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.
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).