IN THE MATTER OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE BODY OF MANUEL DE GRACIA ON A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  MANUEL DE GRACIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE WARDEN, MUNICIPAL JAIL, MAKATI, RIZAL; THE PRO…

Manuel de Gracia versus the Warden of the Municipal Jail of Makati

The Case

This is a petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by Manuel de Gracia against the Warden of the Municipal Jail of Makati, the Provincial Warden, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, and the presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The petitioner had already served the full prison term imposed on him for serious physical injuries, and yet he was not released because the trial judge, on motion of the fiscal, ordered the warden to hold him so that an amended information for homicide could be filed after the victim supposedly died. The case matters because it confirms the settled rule that habeas corpus is the proper remedy to obtain release from confinement of a person who has served his sentence, and because it shows what happens to the petition once the prisoner is in fact released.

Procedural History

The petitioner was charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal with frustrated homicide. The information was later amended to serious physical injuries, and on September 10, 1975, he entered a plea of guilty to that lesser offense. On the same day, the trial judge, Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado, imposed on him four months and one day of arresto mayor, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He had been under detention since July 18, 1975, and so he had fully served that term by November 19, 1975. On that very day, however, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, Marciano P. Sta. Ana, filed a motion asking the court to order the warden to hold the petitioner's release, on the ground that the victim's father had informed him that the victim had died and that he would file an amended information. The next day, November 20, 1975, the judge granted the motion in the interest of justice. A motion for reconsideration was filed but proved fruitless. The petitioner then came directly to the Supreme Court on this petition for habeas corpus. On December 8, 1975, the Court issued the writ returnable on December 12, 1975, set the case for hearing on December 15, 1975, and allowed the petitioner to litigate as a pauper. When the case was called on December 15, no return had yet been filed by the wardens, so the Court required the fiscal to file a return for the wardens and reset the hearing to December 17, 1975.

Facts

Manuel de Gracia was detained beginning July 18, 1975. He was originally charged with frustrated homicide, but the information was amended to serious physical injuries, and on September 10, 1975, he pleaded guilty to that lesser offense. The trial judge sentenced him that same day to four months and one day of arresto mayor, without subsidiary imprisonment. Counting his detention, he had served the entire sentence by November 19, 1975.

On that last day of his term, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to hold his release, saying that the victim's father had told him only that day that the victim had died, and that he intended to file an amended information. On November 20, 1975, the judge granted the motion in the interest of justice, even though the motion was not set for hearing and no copy had been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

After the Supreme Court issued the writ, the respondents filed their returns. The judge reported that he had already ordered the petitioner released on December 11, 1975, because the fiscal had not in fact filed any amended information for homicide. The fiscal admitted that, upon studying the applicable rule and jurisprudence, he concluded that the proper remedy was not an amendment of the information, since judgment had already been rendered on the first information, but the filing of a new information for homicide. The wardens reported that the petitioner had been released on December 12, 1975, as shown by a certificate of discharge. The petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he had already been released and that the petition had become moot and academic.

Issues

• Whether or not habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for the release of a person who has served his sentence.
• Whether or not the petition has been rendered moot and academic by the petitioner's actual release from confinement.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled rule of jurisprudence that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for release from confinement of a person who has served his sentence, a doctrine applied in the cases of Escalante versus Santos, Rodriguez versus Director of Prisons, Bagtas versus Director of Prisons, and Alvarado versus Director of Prisons. That rule is what entitled the petitioner to come to this Court after completing his term.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court began by affirming the settled law: habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for release from confinement of a person who has served his sentence. It was undisputed that the petitioner had fully served the four months and one day of arresto mayor by November 19, 1975, counting his detention since July 18, 1975. His continued confinement after that date, at the instance of the fiscal's motion, was precisely the situation the remedy addresses.

On the second issue, the Court found that the petitioner had in fact been released. The trial judge had ordered his release on December 11, 1975, and the warden had released him on December 12, 1975, as evidenced by a certificate of discharge. The petitioner himself, through counsel, manifested that he had already been released. The Court therefore held that the matter had indeed become moot and academic, and that this disposed of the petition.

The Court added one final note. It observed a lapse in judicial propriety by counsel Salvador N. Beltran, who did not appear in Court on the very day his own petition was reset for hearing, a lapse the Court assumed was explicable by his comparative inexperience and paucity of practice before the Tribunal. It sufficed to call his attention to the failing by way of guidance for his future actuations as a member of the bar.

Doctrine

First, habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for release from confinement of a person who has served his sentence. Once the prisoner has fully served the penalty imposed, further detention is unlawful, and the writ lies to secure his liberty.

Second, where the prisoner is in fact released before the petition is resolved, the petition becomes moot and academic and must be dismissed. The release itself grants the relief sought, and the Court will not proceed to decide a question that no longer has any practical effect.

Third, a judgment that has already become final and executory cannot be undone by simply amending the information; the proper remedy is the filing of a new information for the new offense. This is the lesson the fiscal himself drew from the jurisprudence.

Disposition

The petition for habeas corpus was dismissed for being moot and academic, the petitioner having already been released from confinement.

Remember This

Memorize the line: habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for release from confinement of a person who has served his sentence. Examiners use this case to test the mootness rule in habeas corpus, and to remind candidates that a served sentence cannot be extended by a mere motion to amend the information.