THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 223446. November 28, 2016.]

RICARDO RANIER G. CRUZ III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR

GENERAL OF THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS; RICHARD W.
SCHWARZKOPF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT, NEW
BILIBID PRISON, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS; AND EMERENCIANA
M. DIVINA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, INMATE
DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSING DIVISION OF THE NEW BILIBID
CORRECTIONS petitioners, vs. ROLITO T. GO,
PRISON, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS,
DETAINED AT THE MAXIMUM SECURITY COMPOUND, NEW BILIBID
PRISON, JOINED BY HIS WIFE ELSA ANG GO , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
November 28, 2016 , which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 223446 — (Ricardo Ranier G. Cruz III, in his capacity as Director
General of the Bureau of Corrections; Richard W. Schwarzkopf, in his capacity
as Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections; and
Emerenciana M. Divina, in her capacity as the Of cer-in-Charge, Inmate
Documents and Processing Division of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of
Corrections v. Rolito T. Go, detained at the Maximum Security Compound,
New Bilibid Prison, joined by his wife Elsa Ang Go)

RESOLUTION

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 led under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court wherein petitioners assail the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 27
August 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 135263, dismissing their appeal for being an improper
remedy. The petitioners seek to reverse and set aside the Decision 3 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 204, Muntinlupa City in SP. Proc. Case No. 14-004 dated 28
April 2014, which granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus in favor of respondent Rolito T. Go
(Go).
The antecedents of this petition follow.
By virtue of the 4 November 1993 Decision of the RTC, Branch 168, Pasig City in
Criminal Case No. 87411, respondent Rolito T. Go was convicted of murder and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He began serving his sentence
on 30 April 1996 at the New Bilibid Prison.
On 30 July 2008, in carrying out the Resolution and Certi cate of Eligibility by
then Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director Oscar C. Calderon, the New Bilibid Prison
Classi cation Board granted Go, along with other 24 inmates, a colonist status.
Accordingly, in view of his commuted sentence, Go filed a petition for habeas corpus on
30 January 2014, pleading for his release. He posits that his original prison sentence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 which shall expire on 31 January 2022 instead should have expired on 21 August 2013
upon deduction of lawful and proper allowances for good conduct, colonist status, and
preventive imprisonment based on the provisions of Act No. 2489, otherwise known as
"An Act Authorizing Special Compensation, Credits, and Modi cation in the Sentence of
Prisoners as a Reward for Exceptional Conduct and Workmanship and for Other
Purposes."
In opposition to Go's release, petitioners maintained that Go's sentence neither
has expired nor was commuted. According to petitioners, the grant of colonist status
on Go did not carry with it the automatic commutation of his sentence from the
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua to thirty (30) years because only the President
has the power to commute a sentence. Sans the signature of the President, any
commutation is ineffectual. TCAScE

On 28 April 2014, the RTC granted the petition and issued a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. The RTC found that Go's sentence was validly commuted from reclusion
perpetua to 30 years pursuant to Section 7, Chapter 3 of the BuCor Manual:
Section 7. Privileges of a colonist. — A colonist shall have the
following privileges:
a. credit of additional GCTA of ve (5) days for such calendar month
while retains said classi cation aside from the regular GCTA
authorized under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code;
b. automatic reduction of life sentence imposed on the
colonist to a sentence of thirty (30) years; years (Emphasis
supplied)
The BuCor Manual is very clear. No ambiguity attends that provision that once an
inmate is granted a colonist status, his life sentence is commuted to 30 years. The RTC
further held that, "[w]hile it is true that the President may commute the service of
sentence of a prisoner, the law also recognizes partial reduction of sentences under
Art. 97 of the Revised Penal Code which provides for allowances of good conduct."
Contrary to petitioners' contention that the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot be
commuted to 30 years, the RTC cited Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, which
speci cally provides that for perpetual penalties like reclusion perpetua, the duration
shall be computed at 30 years. Clearly, it is not correct that only the President can
commute a sentence as these provisions, i.e., Articles 70 and 97, warrant partial
extinguishment or commutation of sentence.
The pertinent portion of the Decision of the RTC granting the Writ of Habeas
Corpus reads:
The court adheres therefore, to the computation of GO's expiration of
sentence on August 21, 2013 which is based on the 30 year reduction of his life
sentence. His further detention beyond this period to the mind of the court is
illegal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
petitioner ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING is ordered released from custody having
fully served his sentence unless detained for some other legal cause.
Let notices of this Decision be served personally to the petitioner and to
the public respondents by the Process Server or Sheriff of this court.
SO ORDERED. 4
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA via ordinary appeal through
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 27 August 2015, the CA in a Decision dated 27 August
2015, dismissed the appeal as an improper remedy. The CA resolved that because the
appeal raised only pure question of law, as the sole issue involved in the present case is
whether the BuCor may validly commute a sentence, the proper recourse should have
been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the
Supreme Court (SC).
The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied in a Resolution dated 14 March
2016.
Hence, the present Petition which argues that the CA committed a reversible
error in dismissing petitioners' appeal led under Rule 41 for improper remedy.
Petitioners also aver that the commutation of Go's prison sentence is ineffective
because it has no prior approval by the President in violation of Section 19, Article VII of
the Constitution, which mandates that only the President has the power to exercise
executive clemency.
First, the issue of whether or not the proper remedy is an appeal via Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court. cTDaEH

Judgments of the RTC may be appealed either through (1) an ordinary appeal to
the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction which may
involve either questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law; (2) a petition for
review before the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction raising questions of fact, of law, or both; and (3) a petition for review on
certiorari directly led with the SC where only questions of law are raised. Adherence to
the principle of judicial hierarchy of courts dictates that recourse must rst be made to
the lower ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. At the
outset, therefore, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless whether the
issue involves a question of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, an appeal
to the CA is in order. 5 This rule however, admits of certain exceptions. As already held,
when the case does not involve factual, but purely legal questions, the appeal may be
elevated directly to the SC. 6 Such is the attendant circumstance in the present case.
The facts surrounding the case are undisputed and the sole issue raised is a pure
question of law, i.e., whether or not the BuCor has authority to commute a prison
sentence. As succinctly resolved by the CA, petitioners never disputed Go's
"classi cation as a colonist status, the pertinent portions of the BuCor Operating
Manual, and the refusal of respondents-appellants to apply the privileges provided
therein were never questioned by either parties. [Petitioners] were only assailing the
correctness of the RTC's interpretation of Section 7, Chapter 3 of the BuCor Operating
Manual, the conclusions drawn therefrom, and its application to the settled facts
surrounding [Go's] case. There is therefore no need to evaluate the evidence on record
to determine the power of the BuCor, or its lack thereof, to commute an inmate's
sentence." Indeed, the CA is correct in dismissing the appeal for improper remedy
because the issue raised before it is purely a question of law, which is within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
Now, the main issue.
Petitioners aver that Go's commutation of sentence as a result of the grant of
penal colonist status, deduction of lawful and proper allowances for good conduct, and
preventive imprisonment of Go is ineffective without prior approval by the President
because it violates Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, which mandates that only
the President has the power to exercise executive clemency. 7
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 We deny the petition.
As correctly resolved by the trial court, while only the President can commute a
prison sentence, Articles 70 8 and 97 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) recognize
partial reduction or commutation of sentences by providing that "for penal penalties,
the duration shall be computed for 30 years and the allowances of good conduct must
be applied on top of the [good conduct time allowance] accorded to an inmate with a
colonist status."
Accordingly, to implement the provisions of Article 97, the law has granted the
Director of Prisons the power to grant good conduct allowances. The mandate of the
Director of Prisons embodied in Article 99 of the RPC is clear and unambiguous. In fact,
once granted, such allowances shall not be revoked. Article 99 of the RPC explicitly
states:
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justi ed, the
Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. conduct Such
allowances once granted shall not be revoked. (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, after crediting his preventive imprisonment of nine (9) months and
sixteen (16) days, and the regular Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under Act No.
3815 and Special Credit Time Allowance (SCTA) under Act No. 2409 granted upon him,
Go has completed serving his sentence of thirty (30) years on 21 August 2013, which
he commenced to serve on 30 April 1996. 1 0
The intent and spirit of the law in affording persons the remedy of writ of habeas
corpus is to devise a speedy and effective means to relieve persons from unlawful
restraint. 1 1 To rule otherwise would render Article 99 of the RPC as a mere surplusage
and would unduly impose excessive imprisonment on inmates in violation of the basic
right to liberty. cSaATC

WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED.

DENIED This Resolution is IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.
EXECUTORY The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to immediately
RELEASE petitioner Rolito T. Go from detention unless he is detained for any other
lawful cause.
Jardeleza, J. , no part due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Bersamin, J. ,
(Jardeleza,
additional member.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-50.
2. Id. at 51-62; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices
Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
3. Id. at 193-207; penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
4. Id. at 207.
5. Dio, et al. v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., 736 Phil. 216, 224 (2014).
6. REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 2 (c).
7. CONSTITUTION, Art. VII, Sec. 19.
SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Members of the Congress.
8. Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so
permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
xxx xxx xxx
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua)
shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).
9. Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal
institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his
sentence:
1. During the rst two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
five days for each month of good behavior;
2. During the third to the fth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he
shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.
10. "As of February 25, 2010, Go has served 23 years, 8 months, and 9 days of imprisonment,
inclusive of all applicable good conduct time allowance xxx," as stated by the RTC.
11. Barredo v. Vinarao, 555 Phil. 823, 827 (2007).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com