Batchnumber:1,Casenumber:8,Preparedby:AKCVillaruel

Rodriguezvs.DirectorofPrisons
GR No. L-37914 - - 1932-08-29

FACTS:
Facts: PrisonerManuelRodriguezfiledapetitionforhabeascorpus,prayingthatafterproper
proceedingsanorderbeissuedrequiringtherespondentDirectorofPrisonstoimmediatelyset
himatliberty,onthegroundthatheisillegallydetained,inasmuchashehasalreadyservedthe
penaltycorrespondingtohisoffenseundertheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCode.Upon
arraignmentforthecrimeofestafaintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,thepetitioner
spontaneouslypleadedguilty,whereuponthetrialcourtrenderedajudgmentofconviction,and
therebeingnocircumstancetomodifyhiscriminalliability,imposeduponhimtheminimumofthe
mediumdegreeofthepenaltyofpresidiocorreccionalinitsminimumandmediumdegrees,in
accordancewiththeprovisionsofparagraph3,article534oftheoldPenalCode,thatis,oneyear,
eightmonths,andtwenty-onedaysofpresidiocorreccional,topayanindemnityofP647.70,and
tosuffersubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.Thepenaltyofoneyear,eightmonths,and
twenty-onedaysimposeduponsaidpetitionerbythetrialcourtistheminimumofthemedium
degreeofthepenaltyofpresidiocorreccionalinitsminimumandmediumdegrees,rangingfrom
sixmonthsandonedaytofouryearsandtwomonths,asprovidedinarticle534,paragraph3,of
theoldPenalCodeasamendedbyActNo.3244.ThepenaltyprovidedintheRevisedPenalCode,
article315,paragraph3,forthesameoffenseisarrestomayorinthemaximumdegreetoprision
correccionalintheminimumdegree,thatisfromfourmonthsandonedaytotwoyearsandfour
months,ofwhichthemediumdegreeisfromoneyearandonedaytooneyearandeightmonths,
whichismorelenientandhencemorefavorabletothepetitionerthanthesamedegreeofpenalty
imposedbyarticle534,paragraph3,oftheformerPenalCodecitedabove.
ART.22.Retroactiveeffectofpenallaws.-Penallawsshallhavearetroactiveeffectinsofaras
theyfavorthepersonguiltyofafelony,whoisnotahabitualcriminal,asthistermisdefinedinrule
5ofarticle62ofthisCode,althoughatthetimeofthepublicationofsuchlawsafinalsentencehas
beenpronouncedandtheconvictisservingthesame.

AstheprovisionsoftheaforementionedRevisedPenalCodewithreferencetothecrimeofestafa
hereinquestionaremorefavorabletothesaidpetitioner,andasthelatterisnothabitualcriminal,
themorelenientpenaltyprovidedintheRevisedPenalCodemustbeimposedupon.The
mitigatingcircumstances,astheirnameindicates,servetolessenthepenaltyfixedbylaw,and
whenevertheyarepresentcourtsareboundtotakethemintoconsideration,accordingtoarticle
77,inconnectionwitharticle80,paragraph3,oftheoldPenalCode,andarticle62,inconnection
witharticle64,paragraph2,oftheRevisedPenalCode.Inthecase,thetrialcourtcouldnotlegally
takeintoaccountthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntaryconfessionofguilt,establishedin
article13,paragraph7,ofthenewPenalCode,becauseitdidnotexistintheoldPenalCodeunder
whichthepetitionerhereinwasprosecutedandsentenced


ISSUE:
Issues:1.)WhetherornottheprovisionsoftheRevisedPenalCodewithreferencetothecrimeof
estafa,ofwhichthepetitionerwasconvicted,aremorefavorabletohimthanthoseoftheold
PenalCode.

2.)Whetherornotinhabeascorpusproceedingsthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntary
confessionofguiltestablishedforthefirsttimeinarticle13,paragraph7,oftheRevisedPenal
Code,canbetakenintoconsideration.

HELD:
Held:1.)Yes.Article22oftheRevisedPenalcode,abovequoted,extendsitsbenefitsevento
convictsservingsentence,
andtheonlylegalremedyopentothemtomakeuseofsuchbenefitsisthewritofhabeascorpus,
inasmuchas,ifthepenaltyimposeduponthemundertheformerpenallawwasdecreasedbythe
revisedcode,andthelatterhasretroactiveeffect,theexcesshasbecomeillegal.

2.)Yes.Itappearingfromthesentencethattherewasavoluntaryconfessionofguilt,andthatit
hasservedasthebasisofconviction,andtakingintoconsiderationthathadsuchcircumstance
beenclassifiedbytheoldPenalCodeasamitigatingcircumstance,thetrialcourtwouldhavebeen
boundtogiveiteffect,couldwenowdisregarditwithoutfailinginourdutyinordertogiveeffect
tothepositiveprovisionsofthelawwhichmakeallpenallawsretroactiveinsofarastheyfavor
theaccused,whoisnotahabitualcriminal,therebeingnonecessitytoreviewtheproceeding?The
voluntaryconfessionofguiltappearsinthesentenceandhasservedasthebasisofthe
defendant'sconvictionbythetrialcourt;forwhichreasonwemusttakeitintoaccount,inorderto
giveretroactiveeffecttoarticle22,citedaboveoftheRevisedPenalCodeforthebenefitofthe
petitionerherein.Aswehaveseen,theaforesaidpetitionerwassentencedtooneyear,eight
months,andtwenty-onedaysofpresidiocorreccional,topayanindemnityofP647.70,andto
suffersubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,whichistheminimumofthemediumdegree
(fromoneyear,eightmonths,andtwenty-onedaystotwoyears,elevenmonths,andtendays)of
thepenaltyofpresidiocorreccionalintheminimumandmediumdegrees(fromsixmonthsand
onedaytofouryearsandtwomonths),prescribedbyarticle534,paragraph3,oftheoldPenal
Code,asamendedbyActNo.3244.Thepenaltyprovidedinarticle315,paragraph3,ofthe
RevisedPenalCodeforthesamecrimeisarrestomayorinthemaximumdegreetoprision
correccionalintheminimumdegree,thatis,fourmonthsandonedaytotwoyearsandfour
months,whichismorelenientthanthatprovidedintheoldPenalCode.Takingintoaccountthe
mitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntaryconfessionofguilt,withoutanyaggravatingcircumstanceto
offsetit,thepenaltyprovidedintheRevisedPenalCodemustbeimposedintheminimumdegree,
thatis,fourmonthsandonedaytooneyear(article80,paragraph2,oftheoldPenalCode,and
article64oftheRevisedPenalCode),andinasmuchasitisthepracticeofCourtsofFirstInstance


intheexerciseoftheirdiscretion(article81,paragraph7,asamendedbysection1ofActNo.
2298)tofixthepenaltyintheminimumperiod,andthetrialcourthavingfixedthepenalty
imposeduponthepetitionerintheminimumperiodofthemediumdegree,wemustalsofixit
accordingly,thatis,fourmonthsandonedayofarrestomayor,whichistheminimumperiodofthe
minimumdegreeofthepenaltyprovidedbytheRevisedPenalCode.Thehereinpetitionerhaving
alreadyservedsevenmonthsandtwenty-ninedaysofimprisonment,asagainstthepenaltyoffour
monthsandtwenty-onedays,withallpossibleallowances,inaccordancewiththeRevisedPenal
Code,hehasalreadymorethanservedhissentenceandisentitledtobereleased.