Barredo v.

Vinarao

Facts:
- This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Samuel Barredo y Golani
prays for his release from the Bilibid Prison on the ground that he has already served the
sentence imposed on him on his cases of carnapping and illegal possession of firearms. Both
cases were filed w/ RTC QC Br. 103.
- The cases were tried jointly and thereafter, the trial court rendered a joint decision finding
petition guilty for both charges.
- No appeal was made, hence, the decision became final and executory.
- Petitioner was committed to the custody of QC Jail. After conviction, he was transferred to and
confined at the maximum security compound of the New Bilibid Prison on July 1994 where he is
now detained.
- According to petitioner, as of August 2004, he already served a total of 18 years. He claims that,
on October 9, 2001, the Board of Pardons passed a resolution recommending the commutation
of his sentence to a period of from 15 to 20 years. He further points out that, based on the
BuCor revised computation table, he should only be serving q5 years, 9 months and 18 days.
Hence, this petition.

Issue: Is petitioner entitled to writ of habeas corpus? NO

Held:

Writ of Habeas Corpus will not issue if detention is by virtue of valid judgment. The writ of habeas
corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement, detention or deprivation of liberty. It was devised
as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. More specifically, it is
a remedy to obtain immediate relief for those who may have been illegally confined or imprisoned
without sufficient cause and thus deliver them from unlawful custody. It is therefore a writ of inquiry
to test the circumstances under which a person is detained.

The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue
of a valid judgment. However, the writ may be allowed as a post-conviction remedy when the
proceedings leading to the conviction were attended by any of the ff exception circumstances: 1)
there was a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; 2) the court
had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence or 3) the imposed penalty was excessive, thus avoiding
the sentence as to such excess.

The rule is that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in 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 writ
of habeas corpus will not be allowed. Sec 4 Rule 102 provides: 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.

Petitioner was detained pursuant to a final judgment of RTC QC convicting him for the crimes of
carnapping and illegal possession of firearms. He is therefore not entitled to the writ of habeas
corpus.

PETITION DENIED.