In Re Petition of Habeas Corpus Pete Lagran
In Re Petition of Habeas Corpus Pete Lagran
In Re Petition of Habeas Corpus Pete Lagran
Petitioner was convicted of three counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of one year for each count and pay a fine. The decision became final and executor in
August 6, 1997 and entry of judgment was made on March 5, 1998. On March 19, 2001, Lagran filed a
petition for habeas corpus praying for his immediate release on the ground that he had completed the
service of his sentence. He cited Article 70 of the RPC arguing that if the penalties or sentences imposed
on the accused are identical, and such penalties or sentences emanated from one court and one complaint,
the accused shall serve them simultaneously. Under the said provision, it allows simultaneous service of
two or more penalties only if the nature of the penalties so permit. The case at bar, the petitioner was
sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment for every count of the offense committed. The nature of the
sentence does not allow him to serve all the prison terms simultaneously.
Whether or not Lagran is correct in alleging that he already completed his sentence by virtue of Article 70
of the Revised Penal Code?
No. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code allows simultaneous service of two or more penalties only if the
nature of the penalties so permit. The penalties that can be simultaneously served are: (1) perpetual
absolute disqualification, (2) perpetual special disqualification, (3) temporary absolute disqualification,
(4) temporary special disqualification, (5) suspension, (6) destierro, (7) public censure, (8) fine and bond
to keep the peace, (9) civil interdiction and (10) confiscation and payment of costs. These penalties,
except destierro, can be served simultaneously with imprisonment. The penalties consisting in deprivation
of liberty cannot be served simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties. Where the accused is
sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, the terms should be served successively. Hence, the
petition is dismissed.
In the case at bar, petitioner was sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment for every count of the offense
committed. The nature of the sentence does not allow petitioner to serve all the prison terms
simultaneously. Applying the rule on successive service of sentence, we find that petitioner has not yet
completed the service of his sentence as he commenced serving his sentence only on February 24, 1999.
His prayer, therefore, for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has no basis.
The imposition is proper. Because RPC provides that the penalty for less physical injuries is arresto
mayor. The IS Law does not apply to those whose maximum term does not exceed one year. The max
period of arresto mayor is from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. 6 months does not exceed one year. So,
in this case, the imposition of the straight penalty of arresto mayor is proper. Convicted crime punished
by death or life imprisonment;