SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 159418-19. December 10, 2003.

NORMA DE JOYA, petitioner, vs. THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY AND HON. RUBEN A. GALVEZ AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BATANGAS CITY MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH I, respondents.

Wilfredo Topacio Garcia & Associates Law Office for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner Norma De Joya was charged with two counts of violation of absentia and eventually convicted of the crimes charged. She remained at large and no appeal was filed from any of said decisions. After five years, petitioner was arrested while she was applying for an NBI clearance. While under detention, petitioner filed an urgent motion with the trial court asking the court to apply habeas corpus contending that

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. According to the Court, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because she was arrested and detained pursuant to the final judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Batangas City, convicting her of violation 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. The Court also ruled that Article 22 of the

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; HABEAS CORPUS; PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HAVING BEEN ARRESTED AND DETAINED BY VIRTUE OF A FINAL JUDGMENT. Section 4, Rule 102 of the 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. In this case, the petitioner was arrested and detained pursuant to the final judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Batangas City, convicting her of violation of habeas corpus.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; Ordo ez. v. Vinarao that a convicted person is entitled to benefit from the reduction of penalty introduced by the new law, citing , is misplaced. Thus, her plea that as provided for in Article 22 of the

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON BEHIND THE ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES IN

4. ID.; PHILIPPINE PENAL LAW BASED ON THE POSITIVIST THEORY OF CRIMINAL LAW; ELUCIDATED.- In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish positivist theory of criminal law. The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J p:

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Norma de Joya praying for her release from the Batangas City Jail on the claim that her detention was illegal.

The Antecedents

The petitioner was charged separately with violations of

Criminal Case No. 25484

That on or about September 28, 1994 at Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, well-knowing that she does not have funds in or credit with the Solid Bank, Batangas Branch, Batangas City, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously draw, make and issue to Flor Catapang de Tenorio, Solid Bank Check No. 040297 postdated to October 28, 1994 in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to apply on account or for value, but when said check was presented for full payment with the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the check, the same was dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground 'account closed,' which in effect is even more than a dishonor for insufficiency of funds, and despite notice of dishonor and demands made upon her to make good her check by making proper arrangement with the drawee bank or pay her obligation in full directly to Flor Catapang de Tenorio, accused failed and refused to do so, which acts constitute a clear violation of the aforecited law, to the damage and prejudice of transaction in commercial documents in general and of Flor Catapang de Tenorio in particular in the aforementioned amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

xxx xxx xxx

Criminal Case No. 25773

That on or about October 17, 1994 at Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, well-knowing that she does not have fund in or credit with the Security Bank and Trust Company, Batangas Branch, Batangas City, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously draw, make and issue to Resurreccion T. Castillo, Security Bank and Trust Company Check No. 038111 postdated to October 24, 1994 in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P225,000.00), Philippine Currency, to apply on account or for value, but when said check was presented for full payment with the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the check, the same was dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground of 'account closed,' which in effect is even more than a dishonor for insufficiency of funds, and despite notice of dishonor and demands made upon her to make good her check by making proper arrangement with the drawee bank or pay her obligation in full directly to Resurreccion T. Castillo, accused failed and refused to do so, which acts constitute a clear violation of the aforecited law, to the damage and prejudice of transaction in commercial documents in general and of Resurreccion T. Castillo in particular in the aforementioned amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned in both cases, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. While trial was going on, the petitioner jumped bail. No evidence was thereby adduced in her defense in any of the two cases.

On December 14, 1995, the trial court promulgated its decision in Criminal Case No. 25484. The petitioner and her counsel failed to appear despite due notice. The decretal portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Norma de Joya guilty of the crime of Violation of

SO ORDERED.

On March 21, 1997, the decision in Criminal Case No. 25773 was likewise promulgated in absentia. The decretal portion of the said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having satisfactorily established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court hereby sentences herein-accused Norma de Joya of imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR and to pay complainant Resurreccion Castillo of the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P225,000.00) PESOS by way of damages. CHEIcS

SO ORDERED.

The petitioner remained at large and no appeal was filed from any of the said decisions. In the meantime, the Court issued Vaca v. Court of Appeals and Lim v. People with regard to the imposition of the penalty for violations of

After five years, the petitioner was finally arrested while she was applying for an NBI clearance. She was forthwith detained at the Batangas City Jail on December 3, 2002. On July 28, 2003, the petitioner filed an urgent motion with the Municipal Trial Court of Batangas City asking the court to apply

Hence, the petition at bar.

The petitioner posits that United States v. Pacrose. The petitioner prays that the Court declare her detention illegal and order her release from the Batangas City Jail.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition contending that:

1) THE TWO (2) JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER HAD LONG ATTAINED FINALITY AND COULD NO LONGER BE MODIFIED.

2)

The OSG cited the ruling of this Court in Abarquez v. Court of Appeals.

The petition has no merit.

Section 4, Rule 102 of the 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 Municipal Trial Court of Batangas City, convicting her of violation of habeas corpus. Petitioner's reliance of our ruling in Ordo ez 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

First. Article 22 of the

Second. As explained by the Court in

The clear tenor and intention of

The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of

Thus,

It is, therefore, understood that:

1.

2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;

3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed two hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The courts are given the discretion to choose whether to impose a single penalty or conjunctive penalties; that is, whether to impose a penalty of fine, or a penalty of imprisonment only, or a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.

In providing for alternative penalties in

However, in imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish positivist theory of criminal law. The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4, paragraph 2 of theArticle 68 and Articles 11 to 14, not to mention Article 63 of the The purpose of penalties is to secure justice. The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive and civic-spirited member of the community. The court has to consider not only the primary elements of punishment, namely, the moral responsibility of the convict, the relation of the convict to the private complainant, the intention of the convict, the temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime was it done by a rich man in the insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the extremity of his need? The court must also take into account the secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation of the offender, the prevention of further offenses by the offender, the repression of offenses in others. As Rousseau said, crimes can be thoroughly repressed only by a system of penalties which, from the benignity they breathe, serve rather than to soften than to inflame those on whom they are imposed. There is also merit in the view that punishment inflicted beyond the merit of the offense is so much punishment of innocence.

In this case, even if the Court applies

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 36.

2. Id. at 42.

3. Id. at 39.

4. Id. at 44.

5. 298 SCRA 656 (1998).

6. 340 SCRA 497 (2000).

7. 24 Phil. 35.

8. Comment, p. 4.

9. G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003.

10. 239 SCRA 114 (1994).

11. 234 SCRA 555 (1994).

12.

13. Section 1,

14. Lozano v. Judge Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986).

15. People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 (1933).

16. Sir Edward Fry, 5 Crim. L. May 16, cited in Wharton's Criminal Law, Vol. I, p. 1.

17. Id. at 5.

18. Dr. Franklin, cited in Wharton, Criminal Law, p. 6.