Rule 124 of Rules on Criminal Procedure

Habeas Corpus

In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of David Cruz

Maria Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 137560, January 19, 2000

Facts:
David Cruz was charged before the RTC Pasig with a violation of RA No. 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act. He allegedly sold to another person a dried marijuana fruiting tops
weighing 2.70 grams. The trial court found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him
to suffer life imprisonment with all the accessory penalties.

Accused seasonably appealed. He was transferred from the Municipal Jail to the New
Bilibid Prisons. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a resolution in view of the
promulgation of the case of People vs. Martin Simon, the imposable penalty for quantity of
marijuana involving less than 750 grams is not life imprisonment but within the range of
prision correctional to reclusion temporal.

The counsel of the accused was served with several notices to file their brief but failed
to do so. David Cruz filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw appeal. The CA issued a Resolution
holding in abeyance its resolution on the motion to withdraw appeal until the situation is
explained to him. After the third notice and still the accused failed to file brief, the CA issued a
Resolution declaring the appeal abandoned and dismissed the same for failure to prosecute.
Hence, this consolidated petition for certiorari and habeas corpus.

Issue:
1. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case.
2. Whether the continued restraint of liberty of the accused is lawful.

Ruling:
1. The CA did not err in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Section 8 of
Rule 124. An appeal may be dismissed by the CA, upon motion of the appellee or upon
the court’s on motion, if the appellant failed to file his brief within the prescribe time.
The only exception is when the appellant is represented by counsel de officio. In this
case, a counsel of his own choice represented the accused. Moreover, a new trial to
determine his penalty cannot be granted because it can be granted only on the ground
of newly discovered evidence material to the accused defense under Section 14 of Rule
124.

2. The petition for habeas corpus is granted. The accused was tried and convicted by the
trial court and was sentenced to life imprisonment. While he was in prison, a new law
amending several provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act reducing the penalty for sale
of less than 750 grams of marijuana to a range from prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua. In the case of People vs. Simon, the Court held that for drugs weighing less
than 750 drams, the penalty under the law is construed as prision correccional to
reclusion temporal. In the instant case, applying the Simon Ruling, the penalty for sale
of marijuana for which David was convicted is prision correccional that has a duration
of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. He had already served more than six
(6) years, which is way beyond the last day of prision correccional. Therefore, the
continued detention of Cruz is already illegal and should be released from prison
without further delay.
Rule 124 of Rules on Criminal Procedure
Habeas Corpus

An application for the writ of habeas corpus is made upon verified petition setting forth:
(1) that the person is whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of
his liberty; (2) the officer or name of the person by whom he is imprisoned or restrained;
(3) the place where he is imprisoned or restrained of liberty; and (4) a copy of the
commitment or cause of detention of such person. The writ of habeas corpus extends to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty.