Reyes and Evangelista vs. Bantag

The abolition of the death penalty under RA 9346 did not repeal the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed under RA 7659 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as RA 9346 only repealed or amended laws insofar as they impose the death penalty, and Section 2 thereof provides reclusion perpetua as the penalty in lieu of death. Persons convicted of heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of RA 10592 on Good Conduct Time Allowance, and administrative issuances interpreting the law, such as the 2019 IRR issued by the DOJ and DILG, have the force of law and are entitled to great respect.

Petitioners Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista were convicted by Branch 103, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on December 14, 2001 for violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, for the illegal sale of 974.12 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, acting in conspiracy with one another. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay Php 500,000.00 each, pursuant to the amendment introduced by RA 7659, which increased the penalty for illegal sale of drugs from six years and one day to twelve years, to reclusion perpetua to death for 200 grams or more of shabu. Their conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated September 27, 2007. More than a decade after the affirmation, petitioner Atty. Rubee Ruth C. Cagasca-Evangelista, wife of Evangelista and counsel of both inmates, filed the instant petition claiming that with the abolition of the death penalty and the repeal of the death penalty in RA 7659, the penalty for illegal sale of drugs should revert to that originally imposed in RA 6425.

Petitioners Raymundo Reyes and Vincent B. Evangelista were convicted by Branch 103, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on December 14, 2001 for violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, for the illegal sale of 974.12 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, acting in conspiracy with one another. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of Php 500,000.00 each, in accordance with the amendment introduced by RA 7659, which increased the penalty of imprisonment for illegal sale of drugs from six years and one day to twelve years, to reclusion perpetua to death for 200 grams or more of shabu. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated September 27, 2007.

More than a decade after the affirmation of their conviction, petitioner Atty. Rubee Ruth C. Cagasca-Evangelista, the wife of Evangelista, filed the instant petition as counsel for her husband and Reyes. She alleged that with the abolition of the death penalty and the repeal of the death penalty in RA 7659 as a consequence, the penalty for illegal sale of drugs should be reverted to that originally imposed in RA 6425, or from reclusion perpetua in RA 7659 to six years and one day to twelve years in RA 6425. She argued that if the convicts serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, it is as if they are being punished for a crime that no longer exists, and that said penalty would be tantamount to deprivation of their life and liberty and would not be fair and just.

Petitioner further insisted that both Reyes and Evangelista have already served 19 years and 2 months, or more than 18 years if the benefit of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under RA 10592 was considered. With the benefit of the GCTA, which may be applied retroactively, both Reyes and Evangelista have already served more than the required sentence imposed by law. The petition prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Gerald Bantag, as Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, to make a return thereon showing legal authority to detain the inmates, and for their release from incarceration at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.

• Reversion of Penalty: Petitioner argued that with the abolition of the death penalty under RA 9346 and the repeal of the death penalty in RA 7659 as a consequence, the penalty for illegal sale of drugs should revert to that originally imposed in RA 6425, from reclusion perpetua to six years and one day to twelve years, as punishing the convicts with reclusion perpetua would be tantamount to punishing them for a crime that no longer exists.
• Service of Sentence through GCTA: Petitioner insisted that both Reyes and Evangelista have already served 19 years and 2 months, or more than 18 years if the benefit of Good Conduct Time Allowance under RA 10592 was considered, and that with the benefit of the GCTA, which may be applied retroactively, both have already served more than the required sentence imposed by law.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' arguments.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: Whether the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is proper.
• Reversion of Penalty: Whether the abolition of the death penalty under RA 9346 reverted the penalty for illegal sale of shabu from RA 7659 to RA 6425 prior to its amendment.
• Entitlement to GCTA: Whether Reyes and Evangelista are entitled to the benefit of Good Conduct Time Allowance under RA 10592.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: No. The petition must be dismissed for procedural defects, including lack of verified declaration of electronic submission, absence of written explanation of service or filing under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, and disregard of the hierarchy of courts, as the real question involves determination of facts regarding entitlement to GCTA.
• Reversion of Penalty: No. RA 9346 only repealed or amended laws insofar as they impose the death penalty, and Section 2 thereof provides reclusion perpetua as the penalty in lieu of death; thus, the imposition of reclusion perpetua against Reyes and Evangelista is valid.
• Entitlement to GCTA: No. Reyes and Evangelista, found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs exceeding 200 grams, have committed a heinous crime, and Section 2, Rule IV of the 2019 IRR of RA 10592 expressly excludes PDLs convicted of heinous crimes from entitlement to GCTA.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: The Court noted that petitioner disregarded basic rules of procedure, including the absence of a verified declaration of electronic submission of the soft copy of the petition and the lack of the required written explanation of service or filing under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The Court also held that petitioner disregarded the hierarchy of courts. While the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the trial courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus, mere concurrency of jurisdiction does not afford parties absolute freedom to choose the court with which the petition shall be filed. Citing Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, the Court ruled that direct recourse to this Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law, and not issues that depend on the determination of questions of fact. Although petitioner sought to raise a question of law regarding the reversion of penalty, the real question was the release of Reyes and Evangelista from detention based on the alleged service of their sentences pursuant to RA 10592, which requires a determination of facts—whether the PDLs are entitled to the benefit of GCTA. The Court further stressed that as a matter of policy, direct resort to this Court will not be entertained unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy. Not one of these exceptional and compelling circumstances was alleged or shown.
• Reversion of Penalty: The Court held that a prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty, and the rule is that if a 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 of record, the writ will not be allowed. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the writ shall not be allowed if the person is in custody under a lawful judgment. In this case, the confinement of Reyes and Evangelista at the New Bilibid Prison is valid pursuant to a lawful judgment—their conviction for violation of Section 15, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court. The Court acknowledged that habeas corpus may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy when the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess, which petitioner invoked. However, the Court held that the abolition of the death penalty does not mean that the penalties imposed under RA 7659, apart from death, have likewise been repealed. Section 1 of RA 9346 provides that only the imposition of the death penalty has been removed, and RA 7659, as well as other laws, are repealed or amended insofar as they impose the death penalty. Section 2 of RA 9346 provides the appropriate penalty in lieu of death: reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code. Evidently, RA 9346 did not repeal the amendment introduced in RA 7659 imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Entitlement to GCTA: The Court cited Section 2, Rule IV of the 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10592, which provides that PDLs convicted of heinous crimes shall not be entitled to GCTA during service of sentence. Section 1 of RA 10592, amending Article 29 of the RPC, supports this, providing that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of the Act. Reyes and Evangelista, found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs exceeding 200 grams, have committed a heinous crime, in consonance with RA 7659, which includes the distribution or sale of dangerous drugs as heinous for being a grievous, odious and hateful offense. The Court held that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, such as the 2019 IRR issued by the DOJ and the DILG, have the force of law and are entitled to great respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in their favor a presumption of legality, and unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply the same.

• Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts — Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law, and not issues that depend on the determination of questions of fact. The doctrine operates as a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental tasks assigned to it by the Constitution, and it is a bright-line rule which cannot be brushed aside by an invocation of the transcendental importance or constitutional dimension of the issue or cause raised. In this case, although petitioner sought to raise a question of law, the real question was the release of the inmates based on alleged service of sentences pursuant to RA 10592, which requires a determination of facts.
• Writ of Habeas Corpus as Post-Conviction Remedy — The writ of habeas corpus may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. When the detention complained of finds its origin in what has been judicially ordained, the range of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is considerably narrowed, and the writ may be invoked only under extraordinary circumstances.
• Effect of RA 9346 on Penalties under RA 7659 — The abolition of the death penalty under RA 9346 only repealed or amended laws insofar as they impose the death penalty. Section 2 of RA 9346 provides the appropriate penalty in lieu of death: reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code; or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the said nomenclature. RA 9346 did not repeal the amendment introduced in RA 7659 imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Exclusion from GCTA of PDLs Convicted of Heinous Crimes — Under Section 2, Rule IV of the 2019 IRR of RA 10592, PDLs convicted of heinous crimes shall not be entitled to GCTA during service of sentence. Section 1 of RA 10592, amending Article 29 of the RPC, supports this, providing that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of the Act. The illegal sale of dangerous drugs exceeding 200 grams constitutes a heinous crime under RA 7659.

• "In fine, while this Court has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus (extraordinary writs), direct recourse to this Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law." — This passage from Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, quoted by the Court, articulates the controlling doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and the limited circumstances for direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
• "It is clear from the aforequoted provision that PDLs convicted of heinous crimes shall not be entitled to GCTA." — This statement establishes the Court's ruling on the exclusion of petitioners from the benefit of Good Conduct Time Allowance under RA 10592.
• "Evidently, RA 9346 did not repeal the amendment introduced in RA 7659 imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua against Reyes and Evangelista is valid." — This passage states the Court's ratio decidendi on the effect of the abolition of the death penalty on the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed under RA 7659.

• Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019 — Controlling precedent on the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, cited for the rule that direct recourse to the Supreme Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law, and not issues that depend on the determination of questions of fact.
• In re: Abellana vs. Paredes, G.R. No. 232006, July 10, 2019 — Cited for the exceptional circumstances when habeas corpus may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy, including when the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.
• People vs. Evangelista, 560 Phil. 510-522 (2007) — The prior decision affirming the conviction of Reyes and Evangelista, which established the validity of their confinement pursuant to a lawful judgment.
• Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City vs. Secretary Leila N. De Lima, G.R. Nos. 212719 and 214637, June 25, 2019 — Cited in connection with the retroactive application of GCTA under RA 10592.
• Landbank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Tañada, 803 Phil. 103-115 (2017) — Cited for the rule that administrative issuances have the force of law and are entitled to great respect, and that unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply the same.

• Section 1, Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
• Section 4, Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that if it appears that 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 judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed.
• Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Requires a written explanation of service or filing, which petitioner patently lacked.
• Section 1, RA 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and repeals or amends RA 8177, RA 7659, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees insofar as they impose the death penalty.
• Section 2, RA 9346 — Provides the appropriate penalty in lieu of death: reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code; or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the said nomenclature.
• Section 15, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659 — The provision under which Reyes and Evangelista were convicted for the illegal sale of 974.12 grams of shabu, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.
• Section 1, RA 10592 — Amends Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, providing that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of the Act.
• Section 2, Rule IV, 2019 IRR of RA 10592 — Provides that PDLs convicted of heinous crimes shall not be entitled to GCTA during service of sentence.
• Section 35, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, cited for the provision on who may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.

Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Carandang, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided text.