[ G.R. No. 40373. November 24, 1933 ] 58 Phil. 847
[ G.R. No. 40373. November 24, 1933 ]
JOAQUIN S. TORRES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL FARM, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
BUTTE, J.:
This is an appeal from the final decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, denying the petition of the appellant for a writ of habeas corpus.
The appellant, Joaquin S. Torres, was convicted on September 23, 1931, by the Court of First Instance of Davao, of the crimes of estafa on twenty separate informations to all of which he plead guilty, the aggregate of the penalties in the twenty cases being eight years and twenty days, if subsidiary imprisonment be included.
On July 5, 1933, the appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, invoking the provisions of article 88, paragraph 2, of the former Penal Code, and contending that the court that sentenced him exceeded its jurisdiction in the penalty assessed.
Article 88, paragraph 2, reads as follows:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period.”
Whatever confusion may have existed in the interpretation and application of article 88, paragraph 2, supra, before the decision of this court in the case of People vs. Garalde (50 Phil., 823), that case, after a full review of the previous decisions, decided once and for all that article 88, paragraph 2, applies although the penalties were imposed for different crimes, at different times, and under separate informations. It is unnecessary to repeat here the argumentation of that decision which wag adopted by unanimous vote of this court.
The doctrine laid down in that case has been uniformly followed in this court. To enumerate only a few, attention is called to the following recent decisions: Gregorio Bogayong vs. Director of Prisons (G. R. No. 37106, Resolution of March 26, 1932); Liberato Maballo vs. Director of Prisons (G. R. No. 38067, Resolution of September 9, 1932); Mauro G. Rompal vs. Director of Prisons (G. R. No. 37543, Order of June 4, 1932); Estanislao M. Masin vs. Director of Prisons (G. R. No. 38876, Resolution of January 19, 1933), In all of said cases, under circumstances, analogous to the facts set out in the petition under review, the writ of habeas corpus was granted on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to assess a penalty in excess of that provided in article 88, paragraph 2, aforesaid.
The judgment of the court below is reversed with costs de oficio, and the lower court is directed to grant a writ of habeas corpus as prayed for in the petition.
Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.