Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Angeles v. Director of New Bilibid PDF

    Uploaded by

    Marc Virtucio
    85 views2 pages
    Petitioner was convicted of selling 0.13 grams of shabu and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of 20,000 pesos. Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that a new law reduced penalties for drug crimes and should apply retroactively. The court denied the writ as premature since petitioner had not served the minimum of the sentence. However, the court noted that those convicted of drug crimes who have served the maximum revised sentences under the new law could file habeas corpus petitions, even if informally, to consider early release.

    Original Description:

    Angeles v. Director of New Bilibid.pdf

    Original Title

    Angeles v. Director of New Bilibid.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner was convicted of selling 0.13 grams of shabu and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of 20,000 pesos. Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that a new law reduced penalties for drug crimes and should apply retroactively. The court denied the writ as premature since petitioner had not served the minimum of the sentence. However, the court noted that those convicted of drug crimes who have served the maximum revised sentences under the new law could file habeas corpus petitions, even if informally, to consider early release.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    85 views2 pages

    Angeles v. Director of New Bilibid PDF

    Uploaded by

    Marc Virtucio
    Petitioner was convicted of selling 0.13 grams of shabu and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of 20,000 pesos. Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that a new law reduced penalties for drug crimes and should apply retroactively. The court denied the writ as premature since petitioner had not served the minimum of the sentence. However, the court noted that those convicted of drug crimes who have served the maximum revised sentences under the new law could file habeas corpus petitions, even if informally, to consider early release.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Angeles v.

    Director of New Bilibid


    Facts
    Petitioner was charged with, and convicted of, selling and delivering 0.13 grams of
    shabu, in violation of Section 15,2 Article III, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
    (R.A. No. 6425)
    TC convicting accused; affirmed by SC.
    Petitioner to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.
    Petitioner now filed petition for habeas corpus,
    (a) R.A. No. 7659, has reduced the penalties prescribed under the original
    provision of the Dangerous Drugs Act
    only prision correccional.
    (b) Ruling in People vs. Simon, which has confirmed the retroactive application
    of RA 7659.
    .
    Issue
    W/N writ of habeas corpus is proper - No.
    Held
    Premature. Petitioner has only served the minimum of his sentence
    If at all, qualified, he may only be released on parole pursuant to Section 5 of the
    Indeterminate Sentence Law
    Further, Court had the occasion to express concern over the plight of persons
    convicted of said offence, who by virtue of of effectivity of RA 7659, could be entitled
    to parole for having served their minimum sentences, or who may be due for release
    from confinement after having served their maximum sentences
    Court said that All courts of competent jurisdiction may entertain petitions for
    habeas corpus to consider the release of prisoners convicted for violation of the
    Dangerous Drugs Act who have served the maximum of the applicable penalties
    newly prescribed by RA 7659.
    That the formalities required for petitions for habeas corpus shall be construed
    liberally, and such petitions, although de cient in form (e.g. in letter- petition
    forms), may be entertained so long as they are suf cient in substance

    You might also like