Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Crim

Gumabon vs director prisons


G.R. L-30026
January 30, 1971
Topic: Characteristics of criminal law: Prospective
Petitioner: Mario Gumabon, Blas Bagolbagol, Gaudencio Agapito, Epifanio Padua and Paterno
Palmares
Respondent: The Director of The Bureau of Prisons
Action and ponente: Fernando, Habeas corpus

Facts
Petitioners were imprisoned for complex crime rebellion with murder and other crimes, so
they filed for habeas corpus for their release. They are invoking the doctrine used in People v.
Hernandez (1956), which negated the existence of the offense, and NCC8, calling for retroactive
effect under the explicit mandate of the Revised Penal Code as to penal laws having such character
even if at the time of their application a final sentence has been rendered "and the convict is
serving the same. Pomeroy v. Director of Prisons, a similar case to the one at bar, was not granted,
but the petitioners seek for a different decision in their case.

They were sentenced in (1953 and 1955) to reclusion perpetua, and had served more than
13 years.

In People v. Hernandez, this Court ruled that the information against the accused in that
case for rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery was not warranted under Article 134
of the Revised Penal Code. In the recently-decided case of People vs. Lava, we expressly reaffirmed
the ruling in the Hernandez case. It is the contention of each of the petitioners that he has served,
in the light of the above, more than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed upon him.
He is thus entitled to freedom, his continued detention being illegal. The fear that the Pomeroy
ruling stands as an obstacle to their release on a habeas corpus proceeding prompted petitioners,
as had been mentioned, to ask that it be appraised anew and, if necessary, discarded.
But the Pomeroy case was different, and need not be considered in this case.
Petitioners assert a deprivation of a constitutional right, the denial of equal protection. - it
seems that hernandez case only meted out prision mayor for the same crime while the petitioners
have reclusion perpetua.

Issue
Whether the Hernandez case can be applied to the petitioners
Whether habeas corpus the proper remedy if the hernandez case were given retroactive effect

Rule
habeas corpus was unavailing where the person detained was in the custody of an officer under
process issued by a court or magistrate.

Application
Writ of habeas corpus is the greatest of the safeguards erected by the civil law against
arbitrary and illegal imprisonment by whomsoever detention may be exercised or ordered.
The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if
such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient." -
Justice Malcolm
Remedy is to find jurisdictional defect. Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown
to exist, the court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas
corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention.
The continued incarceration after the twelve-year period when such is the maximum length
of imprisonment when others similarly convicted have been freed, is violative of equal
protection.
the only means of giving retroactive effect to a penal provision favorable to the accused ... is
the writ of habeas corpus - (Director v. Director of Prisons)

Conclusion
Yes, the Hernandez case has retroactive effect
Yes, habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen