Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals

The period during which a convict absconds or remains at large after conviction and forfeiture of bail bond cannot be credited as preventive detention or time served; only the actual period of physical detention or imprisonment shall be counted in determining whether a sentence has been fully served.

The case involves the conviction of Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera for illegal possession of firearm under the Revised Penal Code. During the pendency of his appeal before the Supreme Court, Republic Act No. 8294 was enacted, reducing the penalties for illegal possession of firearms. This necessitated a modification of the penalty imposed by the lower courts.

• On October 28, 1988, the Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera for illegal possession of firearm, sentencing him to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 18 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal, while acquitting him of attempted homicide.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on July 12, 1990.
• Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on November 13, 1990.
• While the case was pending, Republic Act No. 8294 was enacted, lowering the penalty for illegal possession of firearm.
• On August 18, 1997, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to four years and two months (as minimum) to six years (as maximum) pursuant to the new law.
• In its August 18, 1997 decision, the Court initially ordered the petitioner's immediate release, computing that he had already served nine years, nine months, and twenty-three days from October 28, 1988 (date of conviction) to August 18, 1997 (date of decision).
• On September 10, 1997, Action Officer Homobono R. Lachica, Jr. informed the Court that Bureau of Corrections records showed petitioner had only served one month and twelve days of preventive detention.
• After his conviction on October 28, 1988 and the forfeiture of his bail bond, petitioner could no longer be located until his arrest on September 16, 1993.
• Petitioner was only committed to the Bureau of Corrections on July 4, 1997.
• Consequently, the period from October 28, 1988 to August 18, 1997 was not entirely spent in actual detention, as the petitioner had absconded for a significant portion of this time.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the Supreme Court has the authority to modify its previous final decision upon discovery of new facts regarding the actual period of preventive detention served by the petitioner.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the period during which a convict absconds or remains at large after conviction and forfeiture of bail bond may be credited as preventive detention or time served toward the completion of his sentence.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court has the inherent authority to modify or recall its previous decisions when it appears that a mistake was made in the computation of the period of imprisonment served, or when new facts are brought to its attention that materially affect the execution of the judgment and the rights of the parties.
  • The Court exercised this power to correct the manifest error in computing the preventive detention credit, which was based on the erroneous assumption of continuous detention from the date of conviction.
• Substantive:
  • The period of abscondence or escape after conviction and forfeiture of bail bond cannot be credited as preventive detention or imprisonment served.
  • Only the actual period of physical detention or imprisonment shall be counted in determining whether the sentence has been fully served.
  • Since records showed petitioner had served only one month and twelve days, and the maximum penalty imposed was six years (plus subsidiary penalty for unpaid fine), he had not yet fully served his sentence.
  • The order for immediate release dated August 27, 1997 was recalled.

• Credit for Preventive Detention — Preventive detention is credited in the service of sentence only for the period of actual physical confinement or detention; the period during which the convict is at large after absconding or escaping cannot be counted toward the service of sentence.
• Correction or Modification of Final Judgments — Courts retain the inherent power to correct clerical errors or mistakes in their judgments, or to modify them when new facts are discovered that affect the rights of the parties and the proper execution of the judgment.

• "Since it appears that petitioner has not yet fully served the indeterminate penalty imposed above for his offense, as well as the subsidiary penalty for the unpaid fine, the order for his immediate release dated August 27, 1997 is hereby RECALLED."

• Republic Act No. 8294 — The law enacted during the pendency of the appeal which lowered the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, applied by the Court to reduce the petitioner's sentence from reclusion temporal to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months to six years.

• Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Purisima, JJ. — Concurred in the resolution without issuing separate opinions.