July 1995 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions >
G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119326. July 17, 1995.]
NARCISO CANSINO, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON, Respondent.
Public Attorney’s Office for Petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public Respondent.
SYLLABUS
CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. 6425); APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT UNDER RA 7659 ON PENALTIES THEREOF THROUGH PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTED. — On December 13, 1993, R.A. No. 7659, otherwise known as "An Act to Impose Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes" was enacted, thereby partly further amending R.A. No. 6425. Section 4, Article II of the old law provides a penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years of prision mayor. and a fine ranging from P12,000.00 to P20,000.00 to any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, distribute or transport prohibited drugs. Under the new law, where the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved is less than 750 grams, the penalty of imprisonment is reduced to a range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved. Subsequent to the enactment of R.A. No. 7659, People v. Simon, G.R. No. L-93028, July 29, 1994 and People v. De Lara, G.R No. 94953, September 5, 1994 were decided in which this Court ruled that where the quantity of marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is six months and one day to six years of prison correccional. Pursuant to these doctrines, petitioner now seeks the benefit brought about by R.A. No. 7659 to be applied to him. Considering that the provisions of R.A. No. 7659 with regard to the penalty imposed for violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act favor petitioner, the same should be made to apply to him (Revised Penal Code, Art. 22). Inasmuch as petitioner has already served nine years, ten months and seven days, way over the penalty of imprisonment required for his offense and the Office of the Solicitor General after being required to comment on the petition expresses no objection to the same, the petition is GRANTED. Let a writ of habeas corpus issue immediately.
D E C I S I O N
QUIASON, J.:
This is a petition for habeas corpus filed before this Court in behalf of Bayani T. Cansino, who was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila in Criminal Case No. 83-21622 with violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act," as amended. The information against petitioner reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about October 28, 1983, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale dried flowering tops of MARIJUANA, which is a prohibited drug" (Rollo, p. 16).
After trial, the court a quo rendered a judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and disposing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Bayani Cancino y Timpog guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 44 and 1675 and imposes upon the said accused the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT with all the accessory penalties attached thereto; to pay a fine of P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs" (Rollo, pp. 33-34).
Petitioner did not appeal from said judgment and instead started serving sentence on January 5, 1985. As of March 13, 1995, he has already completed nine years, ten months and seven days.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
It should be noted that on December 13, 1993, R.A. No. 7659, otherwise known as "An Act to Impose Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes" was enacted, thereby partly further amending R.A. No. 6425. Section 4, Article II of the old law provides a penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years of prision mayor and a fine ranging from P12,000.00 to 20,000.00 to any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, distribute or transport prohibited drugs. Under the new law, where the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved is less than 750 grams, the penalty of imprisonment is reduced to a range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved. Subsequent to the enactment of R.A. No. 7659, People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 and People v. De Lara, G.R. No. 94953, September 5, 1994 were decided in which this Court ruled that where the quantity of marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is six months and one day to six years of prision correccional.
Pursuant to these doctrines, petitioner now seeks the benefit brought about by R.A. No. 7659 to be applied to him.
Considering that the provisions of R.A. No. 7659 with regard to the penalty imposed for violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act favor petitioner, the same should be made to apply to him (Revised Penal Code, Art. 22).
In as much as petitioner has already served nine years, ten months and seven days, way over the penalty of imprisonment required for his offense and the Office of the Solicitor General after being required to comment on the petition expresses no objection to the same, the petition is GRANTED. Let a writ of habeas corpus issue immediately.
The Director of the New Bilibid Prison is amended to execute the writ for petitioner’s release from confinement (unless there is some other lawful cause for which he must be confined) and to make a return thereof. With costs de officio.cralawnad
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
"That on or about October 28, 1983, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale dried flowering tops of MARIJUANA, which is a prohibited drug" (Rollo, p. 16).
After trial, the court a quo rendered a judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and disposing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Bayani Cancino y Timpog guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2(e), (i) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 44 and 1675 and imposes upon the said accused the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT with all the accessory penalties attached thereto; to pay a fine of P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs" (Rollo, pp. 33-34).
Petitioner did not appeal from said judgment and instead started serving sentence on January 5, 1985. As of March 13, 1995, he has already completed nine years, ten months and seven days.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
It should be noted that on December 13, 1993, R.A. No. 7659, otherwise known as "An Act to Impose Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes" was enacted, thereby partly further amending R.A. No. 6425. Section 4, Article II of the old law provides a penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and one day to 20 years of prision mayor and a fine ranging from P12,000.00 to 20,000.00 to any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, distribute or transport prohibited drugs. Under the new law, where the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved is less than 750 grams, the penalty of imprisonment is reduced to a range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved. Subsequent to the enactment of R.A. No. 7659, People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 and People v. De Lara, G.R. No. 94953, September 5, 1994 were decided in which this Court ruled that where the quantity of marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is six months and one day to six years of prision correccional.
Pursuant to these doctrines, petitioner now seeks the benefit brought about by R.A. No. 7659 to be applied to him.
Considering that the provisions of R.A. No. 7659 with regard to the penalty imposed for violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act favor petitioner, the same should be made to apply to him (Revised Penal Code, Art. 22).
In as much as petitioner has already served nine years, ten months and seven days, way over the penalty of imprisonment required for his offense and the Office of the Solicitor General after being required to comment on the petition expresses no objection to the same, the petition is GRANTED. Let a writ of habeas corpus issue immediately.
The Director of the New Bilibid Prison is amended to execute the writ for petitioner’s release from confinement (unless there is some other lawful cause for which he must be confined) and to make a return thereof. With costs de officio.cralawnad
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
