governing Habeas Corpus Review
Habeas corpus is the constitutional and speedy remedy to test legality of restraint; it may be used where deprivation of constitutional rights results in restraint, where a court lacked jurisdiction, or where an excessive penalty renders the sentence void. However, collateral attack by habeas corpus is limited: when a court has jurisdiction over the offense and the person, its judgment is not susceptible to collateral attack via habeas corpus; only void judgments for lack of jurisdiction are open to such attack.
Evidentiary Findings and Admissions
The trial court and appellate record contain petitioner’s judicial admissions — both oral and written — acknowledging he was charged and convicted of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment, including an urgent motion in which petitioner stated conviction and promulgation of a life sentence in 1985. Under Rule 130 Section 23 and Rule 129 Section 4, admissions in the same case are evidentiary and need no proof unless shown to be made by palpable mistake; petitioner did not deny or repudiate these admissions. The record also included a certified Monthly Report of the presiding judge and a People’s Journal notice; the latter has limited probative value but corroborates publication of the conviction.
Burden of Proof and Prima Facie Effect of Return
Where the return to a writ of habeas corpus shows process or judgment on its face, the return is prima facie evidence of lawful detention and shifts the burden to the petitioner to allege and prove facts invalidating the restraint. Rule 102 Section 13 and Section 4 govern that a person in custody under process issued by a competent court or under judgment of a court of record shall not be discharged by the writ for mere informality or defect; nor shall habeas corpus authorize discharge of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
Precedent Applied: Loss of Records and Reconstitution
The Court relied on longstanding jurisprudence (e.g., Gomez v. Director of Prisons; Gunabe v. Director of Prisons) establishing that mere loss or destruction of case records after conviction does not invalidate a judgment nor justify release by habeas corpus. The appropriate remedy
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 109902)
Title, Citation and Panel
- Case citation: 382 Phil. 412, Second Division, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000.
- Decision authored by Justice Quisumbing; Justices Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr. concurred.
- Case is a petition for review on certiorari from decisions of the Court of Appeals dated April 28, 1995 (affirming dismissal of habeas corpus petition) and its Resolution dated December 1, 1995 (denying motion for reconsideration).
Parties
- Petitioner: Norberto Feria y Pacquing.
- Respondents: The Court of Appeals; The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila (in place of the Jail Warden of the Manila City Jail); The Presiding Judge of Branch II, Regional Trial Court of Manila; and The City Prosecutor, City of Manila.
- Office of the Solicitor General participated by filing Comment on behalf of public respondents.
Relevant Procedural Background
- Petitioner has been under detention since May 21, 1981, by reason of conviction for Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No. 60677 by RTC-Manila, Branch 2, for the jeepney hold-up and killing of Margaret Viviene Carmona.
- On June 9, 1993, petitioner sought transfer from Manila City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa; the Jail Warden informed the Presiding Judge of RTC-Manila Branch 2 that transfer requires submission of Commitment Order (Mittimus), Decision, and Information.
- It was discovered that the entire records of Criminal Case No. 60677, including the copy of the judgment, were missing.
- Inquiry revealed the records could not be found in the City Prosecutor’s Office and in the Clerk of Court of RTC-Manila Branch 2; certifications indicated the records appear to have been lost or destroyed in a fire at Manila City Hall on November 3, 1986.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court on October 3, 1994, praying for discharge on ground of continued detention without a valid judgment and violation of due process.
- Supreme Court on October 10, 1994: issued the writ, ordered raffle among incumbent RTC-Manila judges, required appearance and production of petitioner on October 13, 1994, and directed respondents to return the writ by October 12, 1994.
- The case was raffled to RTC-Manila, Branch 9, which on November 15, 1994 dismissed the habeas corpus petition holding loss of records does not invalidate judgment or authorize release and that remedy is reconstitution of records with the trial court.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals; on April 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but modified that petitioner may be transferred to the Bureau of Corrections without submission of the mittimus, decision and information, subject to reconstitution of original records.
- Motion for Reconsideration denied on December 1, 1995 by the Court of Appeals.
- Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, assigning errors of law.
Questions Presented (as framed by petitioner)
- Whether, under the peculiar circumstances where records of conviction were lost, petitioner’s continued incarceration is justified by law, and whether the Court of Appeals’ resolution affirming denial of the habeas corpus petition constitutes a judgment or substitute judgment sufficient to support incarceration.
- Whether reconstitution of official records lost/destroyed should be initiated by the government and its custody-holding organs or by the prisoner whose liberty is restrained.
Petitioner’s Contentions (as presented in the record)
- Petitioner asserts detention is illegal because no copy of a valid judgment exists as required by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner argues evidence considered in the habeas corpus proceedings did not establish the contents of the judgment.
- Petitioner contends that the statement in Gunabe v. Director of Prisons (that reconstitution is equally the duty of prosecution and defense) has been modified or abandoned by Ordonez v. Director of Prisons (235 SCRA 152, 1994), which held prisoners should not be blamed for missing records and implied government responsibility.
Public Respondents’ Position (Office of the Solicitor General)
- The sole inquiry in the habeas corpus proceeding is whether there is legal basis to detain petitioner.
- Public respondents contend they have sufficiently shown the existence of a legal ground for petitioner’s continued incarceration: his conviction by final judgment.
- Under Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, discharge of a person imprisoned under lawful judgment is not authorized.
- The appropriate remedy for missing records is a proceeding for reconstitution of judicial records, not release via habeas corpus.
Facts and Evidence Found by the Courts (Trial Court and Supreme Court review)
- Petitioner was in custody initially at Manila City Jail, then transferred to Youth Rehabilitation Center, Camp Sampaguita, and later to the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ decision.
- Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged with and convicted of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer imprisonment "habang buhay."
- RTC-Manila, Branch 9 found petitioner admitted in open court that a decision was read to him sentencing him to life imprisonment; this finding appeared in the RTC Order dated October 17, 1994.
- Petitioner’s Urgent Motion for Issuance of Commitment Order dated June 8, 1993 included petitioner’s own statement that he was charged in 1981, tried for four years, and after trial the court found him guilty and gave a life sentence in a promulgation handed down in 1985.
- The