Juanito B. Llobrera, et al. v. Director of Prisons
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3994 August 16, 1950
JUANITO LLOBERA Y BAYLON,petitioner,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,respondent.
The petitioner in his own behalf.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Office of the Solicitor Juan T. Alano for respondent.
REYES,J.:
This a petition forhabeas corpus.
It appears that petitioner was charged in the Municipal Court of Dagupan with a violation of article 155, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the penalty ofarresto mayoror a fine not more than P200 upon any person "who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places." Pleading guilty to the complaint, petitioner was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for the specific crime charged, and to an additional penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day ofprision correccionalunder the habitual delinquency law, on account of his two previous convictions for the same offense. Petitioner has already served the one month's imprisonment; but having been committed to the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinglupa for the service of the additional penalty imposed upon him as a habitual delinquent, he now petitions for his liberty on the ground that this additional penalty is null and void, since the habitual delinquency law (article 62, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18) applies only to the crimes of "serious or less serious physical injuries,robo,hurto,estafa, orfalsificacion." and not of the crimes described in article 155 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Solicitor General, vin his return, recommends approval of the petition on the ground relied upon by the petitioner as well as on the following ground:
That the additional penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day ofprision correccionalimposed by the Municipal Court of Dagupan City to the petitioner, is a punishment in excess of the power of said court to impose and is therefore void (Cruzvs.Director of Prisons, 17 Phil., 269, 272) because the additional penalty for habitual delinquency must be taken into account in determining the jurisdiction of the court (Peoplevs.Costosa, 40 Off. Gaz., [7th Supp., No. 11], p. 157).
It being obvious that the additional penalty imposed upon petitioner is void for the reasons above stated, the petition forhabeas corpusmust be as it is hereby granted, and petitioner ordered released from custody unless lawfully held for some other reasons.
Moran C.J. , Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ.,concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-9733 September 30 v. Pedro Masilungan Juan A. Baes for…1958both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-8922-24 February 28 v. Enguero1957both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-8904-5 December 28 v. Epifanio Manabat Office of the…1956both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-6498 April 29 v. Zenaida Flores Alias Rosita Pacion…1954both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-6061 April 29 v. Licop1954both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-5510 April 28 v. Aranua1956both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-34105 February 4 v. Cabural1983both apply Act 18, RA 18
- L-2961-2964 January 31 v. Cael1951both apply Act 18, RA 18
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.