ANTONIO DIRECTO, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Antonio Directo
against the Director of Prisons, praying for the reasons given that the latter
be ordered to set him at liberty at once.

The ground of the petition is that the petitioner is illegally detained in
Bilibid Prison by virtue of a re-amended sentence which is void because it was
imposed by the Court of First Instance of Manila after having lost
jurisdiction.

The relevant facts necessary for a resolution of the questions raised in this
.petition are as follows:

On January 12, 1931, the herein petitioner, Antonio Directo, was committed to
Bilibid Prison under a final sentence of the Court of First Instance of Manila
for five years, five months, and eleven days of presidio correctional,
and to pay an indemnity of P3,200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, for the crime of estafa (criminal case No. 38915).

At the instance of the petitioner himself, Antonio Directo, the Court of
First Instance of Manila, taking into account article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code, and finding that the penalty fixed in article 315, case No. 2, of said
Code is more favorable to the accused, on January 26, 1932 amended its original
decision rendered on January 12, 1931, and reduced the penalty therein imposed
under article No. 4 of the old Penal Code, from five years, five months, and
eleven days, to one year and one day of prision correccional.

The Court of First Instance having discovered that it had committed an error
in amending its former decision by imposing a sentence of one year and one day,
on February 2, 1932 re-amended the judgment fixing the penalty at one year,
eight months, and twenty-one days in accordance with article 315, case 2, of the
Revised Penal Code.

It is evident that the Court of First Instance of Manila amended its original
decision after it had become final and when the defendant was already serving
the sentence imposed upon him. The lapse of the time fixed by the law for an
appeal, which causes a decision to become final, and the partial or total
service of the sentence therein imposed, deprive the trial court of all
jurisdiction over the cause, and such court has no power to amend it, except for
the correction of clerical errors. Inasmuch as the Court of First Instance of
Manila lost all jurisdiction over criminal case No. 38915, it was without
jurisdiction when it amended the original sentence on January 26, 1932. And if
the amended sentence was void for lack of jurisdiction, of the court which
imposed it, the re-amended sentence imposed on February 2,1932 was also void,
although its purpose was tor enforce the provision of the Penal Code which makes
penal laws retroactive so far as they favor the accused, for the remedy in such
a case would be the writ of habeas corpus.

Considering the present petition from the standpoint of the retroactivity of
the Revised Penal Code, as provided in its article 22, in so far as it favors
the accused, the penalty of one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of
prision correccional fixed in its article 315, No. 2, which is more
favorable than that of five years, five months, and eleven days of presidio
correccional fixed in article 534, No. 4 Of the old Penal Code, as amended
by Act No. 3244, has not yet been served, inasmuch as there must be added to it
a subsidiary imprisonment of six months and twenty-seven days, which is
one-third of the principal penalty.

The aggregate penalty, therefore, is two years, three months, and eighteen
days, from which shall be deducted three months and twenty-five days as
allowance for good conduct, so that the net term of imprisonment to be served by
the petitioner is one year, eleven months, and twenty-three days. It appearing
that up to this date, March 26, 1932, the petitioner has served only one year,
two months, and fourteen days, there is still a balance of about nine months and
nine days to be served by him.

In view of the foregoing considerations we are of opinion and hold: (1) That
article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which makes penal provisions retroactive so
far as they favor the accused, provided he is not an habitual criminal, does not
authorize a court whose sentence has become final and executory to make a
substantial amendment, and any amendment made in such sentence, though it be to
give effect to a penal provision favorable to the accused, would be null and
void for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) that the only means of giving retroactive
effect to a penal provision favorable to the accused when the trial judge has
lost jurisdiction over the case, is the writ of habeas corpus.

By virtue whereof, the petitioner herein not having extinguished the penalty
of the Revised Penal Code, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is hereby
denied and dismissed, with costs de officio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, and
Imperial, JJ., concur.