DE JOYA vs.

JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY December 10, 2003 (SUPREME COURT, 417 SCRA 638) Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus Parties: DJ = Norma De Joya, petitioner Facts: 1. 1994 DJ was charged separately on two counts for violation of BP 22. During arraignment, DJ pleaded not guilty and jumped bail during trial. 2. Decisions on two cases promulgated in absentia, finding DJ guilty and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for each count + damages. (1995 and 1997) 3. DJ made no appeals. Remained at large. 4. Court issues Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 122000 on November 2000i. 5. After 5 years, petitioner was arrested. (Detained at Batangas City Jail on Dec 3, 2002) Procedural History 1. On 2003, DJ files urgent motion asking court to apply Circular retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of RPCii. 2. Public prosecutor opposed the motion. TC denied motion on three grounds: (a) decision of conviction long final and Issue

executory, (b) the SC Circular should be applied prospectively, (c) the SC Circular did not amend BP Blg. 22, but merely encourages to have uniform imposition of fine.

1. Does petition for habeas corpus have merit? 2. Is SC Admin. Circular No. 122000 applicable retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of the RPC? Holding and Ruling 1. No.iii DJ was arrested pursuant to judgments of MTC of Batangas City. 2. No. Article 22 refers to penal laws. SC Admin Circular No. 122000 is not a penal law. Also, it lays down a rule of preference in the application of penalties, not amend BP Blg. 22. It does not remove imprisonment as a possible penalty. Judgment Even if Court applies Circular retroactively, petition Is dismissed. Petitioner did not offer evidence during trial. Judgment of court became final and executory upon her failure to appeal therefrom. Worse, the prisoner remained at large for five years.

Enjoining all courts to take notice of ruling and policy of Court in Vaca v. CA and Lim v. People (where imprisonment is discouraged as penalty for BP 22) ii Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict serving the same. iii Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that the of writ habeas corpus is not allowed if the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court record.