ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1002-RTJ. March 9, 2005]

ESTRADA vs. MACEDA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 9 2005.

Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 00-1002-RTJ (Mary Helen Estrada vs. Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, RTC, Branch 275, Las Pinas City.)

Before us is complainant's letter dated January 18, 2005. Complainant was the accused in Criminal Case No. 94-6230. A Decision dated July 2, 1997 was rendered by respondent judge, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is rendered finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged which is punished under Article 315, par. 2(a), and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused MARY HELEN ESTRADA is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor maximum as minimum to TWENTY-FOUR (24) YEARS as maximum; to pay back the sum of P68,700.00 to Junimar Bermundo and Rosalie Bermundo; and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Complainant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial dated November 23, 1999. Therein, complainant alleged that she was not accorded due process; hence, the Decision dated July 2, 1997 was null and void. In an Order dated March 6, 2000, respondent judge denied said motion, stating that accused was furnished all pertinent orders and processes of the court and the decision was sent not only to the accused but also to accused's counsel on September 4, 1997. Thus, the trial court ruled that the motion for reconsideration dated November 23, 1999 was highly unprocedural. On April 5, 2000, complainant filed a notice of appeal but the same was denied by respondent judge for being filed beyond the reglementary period to appeal.

An administrative complaint was then lodged by complainant charging respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law for imposing a penalty over and beyond what was provided for by the law. On August 13, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution dismissing the administrative case against respondent judge but sternly warning respondent judge to be more cautious in computing the appropriate penalty in the future in order to avoid injustice.

Complainant now emphasizes in her letter dated January 18, 2005 that although the Court's Resolution dated August 13, 2001 gave respondent judge a stern warning to avoid injustice in the future, the same resolution did not give any relief for the injustice she is now suffering due to the erroneous and stiff penalty imposed upon her in Criminal Case No. 94-6230. She further pointed out that she has served five years and four months of the penalty imposed upon her.

Obviously, the sentence meted out by Judge Maceda may be excessive and complainant may be serving imprisonment beyond the penalty provided by law.

Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that "the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty." Verily, complainant's assertions in her letter dated January 18, 2005, make out a complaint for illegal confinement or detention by which she is being unduly deprived of her liberty.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to treat complainant's letter dated January 18, 2005 as a petition for habeas corpus. The Public Attorney's Office is hereby APPOINTED as counsel de oficio for Mary Helen Estrada and the Office of the Solicitor General is hereby ordered to COMMENT on the aforementioned letter-petition within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

The Division Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately furnish the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office with copies of (a) the Court's Resolution dated August 13, 2001; (b) the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, Branch 275 in Criminal Case No. 94-6230; and (c) complainant's letter dated January 18, 2005 together with a copy of herein Resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE