Gumabon vs Director of Prisons

FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioners, Gumabon and compan !ere char"ed for the comp#e$
crime of rebe##ion !ith murder and other crimes% The invo&ed the Peop#e vs Hernande' doctrine
(he#d that the crime of rebe##ion under the )evised Pena# Code of the Phi#ippines is char"ed as a
sin"#e offense, and that it cannot be made into a comp#e$ crime* but this !as not ta&en into account
b the Supreme Court% The peitioned for habeas corpus but their p#ea !as denied%
CO+TE+T,O+S OF TH-E ACC.SED: The accused he#d on to the court/s ru#in" on Hernande'
that the information a"ainst the petitioner for rebe##ion comp#e$ed !ith murder, arson, and robber
!as not !arranted under Art% 012 of the )evised Pena# Code there bein" no such comp#e$ offense%
The ru#in" !as not handed do!n unti# after their convictions have become fina#% Since Hernande'
served more than the ma$imum pena#t that cou#d have been served a"ainst him, he is entit#ed to
freedom, and thus, his continued detention is i##e"a#%
,SS.E: 3hether or not Art% 44 of the )PC !hich "ives a pena# 5ud"ment a retroactive effect is
app#icab#e in this case (!hether or not 5udicia# decisions favourab#e to the accused6convicted for the
same crime can be app#ied retroactive#*%
).7,+G: -es% 8udicia# decisions favourab#e to the accused must be app#ied retroactive#%
Petitioners re#ied on Art% 44 of the )PC, !hich states the pena# #a!s sha## have a retroactive effect
insofar as the favour the accused !ho is not a habitua# crimina#% The Civi# Code a#so provides that
5udicia# decisions app#in" or interpretin" the Constitution forms part of our #e"a#
sstem% Petitioners even raised their constitutiona# ri"ht to e9ua# protection, "iven that Hernande' et
a#%, has been convicted for the same offense as the have, thou"h their sentences !ere #i"hter%
Habeas corpus is the on# means of benefitin" the accused b the retroactive character of a
favorab#e decision%
Contention of the Director of Prisons: :a$imum pena#t for the accused due to the reason that the
case at hand !as a comp#e$ crime of rebe##ion !ith mu#tip#e murder, robber, arson and &idnappin"%
Additiona# sa ru#in" of case 0 as a conc#usion: the petition for habeas corpus is "ranted, and it is
ordered that petitioners be forth!ith set at #ibert%
.S vs 7oo& Cha!
FACTS: 7oo& Cha! !as accused to have carried carried, kept, possessed and had in his
possession and control, 96 kilogrammes of opium and that he had been surprised in the
act of selling 1,000 pesos worth prepared opium.
CONTNT!ON O" T# $CC%&'( #e said that more than one crime !as char"ed in the
comp#aint% The defendant moved for the dismissa# of the case, on the "round that the court had no
5urisdiction to tr the same and facts concerned therein did not constitute a crime%
CO+TE+T,O+ OF THE CO.)T: The fisca# as&ed that the ma$imum pena#t of the #a! be
imposed upon the defendant, in vie! of the considerab#e amount of opium sei'ed%The court decided
that it did not #ac& 5urisdiction, inasmuch as the crime had been committed !ithin its district or the
!harf of Cebu% The court !as in favor of the "overnment and a"ainst the defendant%
,SS.E: 3hether courts of #oca# state can e$ercise its 5urisdiction over forei"n vesse#s stationed in
its port%
).7,+G: The mere possession of a thin" of prohibited use in these is#ands, aboard a forei"n vesse#
in transit, in an of their ports, does not, as a "enera# ru#e, constitute a crime triab#e b the courts of
this countr, on the account of such vesse# bein" considered as an e$tension of its o!n nationa#it,
the same ru#e does not app# !hen the artic#e, !hose use is prohibited !ithin the Phi#ippine is#ands,
in the present case, a can of opium, is #anded from the vesse# upon the Phi#ippine soi#, thus
committin" an open vio#ation of the pena# #a! in force at the p#ace of the commission of the crime,
on# the court estab#ished in the said p#ace itse#f has competent 5urisdiction, in the absence of an
a"reement under an internationa# treat%
The defendant !as found "ui#t of the crime%