The Supreme Court in Jose Victor Rigor vs. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison addressed a petition for habeas corpus, ultimately denying the request for release. However, the Court took the opportunity to rectify errors in the original trial court’s sentencing. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring penalties align with legal standards, even in cases where the original judgment had become final.

Beyond Prison Walls: Rectifying Erroneous Drug Penalties After Final Judgment

Jose Victor Rigor filed a petition for habeas corpus, hoping to reduce his sentence for illegal sale and possession of methampethamine hydrochloride (shabu) and secure his release. Rigor argued that Republic Act No. 7659, which amended penalties for drug offenses, should be applied retroactively to his benefit. He specifically sought a reduction of his penalty to six months and one day of prision correccional for each conviction, claiming he had already served the maximum term. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition, asserting that Rigor had not yet served the maximum penalties and must serve them successively.

While the Supreme Court ultimately denied Rigor’s immediate release, it addressed errors in the original sentencing. The Court observed that the trial court had erroneously imposed a penalty exceeding the range for arresto mayor. Furthermore, the initially imposed maximum penalty of four years, four months, and one day of prision correccional was incorrect. Under Republic Act No. 7659, for quantities of prohibited drugs less than 250 grams, the imposable penalty is prision correccional, but, the Indeterminate Sentence Law must also be applied.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty should range from arresto mayor as the minimum term to the medium period of prision correccional as the maximum. This translates to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as the minimum to prision correccional in its medium period, which ranges from two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months as the maximum.

In line with the Court’s inherent power to correct penalties that do not conform to law, as articulated in People vs. Barro, Sr. and People vs. Gatward, the Supreme Court modified Rigor’s sentence to ensure compliance with legal standards. The court emphasized that the correction was not intended to benefit or prejudice Rigor but solely to align the penalty with the law.

“But a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void, since the error goes into the very essence of the penalty and does not merely arise from the misapplication thereof.  Corollarily, such a judgment can never become final and executory.”

The Supreme Court held that while Republic Act No. 7659 was indeed considered by the trial court, as evidenced by the imposed penalties falling within its ambit, Rigor’s misinterpretation of the law or possible misinformation did not warrant immediate release. He first needed to serve the penalties for each conviction successively, up to their maximum terms, according to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code specifies that when an offender is subject to multiple penalties, they must be served simultaneously if possible; otherwise, they are served successively in order of severity, with the second sentence commencing upon the expiration of the first. The court clarified that Rigor must serve the full term for Criminal Case No. MC-99-1235-D before commencing service for Criminal Case No. MC-99-1236-D.

Thus, the Supreme Court denied Rigor’s petition for habeas corpus, clarifying that the penalties imposed should be from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each case. The decision was forwarded to the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City for guidance and to the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison for enforcement of the corrected penalties.

The court emphasized the necessity of successive service of penalties. The successive serving of penalties, as well as the need to fully serve the maximum terms of each sentence is significant in ensuring the full implementation of the law. It underscores that while retroactive application of laws may alter penalties, the obligations under the original sentences must still be fully satisfied.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate release based on a retroactive application of Republic Act No. 7659 and whether the penalties imposed by the trial court were correct.
What did the petitioner request in his petition for habeas corpus?	The petitioner requested that his penalties be reduced to six months and one day of prision correccional in each case and that he be released, arguing that he had already served more than a year of imprisonment.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition for habeas corpus?	The Court denied the petition because the original trial court decision was final and executory, preventing the Court from revising the penalties as requested. Additionally, the petitioner was required to serve the penalties for each conviction successively and up to their maximum terms.
What error did the Supreme Court find in the trial court’s decision?	The Supreme Court found that the trial court had erroneously imposed a penalty exceeding the range for arresto mayor. It further noted that it failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, thus it also erred in the imposition of the maximum penalty.
How did the Supreme Court correct the errors in the trial court’s decision?	The Supreme Court modified the sentences to imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor as the minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each case, thus applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
What is the significance of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code in this case?	Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when an offender has multiple penalties, they must be served successively, if they cannot be served simultaneously, following the order of their respective severity. The petitioner must serve each penalty in full before starting the next one.
What was the Court’s legal basis for modifying the penalty, even though the decision was final?	The Court invoked its inherent power and duty to correct penalties that do not conform to the law, asserting that such penalties can never become final and executory.
What is Republic Act No. 7659 and how does it apply to this case?	Republic Act No. 7659 modifies the penalties prescribed by Republic Act No. 6425 for drug offenses. In this case, it stipulates that for quantities of prohibited drugs less than 250 grams, the applicable penalty is prision correccional.

The Supreme Court’s resolution serves as a reminder that courts retain the authority to correct penalties to align with existing laws. While the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant the petitioner’s immediate release, the Court’s intervention underscores the importance of just and accurate sentencing in the Philippine legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of Jose Victor Rigor y Danao, G.R. No. 156983, September 23, 2003