People vs. Caco

A final judgment of conviction may not be modified on motion, but where a subsequently enacted penal law is favorable to the accused, the accused may secure release from prison through habeas corpus, and a motion for modification of sentence may be treated as substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus. R.A. No. 7659, being favorable to the accused, is given retroactive effect, reducing the penalty for possession of less than 250 grams of marijuana to prision correccional.

Lilibeth Caco y Palmario was convicted of violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, for possession or sale of marijuana. She had been detained since February 23, 1990, and was serving her sentence at the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City. The Dangerous Drugs Act prescribed life imprisonment for the offense regardless of quantity, but R.A. No. 7659, enacted thereafter, introduced graduated penalties based on the weight of the drugs involved, which was more favorable to accused persons dealing with smaller quantities.

Lilibeth Caco y Palmario was charged with and convicted of violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, before Branch 172 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 10108-V-90. The trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. She had been detained since February 23, 1990, and was serving her sentence at the Correctional Institution for Women at Mandaluyong City. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC decision in toto on May 24, 1993, and the decision became final.

On November 17, 1995, the appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to R.A. 7659. She alleged that the marijuana involved in the case consisted of only ten sticks costing P20.00, which weighed less than 200 grams. She invoked People vs. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]) and People vs. De Lara (236 SCRA 291 [1994]), arguing that under R.A. No. 7659 the penalty imposable for the quantity involved was prision correccional, with a duration of six months and one day to six years. She prayed that the life imprisonment sentence be reduced accordingly.

The Office of the Solicitor General, required to comment, filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment on January 17, 1997, agreeing that the appellant was entitled to the application of the rulings in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara. The OSG did not refute the allegations that the marijuana weighed less than 200 grams or that the appellant had been in detention since February 23, 1990, and concluded that she deserved to be released from prison. As of the resolution, the appellant had been detained for seven years, exceeding the six-year maximum of prision correccional.

• Retroactive Application of Favorable Penal Law: Appellant argued that pursuant to People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara, the penalty imposable for possession of less than 200 grams of marijuana under R.A. No. 7659 is prision correccional, whose duration is from six months and one day to six years, and that the life imprisonment sentence should accordingly be reduced.
• Entitlement to Release: Appellant alleged that she had been detained since February 23, 1990, and that the marijuana involved was only ten sticks costing P20.00, weighing less than 200 grams, making the reduced penalty applicable and warranting her release.

• Agreement with Appellant's Position: The Office of the Solicitor General agreed that the appellant is entitled to the application of the decisions in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara, did not refute the allegations regarding the quantity of marijuana and the duration of detention, and concluded that the appellant deserves to be released from prison.

• Modification of Final Judgment: Whether a final and executory judgment of conviction may be modified to reduce the penalty in light of a subsequently enacted favorable penal law.
• Remedy for Release: Whether a motion for modification of sentence may be treated as substantial compliance with a petition for habeas corpus to secure the release of an accused benefiting from a retroactive favorable law.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 7659: Whether R.A. No. 7659, which graduated penalties based on the quantity of drugs, may be given retroactive effect to reduce the penalty of an accused already serving a final sentence.

• Modification of Final Judgment: No. The decision of May 24, 1993 could not be modified because it had long become final and the appellant was already serving the sentence.
• Remedy for Release: Yes. Although the proper remedy is habeas corpus, a motion for modification of sentence may be treated as substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus, as recognized in prior jurisprudence.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 7659: Yes. Provisions of R.A. No. 7659 favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect, reducing the penalty for possession of less than 250 grams of marijuana to prision correccional.

• Modification of Final Judgment: The Court acknowledged that the original decision of conviction had become final and the appellant was already serving her sentence. A final judgment may not be modified on motion; the finality of judgment precludes any alteration of its dispositive portion. The Court therefore could not directly modify the May 24, 1993 decision to reduce the penalty from life imprisonment to prision correccional.

• Remedy for Release: The Court held that where a decision is already final, the appropriate remedy for an accused to secure release from prison in view of the retroactive effect of a favorable law is to file a petition for habeas corpus. Although the appellant availed of a motion for modification of sentence rather than a habeas corpus petition, the Court treated the motion as substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus, citing Angeles vs. Director of the New Bilibid Prison (240 SCRA 49 [1995]), People vs. Agustin (248 SCRA 44 [1995]), and People vs. Labriaga (250 SCRA 763 [1995]) as precedent for this approach.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 7659: The Court applied the graduated penalty scheme established in People vs. Simon and elaborated in People vs. De Lara: for marijuana weighing 500 to 749 grams, the penalty is reclusion temporal; for 250 to 499 grams, prision mayor; and for below 250 grams, prision correccional. Since the marijuana involved weighed less than 200 grams (ten sticks costing P20.00), the imposable penalty was prision correccional, with a duration of six months and one day to six years. The Court reaffirmed that favorable provisions of R.A. No. 7659 should be given retroactive effect. Because the appellant had already been detained for seven years, exceeding the six-year maximum of prision correccional, she was entitled to immediate release.

• Retroactive Application of Favorable Penal Laws — Penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect, provided the accused is not a habitual delinquent as defined in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court applied this principle to R.A. No. 7659, which graduated penalties for drug offenses based on quantity, reducing the penalty for possession of less than 250 grams of marijuana from life imprisonment to prision correccional.

• Habeas Corpus as Remedy for Release Under Favorable Law — Where a judgment of conviction has become final and the accused is already serving sentence, the appropriate remedy to secure release in view of the retroactive effect of a favorable penal law is a petition for habeas corpus. A motion for modification of sentence may be treated as substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus, following the approach recognized in Angeles vs. Director of the New Bilibid Prison, People vs. Agustin, and People vs. Labriaga.

• Graduated Penalty Scheme Under R.A. No. 7659 for Marijuana — As interpreted in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara: (a) 500 to 749 grams — reclusion temporal; (b) 250 to 499 grams — prision mayor; (c) below 250 grams — prision correccional (six months and one day to six years).

• "We declared in People v. Simon that provisions of R.A. No. 7659 which are favorable to the accused should be given retroactive effect." — This passage articulates the controlling principle that favorable penal legislation applies retroactively to accused persons already serving final sentences, forming the doctrinal basis for the appellant's release.

• "It is settled that where the decision is already final, the appropriate remedy of an accused to secure release from prison in view of the retroactive effect of a favorable law is to file a petition for habeas corpus." — This statement defines the proper procedural remedy when a final judgment cannot be modified but a favorable law entitles the accused to release.

• "Nonetheless, although the remedy availed of by the appellant is a motion for modification of sentence, it may be treated as a substantial compliance with the rules on habeas corpus." — The Court's recognition that a motion for modification may substitute for a habeas corpus petition, ensuring substantive justice over procedural form.

• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994) — Controlling precedent establishing that R.A. No. 7659's favorable provisions should be given retroactive effect and defining the graduated penalty scheme for drug offenses based on quantity.
• People vs. De Lara, 236 SCRA 291 (1994) — Followed and amplified People vs. Simon, specifying the penalty tiers: reclusion temporal for 500–749 grams, prision mayor for 250–499 grams, and prision correccional for below 250 grams of marijuana.
• Angeles vs. Director of the New Bilibid Prison, 240 SCRA 49 (1995) — Cited as authority for treating a motion for modification of sentence as substantial compliance with habeas corpus rules.
• People vs. Agustin, 248 SCRA 44 (1995) — Cited as further authority for the same procedural approach.
• People vs. Labriaga, 250 SCRA 763 (1995) — Cited as further authority for the same procedural approach.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended — The provision under which the appellant was convicted, penalizing the sale, administration, delivery, or distribution of prohibited drugs, originally prescribing life imprisonment regardless of quantity.
• Republic Act No. 7659 (Heinous Crimes Law) — Amended the Dangerous Drugs Act to introduce graduated penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved, providing more favorable penalties for smaller quantities. The Court applied this law retroactively to reduce the appellant's penalty from life imprisonment to prision correccional for possession of less than 250 grams of marijuana.

Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concurred.