ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 141211   August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 141211. August 31, 2001.]

    CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, RONEL N. AMPARO, ALFRED F. LEHNER, RONALD C. RODRIGO, ANTHONY G. MUNSAYAC, ARIEL A. DEL ROSARIO, ORLANDO D. DEL ROSARIO, VICTOR B. SAMSON, RICHARD S. NACUA, ALFONSO B. RELLOSO, ARMANDO A. REYES, MARY GRACE H. TANUSAN, GARY ZALDE C. VELARDE, ELISEO G. PEREZ, FEDERICO P. MALONZO, ROMEO D. DAPAT, LETICIA M. SANTOS, NAGAMURA A. MACABUAT, SULAIMAN M. MACALIM, RENATO S. MANLAPIG, JOSE P. REYES, JOCELYN V. IBAÑEZ, JOEL D. AGUILAR, ISAGANI R. MANZO, MARVIN Q. PADRONES, CHARLIE Q. QUIRMIT, ANDREW A. SALCEDO, EDUARDO E. GINETA, EDUARDO S. MARTINEZ, MOLLY G. LALIK, GERARDO J. MALOGA, HENRY B. MANCILLA, ARMANDO C. BUELAS, and-RICHARD C. MAGALLON, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the order, dated November 22, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, directing by writ of habeas corpus the release from confinement of herein respondents.

    The antecedents are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In celebration of Law Day on September 18, 1999, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) initiated a jail visitation program. IBP volunteer lawyers and law students visited various jails in Metro Manila. In the City Jail of Manila, they found thirty-four (34) prisoners, herein respondents, whom they believed were entitled to be released after deducting time allowances for good conduct in the service of their respective sentences. The thirty-four (34) prisoners and their sentences are the following:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    1. Raymond Estrella y Serdan six (6) years for

    carnapping 1

    2. Ronel 2 Amparo y Nuñez six (6) years for

    carnapping 3

    3 Alfred Lehner y Feichti six (6) months of

    arresto mayor, as

    minimum, to two (2)

    years, four (4)

    months, and one (1)

    day of prision

    correccional, as

    maximum, for serious

    physical injuries 4

    two sentences of six

    (6) months of arresto

    mayor, as minimum,

    to one (1) year of

    prision correccional, as

    maximum, for illegal

    possession of drugs 5

    4. Ronald C. Rodrigo two (2) years imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 6

    5. Anthony Munsayac y Gonzales six (6) months and one

    (1) day to two (2)

    years for illegal

    possession of drugs 7

    6. Ariel del Rosario y Aguilar one (1) year imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of firearms 8

    7. Orlando Del Rosario y Dela Cruz one (1) year imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 9

    8. Victor Samson y Bustos six (6) months of

    arresto mayor, as

    minimum, to one (1)

    year of prision

    correccional as maximum,

    and to pay the costs. 10

    9. Richard Nacua y Sanchez one (1) month and

    one (1) day of arresto

    mayor, as minimum,

    to one (1) year of

    prision correccional, as

    maximum, for illegal

    possession of drugs 11

    10. Alfonso Relloso y Barrantes 12 two (2) years and six

    (6) months of prision

    correccional for illegal

    possession of drugs 13

    11. Armando Reyes y Alvarez two (2) years imprisonment

    for illegal possession of

    drugs 14

    12. Mary Grace Tanusan y Habaro one (1) year of prision

    correccional minimum

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 15

    13. Gary Zalde Velarde y Concepcion two (2) months for

    theft 16

    seven (7) months

    imprisonment for

    theft 17

    14. Eliseo Perez y Gutierrez eight (8) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 18

    15. Federico Malonzo y Perez six (6) months imprisonment

    for illegal possession of

    drugs 19

    16. Romeo Dapat y David six (6) months imprisonment

    for illegal possession of

    drugs 20

    17. Leticia Santos y Malorina six (6) months imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 21

    18. Nagamura Macabuat y Ali six (6) months imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 22

    19. Sulaiman Macaalin y Malawani 23 six (6) months imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs 24

    20. Renato Manlapig y Saulo six (6) months

    imprisonment for

    illegal possession of

    drugs. 25

    21. Jose Reyes y Punzalan six (6) months

    imprisonment for

    illegal possession of

    drugs 26

    22. Jocelyn Ibañez 27 y Villejo three (3) months of

    arresto mayor for

    theft 28

    23. Joel Aguilar y Dagalan three (3) months

    imprisonment for

    violation of P.D. No.

    9, par. 3 as amended

    by B.P. Blg. 6 29

    24. Isagani Manzo y Rio six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 30

    25. Marvin Padrones y Quintana six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 31

    26. Charlie Quirmit y Quintana six (6) months

    imprisonment for

    illegal possession of

    drugs. 32

    27. Andrew Salcedo y Arcega six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 33

    28. Eduardo Gineta y Embuedo one (1) year

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 34

    29. Eduardo Martinez y Salva six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 35

    30. Molly Lalik y Gabunada six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 36

    31. Gerado Maloga y Jacinto six (6) months

    imprisonment for illegal

    possession of drugs 37

    32. Henry Mancilla y Barquin six (6) months and one

    (1) day of imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs. 38

    33. Armando Buelas y Clares six (6) months and one

    (1) day of imprisonment

    for illegal possession

    of drugs. 39

    34. Richard Magallon y Clarito six (6) months

    imprisonment for

    illegal possession of

    drugs 40

    Respondents asked herein petitioner Rosendo M. Dial, City Warden of the Manila City Jail, to effect their release on the ground that they had already served their sentences, less time allowances for good conduct. Respondents invoked Arts. 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code which provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deduction from the period of his sentence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. During the first 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 fifth 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.

    ART 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.

    However, petitioner City Warden denied respondents’ request on the ground that only the Director of the Bureau of Corrections can grant them allowances for good conduct under Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code. Nonetheless, on October 11, 1999, petitioner City Warden issued certifications of good behavior to respondents stating that had respondents been credited time allowances for good conduct, they should have been released on the following dates indicated opposite their names:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Date of Date of Date of Release

    Confinement Decision after Deducting

    Good Conduct

    Time

    Allowances

    1. Raymond S. Estrella March 28, 1994 April 19, 1999 Feb. 22, 1999 41

    2. Ronel N. Amparo March 29, 1994 June 27, 1994 Feb. 23, 1999 42

    3. Alfred F. Lehner June 21, 1996 Aug. 26, 1998 April 16, 1999 43

    4. Ronald C. Rodrigo Oct. 28, 1997 Dec. 10, 1997 June 28, 1999 44

    5. Anthony G. Munsayac Oct. 12, 1997 Feb. 20, 1998 Aug. 2, 1999 45

    6. Ariel A. Del Rosario Oct. 2, 1998 April 7, 1999 Aug. 2, 1999 46

    7. Orlando D. Del Rosario Oct. 31, 1998 Feb. 9, 1999 Aug. 2, 1999 47

    8. Victor B. Samson Oct. 16, 1998 Nov. 17, 1998 Aug. 8, 1999 48

    9. Richard S. Nacua Oct. 15, 1998 Jan. 27, 1999 Aug. 15, 1999 49

    10. Alfonso B. Relloso May 23, 1997 Aug. 24, 1999 Aug. 23, 1999 50

    11. Armando A. Reyes Oct. 25, 1997 Aug. 4, 1999 Aug. 25, 1999 51

    12. Mary Grace H. Tanauan Oct. 10, 1998 Feb. 8, 1999 Aug. 30, 1999 52

    13. Gary Zalde C. Velarde Jan. 21, 1999 Feb. 9, 1999 Sept. 6, 1999 53

    14. Eliseo G. Perez Feb. 22, 1999 June 25, 1999 Sept. 12, 1999 54

    15. Federico G. Malonzo April 18, 1999 Sept. 1, 1999 Sept. 18, 1999 55

    16. Romeo D. Dapat April 18, 1999 Sept. 1, 1999 Sept. 18, 1999 56

    17. Leticia M. Santos April 30, 1999 Sept. 1, 1999 Sept. 30, 1999 57

    18. Nagamura A. Macabuat May 4, 1999 Sept. 9, 1999 Oct. 4, 1999 58

    19. Sulaiman M. Macalim May 4, 1999 Sept. 9, 1999 Oct. 4, 1999 59

    20. Renato S. Manlupig May 5, 1999 Sept. 2, 1999 Oct. 5, 1999 60

    21. Jose P. Reyes May 10, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Oct. 10, 1999 61

    22. Jocelyn V. Ibañez July 28, 1999 Aug. 20, 1999 Oct. 13, 1999 62

    23. Joel D. Aguilar Aug. 29, 1999 Sept. 16, 1999 Oct. 14, 1999 63

    24. Isagani R. Manzo May 21, 1999 Aug. 25, 1999 Oct. 21, 1999 64

    25. Marvin Q. Padrones May 21, 1999 Aug. 25, 1999 Oct. 21,1999 65

    26. Charlie Q. Quirmit May 21, 1999 Aug. 25, 1999 Oct. 21, 1999 66

    27. Andrew A. Salcedo June 1, 1999 Sept. 1, 1999 Nov. 1, 1999 67

    28. Eduardo E. Gineta June 17, 1998 March 15, 1999 Nov. 17, 1999 68

    29. Eduardo S. Martinez June 20, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Nov. 20, 1999 69

    30. Molly G. Lalik June 21, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Nov. 21, 1999 70

    31. Gerardo J. Maloga June 26, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Nov. 26, 1999 71

    32. Henry B. Mancilla June 24, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Nov. 26, 1999 72

    33. Armando C. Buelas June 24, 1999 Aug. 26, 1999 Nov. 26, 1999 73

    34. Richard C. Magallon June 29, 1999 Aug. 25, 1999 Nov. 29, 1999 74

    On October 15, 1999, Respondents, represented by the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid, filed in this Court a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that —

    4.4 [Petitioner] Manila City Jail Warden has issued verified certifications to the effect that the [respondents] have exhibited good behavior and exemplary conduct in the service of their sentences. These grant [respondents] an irrevocable good conduct time allowance pursuant to Article 99 of the same Code.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    4.5. By virtue of the good behavior and exemplary conduct of the [respondents] as duly recognized by the [petitioner], the former are now entitled to demand as a matter of right, and the latter is justified in granting, their release from their present confinement considering the fact that they are deemed to have fully served the period of their respective sentences.

    4.6 [Respondents], however, remain in confinement at the MCJ and are continually deprived of their liberty because of the refusal of the [petitioner] Manila City Jail Warden, or other wardens other than the Director of Prisons, to grant their release;

    4.7 [Petitioner] justifies his refusal to release the prisoners from confinement with this Honorable Court’s ruling in the case of People v. Tan, G.R. No. 1-21805, February 25, 1967, a pertinent portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    There is no justification in the provincial warden’s usurping the authority of the Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner with good conduct time allowance. Such authority is exclusively vested in the Director.

    4.8 Under the present organization of the jail system, all City, provincial, and municipal jails are now under the Bureau of Jail Management, which in turn is under the supervision of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). On the other hand, the Director of Prisons (now the Director of the National Bureau of Corrections) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and has no authority over jail wardens in the cities, provinces, and municipalities;

    4.9 It appears that the provisions of Articles 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code, in the absence of a concurrent change in the designation of the officer authorized to grant the time allowance from the National Director (formerly the Director of Prisons) to the Jail Wardens, was rendered ineffective and inapplicable as far as the prisoners confined in the city, provincial, and municipal jails are concerned.

    4.10 The above interpretation, if sustained, would favor some prisoners to the detriment and prejudice of [respondents], who are detained at the Manila City Jail, clearly a palpable violation of the constitutional mandate to equal protection of the law.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    4.11 On the other hand, Articles 97 and 99 should be construed in a manner consistent with the Constitution and favorable to herein [respondents] to the effect that the authority to grant the good conduct allowances has been shifted to the respective jail wardens, who, despite the different nomenclature of their position, perform the same function and responsibility as custodians of the [respondents] while in the service of their respective sentences.

    4.12 It is most respectfully submitted that the above provisions shall be construed in a manner that would not lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers (People v. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684). In one case, it was held by this Honorable Supreme Court that a "Legal provision being susceptible of two interpretations, the Supreme Court adopts the one in consonance with the presumed intention of the legislature to give its enactments the most reasonable and beneficial construction, the one that will render them operative and effective and harmonious with other provisions of law" (Sesbreno v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 270 SCRA 360).

    4.13 Thus, [respondents] cannot be deprived of their liberty simply because Articles 97 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code were rendered obscure, silent, and insufficient by the reorganization of the jail management without the correlative revisions on the title or name of the proper officer to be vested with the authority to grant the mandated allowance for good behavior. Verily, it was never intended in the reorganization to deny the grant of good conduct allowance as an incentive to hasten the reformation and rehabilitation of the [respondents];

    4.14 Pending remedial legislation to address the resulting violation of the constitutional right of [respondents] and those similarly affected, [respondents] seek their release by praying that this Honorable Court order the [petitioner] Chief Inspector Rosendo M. Dial, in his capacity as City Warden of the Manila City Jail, to release herein [respondents], in the exercise of its judicial power and pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code which states:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law. 75

    In the resolution of November 15, 1999, 76 the Court issued the writ of habeas corpus which it made returnable to the Regional Trial Court, Manila. The case was eventually raffled to Branch 52 of that court. In his return, 77 petitioner City Warden, through the Solicitor General, opposed the release of respondents, arguing that while the Director of the Bureau of Corrections no longer exercises authority over city and municipal prisoners, he remains the sole authority under Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code who can grant time allowances for good conduct to prisoners.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    It turned out that 22 of the 34 respondents had already been released. 78 These were Ronald C. Rodrigo, Anthony G. Munsayac, Ariel A. Del Rosario, Orlando D. Del Rosario, Victor B. Samson, Richard S. Nacua, Armando A. Reyes, Mary Grace H. Tanusan, Gary Zalde C. Velarde, Eliseo G. Perez, Federico P. Malonzo, Romeo D. Dapat, Leticia M. Santos, Nagamura A. Macabuat, Sulaiman M. Macalim, Renato S. Manlapig, Jose P. Reyes, Jocelyn V. Ibañez, Joel D. Aguilar, Charlie Q. Quirmit, Andrew A. Salcedo, and Molly G. Lalik. On November 22, 1999, the trial court issued its challenged order directing petitioner City Warden to release from confinement respondents Raymond S. Estrella, Ronel N. Amparo, Alfred F. Lehner, Alfonso B. Relloso, Isagani R. Manzo, Marvin Q. Padrones, Eduardo E. Gineta, and Eduardo S. Martinez, while deferring the release of respondents Gerardo J. Maloga, Henry B. Mancilla, and Armando C. Buelas until November 26, 1999 and respondent Richard C. Magallon until November 29, 1999. 79

    The trial court held that (1) the Director of the Bureau of Corrections no longer has jurisdiction over city and municipal jails, and it is thus legally impossible for him to grant time allowances for good conduct to herein respondents who are inmates of the Manila City Jail; (2) respondents had been denied the equal protection of the laws because "national prisoners, who are still under the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, may be dispensed benefits by him under Art. 97, whereas local prisoners, over whom he lost authority, control, and supervision, are left with no one to dispense benefits under Art. 97" ; 80 and (3) that the certifications issued by petitioner City Warden constituted sufficient basis to grant respondents’ release under Art. 97. It held that in the exercise of its "equity jurisdiction" under Art. 9 of the Civil Code, it could fill in "the hiatus or gap [in the law] on who is to grant local prisoners good conduct time allowance under Art. 97."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Hence this petition for review on certiorari filed by the Solicitor General.

    I.


    Before considering the merits of the petition, we will first deal with the technical objections raised by respondents.

    First. Respondents contend that the petition was filed late on December 2, 1999 because both petitioner City Warden and the Office of the Solicitor General received the questioned release order on November 22, 1999. 81

    The contention is without merit. Under B.P. Blg. 129, 39, the period of appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appealed from. 82 Petitioner thus had until November 24, 1999 to appeal. However, on November 23, 1999, prior to the expiration of the period to appeal, the Solicitor General asked for an extension of fifteen (15) days from November 24, 1999, or until December 9, 1999, within which to file the present petition. The Court having granted the motion, 83 the instant petition was timely filed on December 2, 1999.

    Second. Respondents contend that the City Warden did not authorize the filing of the present petition, and that the City Warden in fact ordered the release of all of the respondents a few days after the issuance of the assailed order of November 22, 1999. Corollary to this, they contend that the petition should be verified by the City Warden, who is the real party in interest, and not by the Solicitor General or the latter’s assistants.

    This contention likewise lacks merit. Under P.D. No. 78, 1, 84 the Office of the Solicitor General is the legal representative of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of a lawyer, excepting only as may otherwise be provided by law. That the City Warden appears to have acquiesced in the release order of the trial court by his compliance therewith does not preclude the Solicitor General from taking a contrary position and appealing the same. The Solicitor General’s duty is to present what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the Government. 85chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    With respect to respondents’ objection to the verification of the petition for review filed in this case, Rule 7, 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. 86

    The verification in this case, by Associate Solicitor Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag, states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    2. I was involved in the preparation of the foregoing Petition For Review on Certiorari.

    3. I have read the same, the contents of which are true and correct based on my knowledge and belief. 87

    This complies with the requirement of Rule 7, 4 as above quoted.

    II


    With respect to the merits, the Solicitor General contends that the trial court erred —

    IN RULING THAT CITY WARDENS MAY GRANT GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE UNDER ARTICLES 97 AND 99 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

    The Solicitor General contends that despite changes in the organizational structure of the prison system, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections remains the exclusive authority for granting good conduct time allowances and, therefore, it was error for the lower court to order the release of respondents on the basis of certifications issued by the City Warden as to time allowances for good conduct that respondents are entitled to.

    Respondents argue that the trial court did not actually rule that the City Warden can grant good conduct time allowances under Art. 97 but merely relied on the City Warden’s certifications regarding the prison records of respondent, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    While it appears that the recent reorganization in the structure and management of the jail system created a hiatus or gap on who is to grant local prisoners good conduct time allowance under Art. 97, however, this Court opines and must hold that does not stop, deter, prevent this Court from extending reliefs to petitioners on their benefits under Art. 97, since after all, they became and remained entitled thereto. In his certifications (Exhs. A to A-33) issued, respondent Warden confirmed that petitioners behaved properly and exhibited conduct during their entire incarceration in the jail and that if Art. 97 be applied in their favor, they are already eligible for release. Considering the clear pronouncement of the Warden himself, who has immediate control and supervision over petitioners, this Court, thus, sees no valid and justifiable reason/ground why such certifications would not be enough, under the present circumstances, to grant petitioners their entitled benefits under Art. 97, ergo, their immediate release, even in the absence of a new law or rule designating the authority which shall determine and grant such benefits on good conduct time allowance on local prisoner. Parenthetically, it cannot be denied that the Warden is in a better position than the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to determine who among the prisoners behaved well to be entitled under Art. 97. Obviously, the Director, in performing his tasks under Art. 99, has to refer, rely and depend on the report and recommendations of the warden of subject prisoners. 88

    We hold that the trial court erred in ordering the release of respondents before full service of their sentences without the certification at least of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections as to their good conduct time allowances.

    First. The trial court held that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, now the Bureau of Corrections, 89 no longer has the authority to grant good conduct time allowances to inmates in the provincial, city, and municipal jails in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 6975, otherwise known as the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, which places provincial, city, and municipal jails under the supervision and control of the Bureau of Jail Management. 90

    The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the authority to grant good conduct time allowances flows from the grant of the power of supervision and control, so that only those vested with this power can grant good conduct time allowances to prisoners. But this is not so. Under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (R.A. No. 409), the Director of Prisons did not have control and supervision of the city jails of Manila. It was the Chief of Police of Manila who under 34 of the Charter "shall exercise supervision, administration, and control over the city jail and municipal prisoners." And yet, the Director of Prisons was acknowledged as the authority for granting good conduct time allowances to all prisoners regardless of their place of detention.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Neither is there any inconsistency between Art. 99 and R.A. No. 6975. Repeals by implication are not favored. To the contrary, every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. Interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi. 91 For there to be an implied repeal, there must be a clear showing of repugnance. The language used in the later statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what has been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. 92

    Second. Nor is there any basis for the conclusion of the trial court that it could rely on the certifications issued by the city Warden as to the good conduct time allowances of respondents because the Director of the Bureau of Corrections would also have to depend on the same anyway as respondents are not under his control and supervision. The question here is who has authority to grant good conduct time allowances, not on what basis such allowances should be made.

    In Kabigting v. Director of Prisons, 93 it was held that in habeas corpus proceedings, the trial court has no power to grant the petitioner time allowances for good conduct" [because] in accordance with Article 99 of the Revised Penal Code it is the Director of the Prisons who shall grant allowances for good conduct if such good conduct has been observed by the prisoner concerned." In People v. Tan, 94 it was emphatically held that a provincial warden cannot grant credit for good conduct to a prisoner and order his release because Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code vests the authority to grant prisoners good conduct time allowances "exclusively in the Director and [in] no one else." In that case, the prisoner was under the supervision and control of the provincial warden, but the authority of the Director to grant good conduct time allowances was upheld. Indeed, there is nothing in R.A. No. 6975 which repeals Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Moreover, there are good reasons for holding in this case that the trial court could not rely on the certifications issued by the City Warden in crediting respondents with time allowances for good conduct. In the first place, the certifications issued by the City Warden lacked data on the dates when respondents started serving sentence. 95 Such data are important because, as has been observed, good conduct time allowances under Art. 97 may only be earned by prisoners while serving their sentence. 96 While Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code provides that time spent in preventive imprisonment shall be credited in full or four-fifths in service of sentence, it does not say that the prisoners shall earn the credit for good behavior under Art. 97 during such period of preventive detention.

    In the second place, the certifications issued by the City Warden contain errors. Some of the data stated therein are contrary to those stated in the documents submitted by respondents in support of their petition for habeas corpus. For example, in the case of respondent Alfred F. Lehner, the City Warden’s certification states that he was sentenced on August 26, 1998 to imprisonment for "three (3) years to four (4) months and one (1) day" in Criminal Case Nos. 96-150703-04. However, Lehner’s sentence in each of those cases was actually a prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year of prision correccional, as maximum, 97 and the decision was rendered on August 30, 1996, not August 26, 1998 as stated in the certification. In the case of Gary Zalde Velarde y Concepcion, the City Warden’s certification erroneously states Velarde’s sentence in Criminal Case No. 314691-SA to be for seven (7) months to two (2) months imprisonment 98 when his sentence was actually two (2) months. 99 He was sentenced to seven (7) months for theft in another case, 100 which fact was not disclosed in the certification.

    Needless to say, the writ of habeas corpus remains available as a remedy against any abuse of the authority granted by Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code to the Director of Prisons, but that is altogether a different kettle of fish from the question posed in this case. Here, the question is whether a court may rely on the certification of the City Warden as to good conduct time allowances in ordering the release of prisoners by writ of habeas corpus. We hold that it cannot, in view of Art. 99 of the Revised Penal Code vesting the authority to grant good conduct time allowances solely in the Director of Prisons.

    In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to order the re-arrest of all of respondents. This can be done without placing them in double jeopardy of being punished for the same offense because their re-incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalties that they had not completely served due to the invalid crediting of good conduct time allowances in their favor. 101

    WHEREFORE, the appealed order is SET ASIDE and the case is hereby REMANDED to the trial judge for further proceedings, taking into account the certification of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections as to the good conduct time allowances to which respondents may be entitled, by either granting the writ of habeas corpus with respect to some of the respondents or ordering the re-arrest of others, as the facts may warrant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Exh. B-1; Records, pp. 46-48.

    2. Also spelled "Ronnel" in the Records.

    3. Id.

    4. This sentence was imposed in a decision, dated August 26, 1998 in Criminal Case No. 96-853 by the RTC, Branch 27 of Manila. Records, pp. 50-61.

    5. Per the decision, dated April 6, 1998, also by the RTC, Branch 27, Manila in Criminal Case Nos. 96-150703 and 96-0150704. Exh. B-2; Records, p. 49.

    6. Exh. B-3; Records, p. 62.

    7. Exh. B-4; id., p. 63.

    8. Exh. B-5; id., pp. 64-66.

    9. Exh. B-6; id., p. 67.

    10. Exh. B-7; id.; pp. 68-69.

    11. Exh. B-8; id., pp. 70-71.

    12. Also spelled "Barante" in the Records.

    13. Exh. A-9; Records, p. 21. See also Annex B-9 of Petition; Rollo, pp. 207-208.

    14. Exh. B-10; Records, p. 74.

    15. Records, p. 73. See also Exhs. A-11 and B-11; Records, pp. 23 and 75.

    16. Id., p. 72. See also Exh. A-12; id., p. 24.

    17. Exh. B-12; id., p. 76.

    18. Exh. B-13; id., p. 77.

    19. Exh. B-14; id., p. 78.

    20. Exh. B-15; id., p. 79.

    21. Exh. B-16; id., p. 80.

    22. Exh. B-17; id., p. 81.

    23. Also spelled "Mabawani" in the Records.

    24. Supra note 22.

    25. Exh. B-18; Records, p. 82.

    26. Exh. B-19; id., p. 83.

    27. Also spelled "Ibañez" and "Ibanes" in the Records.

    28. Exh. B-20; Records, p. 84.

    29. Exb. B-21; id, p. 85.

    30. Exh. B-22; id., p. 86.

    31. Id.

    32. Id.

    33. Exh. B-23; Records, p. 87.

    34. Exh. B-24; id., p. 88.

    35. Exh. B-25; id., p. 89.

    36. Exh. B-26; id., p. 90.

    37. Exh. B-27; id., p. 91.

    38. Exh. B-28; id., p. 92.

    39. Exh. B-29; id., p. 93.

    40. Exh. B-30; id., p 94.

    41. Exh. A; id., p. 12.

    42. Exh. A-1; id., p. 13.

    43. Exh. A-2; id., p. 14.

    44. Exh. A-3; id., p. 15

    45. Exh. A-4; id., p. 16.

    46. Exh. A-5; id., p. 17.

    47. Exh. A-6; id., p. 18.

    48. Exh. A-7; id., p. 19.

    49. Exh. A-8, id., p. 20.

    50. Exh. A-9; id., p. 21.

    51. Exh. A-10; id., p. 22.

    52. Exh. A-11; id., p. 23.

    53. Exh. A-12; id., p. 24.

    54. Exh. A-13; id., p. 25.

    55. Exh. A-14; id., p. 26.

    56. Exh. A-15; id., p. 27.

    57. Exh. A-16; id., p. 28.

    58. Exh. A-17; id., p. 29.

    59. Exh. A-18; id., p. 30.

    60. Exh. A-19; id., p. 31.

    61. Exh. A-20; id., p. 32.

    62. Exh. A-21; id., p. 33.

    63. Exh. A-22; id., p. 34.

    64. Exh. A-23; id., p. 35.

    65. Exh. A-24; id., p. 36.

    66. Exh. A-25; id., p. 37.

    67. Exh. A-26; id., p. 38.

    68. Exh. A-27; id., p. 39.

    69. Exh. A-28; id., p. 40.

    70. Exh. A-29; id., p. 41.

    71. Exh. A-30; id., p. 42.

    72. Exh. A-31; id., p. 43.

    73. Exh. A-32; id., p. 44.

    74. Exh. A-33; id., p. 45.

    75. Petition (G.R. No. 140194), pp. 6-8; Records, pp. 6-8.

    76. Id., pp. 95-96.

    77. Id., pp. 102-107.

    78. Per Order, dated November 19, 1999; id., p. 109.

    79. Per Judge Edgardo F. Sundiam. Records, pp. 110-115; Rollo, pp. 131-136.

    80. Prisoners are classified either as municipal, provincial, or national depending on the length of their sentence under the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended by P.D. No. 29, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 1739. Persons deemed to be municipal prisoners. — The following persons are to be considered municipal prisoners:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Persons detained or sentenced for violation of municipal or city ordinances.

    (b) Persons detained pending trial before justices of the peace or before municipal courts.

    (c) Persons detained by order of a justice of the peace or judge of a municipal court pending preliminary investigation of the crime charged, until the court shall remand them to the Court of First Instance.

    (d) Persons who by reasons of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more than six months. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.

    SEC. 1740. Persons deemed to be provincial prisoners. — The following persons, not being municipal prisoners, shall be considered provincial prisoners.

    (a) Persons detained pending preliminary investigation before the Court of First Instance.

    (b) Persons who by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more than three years or are subjected to a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or are subjected to both penalties; but if a prisoner receives two or more sentences in the aggregate exceeding the period of three years, he shall not be considered a provincial prisoner. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.

    SEC. 1741. National Prisoners. — Prisoners who are neither municipal nor provincial prisoners shall be considered national prisoners, among whom shall be reckoned, in any event, all persons sentenced for violation of the Customs Law or other law within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs or enforceable by it.

    As the Solicitor General points out, respondents Raymond S. Estrella and Ronel N. Amparo are national prisoners. It likewise appears that respondent Alfred F. Lehner is a national prisoner by reason of his multiple sentences.

    81. Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 4; Rollo, p. 397.

    82. Now part of Rule 41, 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure per A.M. No. 0-1-1-03-SC- Re Amendment to Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, effective July 15, 2001.

    83. Resolution of December 15, 1999; Rollo, p. 244.

    84. Now in ADM. CODE, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, 35.

    85. See Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 586 (1998) citing Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 575 (1994); Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, 189 SCRA 459 (1990).

    86. Under A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, effective May 1, 2000, the same now reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

    87. Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 128.

    88. RTC Release Order, p. 3; Rollo, p. 133.

    89. ADM. CODE, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 8, 26 provides that the Bureau of Corrections under the Department of Justice "shall exercise such powers and functions as are now provided for by the Bureau of Prisons or may hereafter provided by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    90. The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6975 read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 60. Composition. — The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, hereinafter referred to as the Jail Bureau, is hereby created initially consisting of officers and uniformed members of the Jail Management and Penology Service as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 765.

    SEC. 61. Powers and Functions. — The Jail Bureau shall exercise supervision and control over all city and municipal jails. The provincial jails shall be supervised and controlled by the provincial government within its jurisdiction, whose expenses shall be subsidized by the National Government for not more than three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act.

    91. Republic of the Philippines v Marcopper Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 137174, July 10, 2000 citing Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995).

    92. Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17 (1996) citing AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 287-288 (1990).

    93. G.R. No. L-12276, Aug. 26, 1958.

    94. 19 SCRA 433 (1967).

    95. What the certifications only stated are the dates of confinement which in the case of all of the respondents antedated the dates judgment was rendered against them.

    96. Baking v. Director of Prisons, 28 SCRA 851 (1969). Detention prisoners can earn good conduct allowances under Act 1533, 5 if they "voluntarily offer in writing to performance such labor as may be assigned by them."cralaw virtua1aw library

    97. Exh. B-2; Records, p. 49.

    98. Exh. A-12; id., p. 24.

    99. Id., p. 72.

    100. Id., p. 76.

    101. People v. Tan, 19 SCRA 433 (1967).

    G.R. No. 141211   August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED