Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 547 views

    Evangelista vs. Sistoza

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Leigh
    Petitioner Danilo Evangelista was convicted of robbery and illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that under a new law reducing penalties for illegal firearm possession, he had already served more than the maximum penalty. The Court denied the petition, finding that consecutive sentences must be served simultaneously only if their nature allows, otherwise they are served successively based on severity. However, considering recent jurisprudence, the Court found the petitioner may only be guilty of robbery, for which he had already served over the maximum six years and eight months penalty. Therefore, the petition was granted and he was ordered released from confinement.

    Copyright:

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

    Evangelista vs. Sistoza

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Leigh
    547 views1 page
    Petitioner Danilo Evangelista was convicted of robbery and illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that under a new law reducing penalties for illegal firearm possession, he had already served more than the maximum penalty. The Court denied the petition, finding that consecutive sentences must be served simultaneously only if their nature allows, otherwise they are served successively based on severity. However, considering recent jurisprudence, the Court found the petitioner may only be guilty of robbery, for which he had already served over the maximum six years and eight months penalty. Therefore, the petition was granted and he was ordered released from confinement.

    Original Title

    Evangelista vs. Sistoza.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Danilo Evangelista was convicted of robbery and illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that under a new law reducing penalties for illegal firearm possession, he had already served more than the maximum penalty. The Court denied the petition, finding that consecutive sentences must be served simultaneously only if their nature allows, otherwise they are served successively based on severity. However, considering recent jurisprudence, the Court found the petitioner may only be guilty of robbery, for which he had already served over the maximum six years and eight months penalty. Therefore, the petition was granted and he was ordered released from confinement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    547 views1 page

    Evangelista vs. Sistoza

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Leigh
    Petitioner Danilo Evangelista was convicted of robbery and illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that under a new law reducing penalties for illegal firearm possession, he had already served more than the maximum penalty. The Court denied the petition, finding that consecutive sentences must be served simultaneously only if their nature allows, otherwise they are served successively based on severity. However, considering recent jurisprudence, the Court found the petitioner may only be guilty of robbery, for which he had already served over the maximum six years and eight months penalty. Therefore, the petition was granted and he was ordered released from confinement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Danilo Evangelista y Solomon vs. Hon.

    Pedro Sistoza, Drector, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City,


    Metro Manila

    [G.R. No. 143881, 9 August 2001]

    Z Torres

    Facts:

    Petitioner was indicted for robbery and illegal possession of firearm which was allegedly used in the
    commission of the robbery.

    After trial, petitioner was convicted of both crimes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
    court’s decision with modification. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison terms for
    robbery and for illegal possession of firearm.

    On July 6, 1997, R.A. No. 8294 took effect which effectively reduced the imposable penalty for the
    offense of illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner Danilo Evangelista filed this petition for the issuance
    of a writ of habeas corpus to seek his release from imprisonment on the ground that after giving
    retroactive application to the provisions of R.A. No. 8294, the Court shall find that he had already served
    more than the maximum imposable penalty for the crimes he has committed. Considering that
    petitioner had already served a total of nine years and three months (computed with good conduct time
    allowance), he contended that he had already served the maximum period of the two prison terms
    imposed upon him, and he was entitled to be restored to his liberty.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Danilo Evangelista is correct.

    Held:

    No. Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he
    should serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise said penalties
    shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity. Thus, the second
    sentence did not commence to run until the expiration of the first.

    However, the Court also ruled that should petitioner’s case be reviewed in light of recent jurisprudence,
    he may be found guilty only of the crime of robbery. The reason for this is the pronouncement in People
    vs. Walpan Ladjaalam that the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms,
    provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested.

    Petitioner Danilo Evangelista was deemed to have committed only the crime of robbery for which he
    had already served more than the maximum period of the penalty imposed upon which is only six years
    and eight months. He has been incarcerated for nine years and three months already.

    So the petition was granted and he was ordered immediately released from confinement.

    You might also like