Crim Gumabon vs director prisons G.R. L-30026 January 30, 1971 Topic: Topic: Characteristics of crimina a!: "ros#ecti$e Petitioner: %ario Petitioner: %ario Guma&on, 'as 'a(o&a(o, Gau)encio *(a#ito, +#ifanio "a)ua an) "aterno "amares Respondent: he Respondent: he irector of he 'ureau of "risons Action and ponente: ernan)o, ernan)o, /a&eas cor#us Facts "etitioners !ere im#risone) for com#e crime re&eion !ith mur)er an) other crimes, so they e) for ha&eas cor#us for their reease. hey are in$oin( the )octrine use) in "eo#e $. /ernan)e 41956, !hich ne(ate) the eistence of the oense, an) 8CC, cain( for retroacti$e eect u eect un)er n)er the e#icit man)ate of the Re$ise) "ena "ena Co)e as to #ena a!s ha$in( such character e$en if at the time of their a##ication a na sentence has &een ren)ere) an) the con$ict is ser$in( the same. Pomeroy v. Director of "risons, a simiar case to the one at &ar, !as not (rante), &ut the #etitioners see for a )ierent )ecision in their case. hey !ere sentence) in 41953 an) 1955 to recusion #er#etua, an) ha) ser$e) more than 13 years. ;n People v. Hernandez , this Court rue) that the information a(ainst the accuse) in that case for re&eion com#ee) !ith mur)er, arson an) ro&&ery !as not !arrante) un)er *rtice 13< of the Re$ise) "ena Co)e. ;n the recenty-)eci)e) case of People vs. Lava, Lava, !e e#ressy rea=rme) the ruin( in the /ernan)e case. ;t is the contention of each of the t he #etitioners that he has ser$e), in the i(ht of the a&o$e, more than the maimum #enaty that cou) ha$e &een im#ose) u#on him. /e is thus entite) to free)om, his continue) )etention &ein( ie(a. he fear that the "omeroy ruin( stan)s as an o&stace to their reease on a ha&eas cor#us #rocee)in( #rom#te) #etitioners, as ha) &een mentione), to as that it &e a##raise) ane! an), if necessary, )iscar)e). 'ut the "omeroy case !as )ierent, an) nee) not &e consi)ere) in this case. "etitioners assert a )e#ri$ation of a constitutiona ri(ht, the )enia of e>ua #rotection. - it seems that hernan)e case ony mete) out #rision mayor for the same crime !hie the #etitioners ha$e recusion #er#etua. Issue ?hether the /ernan)e case can &e a##ie) to the #etitioners ?hether ha&eas cor#us the #ro#er reme)y if the hernan)e case !ere (i$en retroacti$e eect Rule ha&eas cor#us !as una$aiin( !here the #erson )etaine) !as in the custo)y of an o=cer un)er #rocess issue) &y a court or ma(istrate.
Application ?rit of ha&eas cor#us is the (reatest of the safe(uar)s erecte) &y the ci$i a! a(ainst ar&itrary an) ie(a im#risonment &y !homsoe$er )etention may &e eercise) or or)ere). he essentia o&@ect an) #ur#ose #ur#ose of the !rit of ha&eas cor#us is to in>uire into a a manner of in$ountary restraint as )istin(uishe) from $ountary, an) to reie$e a #erson therefrom if such restraint is ie(a. *ny restraint !hich !i #recu)e free)om of action is su=cient. Justice %acom Reme)y is to n) @uris)ictiona )efect. Ance a )e#ri$ation of a constitutiona ri(ht is sho!n to eist, the court that ren)ere) the @u)(ment is )eeme) ouste) of @uris)iction an) ha&eas cor#us is the a##ro#riate reme)y to assai the e(aity of the )etention. •
•
•
•
•
he continue) incarceration after the t!e$e-year #erio) !hen such is the maimum en(th of im#risonment !hen others simiary con$icte) ha$e &een free), is $ioati$e of e>ua #rotection. the ony means of (i$in( retroacti$e eect to a #ena #ro$ision fa$ora&e to the acc use) ... is the !rit of habeas corpus - (Director v. Director of Prisons)
Conclusion Bes, the /ernan)e case has retroacti$e eect Bes, ha&eas cor#us is the a##ro#riate reme)y
