Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 458 views

    (DIGEST) Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Grace Capangpangan Pepito
    Norma De Joya was convicted of violating BP 22 and sentenced to imprisonment. While her trial was ongoing, she jumped bail and remained at large for 5 years until she was arrested. She filed a motion to be released, arguing that an administrative circular reducing penalties for BP 22 violations should apply retroactively. The court denied this, as the circular did not amend the substantive law and only applied to pending cases. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that as she was detained under a valid court order, habeas corpus did not apply. While penalties may be reduced by new laws, the administrative circular was not a penal law and merely provided guidance to courts, not overriding the legislative intent or removing imprisonment as a potential penalty. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (DIGEST) Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Grace Capangpangan Pepito
    458 views2 pages
    Norma De Joya was convicted of violating BP 22 and sentenced to imprisonment. While her trial was ongoing, she jumped bail and remained at large for 5 years until she was arrested. She filed a motion to be released, arguing that an administrative circular reducing penalties for BP 22 violations should apply retroactively. The court denied this, as the circular did not amend the substantive law and only applied to pending cases. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that as she was detained under a valid court order, habeas corpus did not apply. While penalties may be reduced by new laws, the administrative circular was not a penal law and merely provided guidance to courts, not overriding the legislative intent or removing imprisonment as a potential penalty. Therefore,

    Original Description:

    (digest) PEOPLE V. CAGOCO, 58 Phil. 524

    Original Title

    2. (DIGEST) Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Norma De Joya was convicted of violating BP 22 and sentenced to imprisonment. While her trial was ongoing, she jumped bail and remained at large for 5 years until she was arrested. She filed a motion to be released, arguing that an administrative circular reducing penalties for BP 22 violations should apply retroactively. The court denied this, as the circular did not amend the substantive law and only applied to pending cases. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that as she was detained under a valid court order, habeas corpus did not apply. While penalties may be reduced by new laws, the administrative circular was not a penal law and merely provided guidance to courts, not overriding the legislative intent or removing imprisonment as a potential penalty. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    458 views2 pages

    (DIGEST) Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003

    Uploaded by

    Grace Capangpangan Pepito
    Norma De Joya was convicted of violating BP 22 and sentenced to imprisonment. While her trial was ongoing, she jumped bail and remained at large for 5 years until she was arrested. She filed a motion to be released, arguing that an administrative circular reducing penalties for BP 22 violations should apply retroactively. The court denied this, as the circular did not amend the substantive law and only applied to pending cases. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that as she was detained under a valid court order, habeas corpus did not apply. While penalties may be reduced by new laws, the administrative circular was not a penal law and merely provided guidance to courts, not overriding the legislative intent or removing imprisonment as a potential penalty. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    De Joya vs.

    Jail Warden of Batangas City

    Facts: Petitioner Norma De Joya was charged separately with violations of BP 22. When
    arraigned in both cases, petitioner pleaded not guilty. While trial was going on, petitioner jumped
    bail. No evidence was thereby adduced in her defense in any of the two cases. The Court found the
    her guilty. Petitioner remained at large and no appeal was filed from any of the said decisions. After
    five years, petitioner was finally arrested while she was applying for an NBI clearance. She was
    forthwith detained at the Batangas City Jail. Subsequently, she filed an urgent motion with the MTC
    of Batangas City asking the court to apply SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 retroactively pursuant to
    Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and to order her release from detention. In an Order dated
    August 15, 2003, the trial court denied the motion on three grounds: (a) its decision convicting the
    petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 had long become final and executory; hence, could no longer
    be amended to change the penalty imposed therein; (b) the SC Circular should be applied
    prospectively; and (c) the SC Circular did not amend B.P. Blg. 22, a substantive law, but merely
    encourages trial court judges to have a uniform imposition of fine. Petitioner thus filed a petition for
    habeas corpus before the Supreme Court praying for her release from the Batangas City Jail on the
    claim that her detention was illegal.

    Issue: Is petitioner entitled to a writ habeas corpus?

    Held: No. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that the writ of
    habeas corpus is not allowed if 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 a judgment or order of a court of
    record:

    Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharged authorized. 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 a 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; or if the
    jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any
    informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to
    authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a
    person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

    In this case, the petitioner was arrested and detained pursuant to the final judgment of the MTC of
    Batangas City, convicting her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Irrefragably then, the petitioner is not
    entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

    Petitioners reliance of our ruling in Ordonez v. Vinarao that a convicted person is entitled to benefit
    from the reduction of penalty introduced by the new law, citing People v. Simon, is misplaced. Thus,
    her plea that as provided for in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, SC Admin. Circular No. 12-
    2000 as modified by SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001 should benefit her has no basis.

    First. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal
    Code is not applicable. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its
    effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final judgment.

    Second. As explained by the Court in SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001, SC Admin. Circular No. 12-
    2000 merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties for violation of B.P.
    Blg. 22. It does not amend B.P. Blg. 22, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. SC Admin.
    Circular No. 12-2000 merely urges the courts to take into account not only the purpose of the law but
    also the circumstances of the accused whether he acted in good faith or on a clear mistake of fact
    without taint of negligence and such other circumstance which the trial court or the appellate court
    believes relevant to the penalty to be imposed.

    The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment
    as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties
    provided for in B.P. Blg. 22. The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of
    imprisonment for violators of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the
    law. (De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19. December 10, 2003)

    You might also like