QLIED TRUE COPY

llepublit of tbe ~bf lippfne~ w.:!~~iN

Divis~e~k of Court
~uprtmt <!Court Third Division

:.fllanila DEC 1 5 2016

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated November 28, 2016, which reads as follows:
G.R No. 223446 - (Ricardo Ranier G. Cruz Ill, in his capacity as
Director General of the Bureau of Corrections; Richard W. Schwarzkopf,
in his capacity as Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of
Corrections; and Emerenciana M. Divina, in her capacity as the Officer-
in-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division of the New Bilibid
Prison, Bureau of Corrections v. Rolito T. Go, detained at the Maximum
Security Compound, New Bilibid Prison, joined by his wife Elsa Ang Go)

RESOLUTION

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 filed under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court wherein petitioners assail the Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated 27 August 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 135263, dismissing
their appeal for being an improper remedy. The petitioners seek to reverse
and set aside the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 204,
Muntinlupa City in SP. Proc. Case No. 14-004 dated 28 April 2014, which
granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus in favor of respondent Rolito T. Go (Go).

The antecedents of this petition follow.

By virtue of the 4 November 1993 Decision of the RTC, Branch 168,

Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 87411, respondent Rolito T. Go was
convicted of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He began serving his sentence on 30 April 1996 at the New
Bilibid Prison.

Rollo, pp. 12-50.

Id. at 51-62; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Sesinando E.
Villon and Rodi! V. Zalarneda, concurring.
Id. at 193-207; penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.

223446 - over-
¥
(237)
 Resolution -2- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

On 30 July 2008, in carrying out the Resolution and Certificate of

Eligibility by then Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director Oscar C.
Calderon, the New Bilibid Prison Classification Board granted Go, along
with other 24 inmates, a colonist status. Accordingly, in view of his
commuted sentence, Go filed a petition for habeas corpus on 30 January
2014, pleading for his r.elease. He posits that his original prison sentence
which shall expire on 31 January 2022 instead should have expired on 21
August 2013 upon deduction of lawful and proper allowances for good
conduct, colonist status, and preventive imprisonment based on the
provisions of Act No. 2489, otherwise known as "An Act Authorizing
Special Compensation, Credits, and Modification in the Sentence of
Prisoners as a Reward for Exceptional Conduct and Workmanship and for
Other Purposes."

In opposition to Go's release, petitioners maintained that Go's

sentence neither has expired nor was commuted. According to petitioners,
the grant of colonist status on Go did not carry with it the automatic
commutation of his sentence from the indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua to thiliy (30) years because only the President has the power to
commute a sentence. Sans the signature of the President, any commutation is
ineffectual.

On 28 April 2014, the RTC granted the petition and issued a Writ of
1--fabeas Corpus. The RTC found that Go's sentence was validly commuted
from reclusion perpetua to 30 years pursuant to Section 7, Chapter 3 of the
BuCor Manual:

Section 7. Privileges of a colonist. A colonist shall have the

following privileges:

a. credit of additional GCTA of five (5) days for such

calendar month while retains said classification
aside from the regular GCT A authorized under
Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code;
b. automatic reduction of life sentence imposed on
the colonist to a sentence of thirty (30) years;
(Emphasis supplied)

The BuCor Manual is very clear. No ambiguity attends that provision

that once an inmate is granted a colonist status, his life sentence is
commuted to 30 years. The RTC fmiher held that, "[w]hile it is true that the
President may commute the service of sentence of a prisoner, the law also
recognizes partial reduction of sentences under Art. 97 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides for allowances of good conduct." Contrary to
petitioners' contention that the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot be
commuted to 30 years, the RTC cited Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code,
~-
223446 - over- (237) /
 Resolution -3- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

which specifically provides that for perpetual penalties like reclusion

perpetua, the duration shall be computed at 30 years. Clearly, it is not
correct that only the President can commute a sentence as these provisions,
i.e. Articles 70 and 97, warrant partial extinguishment or commutation of
sentence.

The pertinent portion of the Decision of the RTC granting the Writ of
Habeas Corpus reads:

The comt adheres therefore, to the computation of GO's expiration

of sentence on August 21, 2013 which is based on the 30 year reduction of
his life sentence. His farther detention beyond this period to the mind of
the court is illegal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The petitioner ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING is ordered
released from custody having fully served his sentence unless detained for
some other legal cause.

Let notices of this Decision be served personally to the petitioner

and to the public respondents by the Process Server or Sheriff of this
court.

SO ORDERED. 4

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA via ordinary appeal

through Rule 41 of t11:e Rules of Court. On 27 August 2015, the CA in a
Decision dated 27 August 2015, dismissed the appeal as an improper
remedy. The CA resolved that because the appeal raised only pure question
of law, as the sole issue involved in the present case is whether the BuCor
may validly commute a sentence, the proper recourse should have be.en a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before
the Supreme Court (SC).

The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied in a Resolution dated

14 March 2016.

Hence, the present Petition which argues that the CA committed a

reversible error in dismissing petitioners' appeal filed under Rule 41 for
improper remedy. Petitioners also aver that the commutation of Go's prison
sentence is ineffective because it has no prior approval by the President in
violation of Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, which mandates that
only the President has the power to exercise executive clemency.

4
Id. at 207.
Sf/
223446
- over- (237)
 Resolution -4- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

First, the issue of whether or not the proper remedy is an appeal via
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Judgments of the RTC may be appealed either through ( 1) an ordinary

appeal to the CA in cases decided by the R TC in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction which may involve either questions of fact or mixed questions of
fact and law; (2) a petition for review before the CA in cases decided by the
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction raising questions of fact, of
law, or both; and (3) a petition for review on certiorari directly filed with the
SC where only questions of law are raised. Adherence to the principle of
judicial hierarchy of courts dictates that recourse must first be made to the
lower ranked court exercising concun-ent jurisdiction with a higher court. At
the outset, therefore, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless
whether the issue involves a question of fact, of law, or mixed questions of
fact and law, an appeal to the CA is in order. 5 This rule however, admits of
certain exceptions. As already held, when the case does not involve factual,
but purely legal questions, the appeal may be elevated directly to the SC. 6
Such is the attendant circumstance in the present case.

The facts surrounding the case are undisputed and the sole issue raised
is a pure question of law, i.e., whether or not the BuCor has authority to
commute a prison sentence. As succinctly resolved by the CA, petitioners
never disputed Go's "classification as a colonist status, the pertinent portions
of the BuCor Operating Manual, and the refusal of respondents-appellants to
apply the privileges provided therein were never questioned by either
parties. [Petitioners] were only assailing the coITectness of the RTC's
interpretation of Section 7, Chapter 3 of the BuCor Operating Manual~ the
conclusions drawn therefrom, and its application to the settled facts
surrounding [Go's] case. There is therefore no need to evaluate the evidence
on record to determine the power of the BuCor, or its lack thereof, to
commute an inmate's sentence." Indeed, the CA is correct in dismissing the
appeal for improper remedy because the issue raised before it is purely a
question of law, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Now, the main issue.

Petitioners aver that Go's commutation of sentence as a result of the

grant of penal colonist status, deduction of lawful and proper allowances for
good conduct, and preventive imprisonment of Go is ineffective without
prior approval by the President because it violates Section 19, Article VII of

Dio, et al. v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., 736 Phil. 216, 224 (2014).
~
6
REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 2(c).

223446 (237)
- over -
Resolution - 5- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

the Constitution, which mandates that only the President has the power to
exercise executive clemency. 7

We deny the petition.

As correctly resolved by the 'trial court, while only the President 'Can
commute a prison sentence, Articles 708 and 979 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) recognize partial reduction or commutation of sentences by providing
that "for penal penalties, the duration shall be computed for 30 years and the
allowances of good conduct must be applied on top of the [good conduct
time allowance] accorded to an inmate with a colonist status."

Accordingly, to implement the provisions of Article 97, the law has

granted the Director of Prisons the power to grant good conduct allowances.
The mandate of the Director of Prisons embodied in Article 99 of the RPC is
clear and unambiguous. In fact, once granted, such allowances shall not be
revoked. Article 99 of the RPC explicitly states:

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. - Whenever lawfully justified, the
Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such
allowances once granted shall not be revoked. (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, after crediting his preventive imprisonment of nine (9)

months and sixteen (16) days, and the regular Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA) u~der Act No. 3815 and Special Credit Time Allowance
(SCTA) under Act. No. 2409 granted upon him, Go has completed serving

CONSTITUTION, Art. Vil, Sec. 19.

SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the
President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he
shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the
following rules shall be observed:
xx xx
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be
computed at thirty years. (As amended).
9
Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. - The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal
institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of five days for each month of good behavior;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he
shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of
good behavior; and
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall /
be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.
~
223446 (237)
- over-
Resolution -6- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

his sentence of thirty (30) years on 21 August 2013, which he commenced to

serve on 30 April 1996. 10

The intent and spirit of the law in affording persons the remedy of
writ of habeas corpus is to devise a speedy and effective means to relieve
persons from unlawful restraint. 11 To rule otherwise would render Aiiicle 99
of the RPC as a mere surplusage and would unduly impose excessive
imprisonment on inmates in violation of the basic right to liberty.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. This Resolution is

IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to immediately RELEASE petitioner Rolito T. Go
from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.

(Jardeleza, J., no part due to his prior action as Solicitor General;

Bersamin, J., additional member.)

SOORQERED.
Very truly yours,

~~~~
WIL~¥DC?l Vrk~ofCour~1{/Jw
Divzszon e 7./'Yt

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City

Atty. Ernesto V. Perez

Counsel for Respondents
U-409 Maga Centre, 1016 San Antonio St.
Paseo de Magallanes, 1200 Makati City

Atty. Jose Ricuerdo P. Flores

Collaborating Counsel for Respondents
2nd Floor, DLA Building
National Road, Putatan
1772 Muntinlupa City

COURT OF APPEALS
CAG.R. SPNo. 135263
1000 Manila

The Presiding Judge

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 204, 1772 Muntinlupa City
(Sp. Proc. Case No. 14-004)

JO
"As of February 25, 2010, Go has served 23 years, 8 months, and 9 days of imprisonment,
inclusive of all applicable good conduct time allowance xxx," as stated by the RTC.
II
Barredo v. Vinarao, 555 Phil. 823, 827 (2007).
~
URES
(237)
223446
Resolution -7- G.R. No. 223446
November 28, 2016

Estelito P. Mendoza
Counsel for Respondents
Suite A, 18th Floor, Tower 6789
6789 Ayala AVenue, 1226 Makati City

The Director
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City

Mr. Rolito T. Go
c/o The Director
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

Supreme Court, Manila
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. 12-7-1-SC]

LIBRARY SERVICES
Supreme Court, Manila

Judgment Division
JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE
Supreme Court, Manila

~-
URES
223446 (237)