8/2/2019 Rule 102 Deficiency

1/2

Harden vs. The Director of PrisonsG.R. No. L-2349. October 22, 1948

Tuason, J.:

Facts:Fred M. Harden, was confined in prison for contempt of court.

The case arose from a civil case between Mrs. Harden as plaintiff and thepetitioner involving the administration of a conjugal partnership, payment of

alimony, and accounting. A preliminary injunction was issued restraining Fred M.

Harden from transferring or alienating, except for a valuable consideration and withthe consent of the court first had and obtained, moneys, shares of stock, and other

properties and assets, real or personal, belonging to the aforesaid partnership.

On various dates in 1946, Fred M. Harden transferred to the Hongkong &Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China,

both in Hongkong, over P1,000,000 in drafts or cash; to Virginia Recreation Center,Long Beach, California, P20,196.80, and to an unknown person, P50,000.

Mrs. Harden complained that her husband failed to comply with the aboveorder and prayed that he be ordered to show cause why he should not be declared in

contempt. It was at this stage of the case that the present petitioner was committed

to jail.

Issue:

Whether or not the penalty of indefinite imprisonment imposed by the Courtwas valid.

Ruling:

The grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1) deprivation of anyfundamental or constitutional rights, (2) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose

the sentence, or (3) excessive penalty.Section 7, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court provides that when the contempt

consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to

perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it.If the term of imprisonment in this case is indefinite and might last through

the natural life of the petitioner, yet by the terms of the sentence the way is left

open for him to avoid serving any part of it by complying with the orders of the

court, and in this manner put an end to his incarceration.In a long line of decisions, the Supreme Court has steadfastly held that

habeas corpus does not lie to correct errors of fact or law. When a court hasjurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is so charged, its judgment,

order or decree is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. The writ of

habeas corpus can not be made to perform the function of a writ of error; and thisholds true even if the judgment, orders or decree was erroneous, provided it is

within the jurisdiction of the court which rendered such judgment or issued such anorder or decree.

8/2/2019 Rule 102 Deficiency

2/2

Directo vs. The Director of PrisonsG.R. No. L-37108. March 28, 1932

Villa-Real, J.:

Facts:Antonio Directo was committed to Bilibid Prison under a final sentence of the

Court of First Instance of Manila for five years, five months, and eleven daysof presidio correccional for the crime of estafa.

On account of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, and finding that the

penalty fixed in article 315, case No. 2, of said Code is more favorable to theaccused, the Court amended its original decision and reduced the penalty therein

imposed under article 534, No. 4 of the old Penal Code, to one year and one day

of prision correctional.Thereafter, the Court having discovered that it had committed an error in

amending its former decision re-amended the judgment fixing the penalty at oneyear, eight months, and twenty-one days in accordance with article 315, case 2, of

the Revised Penal Code.

Issue:

Whether nor not petitioner was illegally detained because of an amendedsentence which is void because it was imposed by the Court of First Instance ofManila after having lost jurisdiction.

Ruling:

The Court of First Instance of Manila lost all jurisdiction over criminal case No.38915, it was without jurisdiction when it amended the original sentence on January

26, 1932. And if the amended sentence was void for lack of jurisdiction of the courtwhich imposed it, the re-amended sentence imposed on February 2, 1932 was also

void.From the standpoint of the retroactivity of the Revised Penal Code, as

provided in Article 22, in so far as it favors the accused, the penalty of one year,

eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccionalfixed in its article 315, No.2, which is more favorable than that of five years, five months, and eleven daysofpresidio correctionalfixed in article 534, No. 4 of the old Penal Code, as amended

by Act No. 3244, has not yet been served, inasmuch as there must be added to it a

subsidiary imprisonment of six months and twenty-seven days, which is one-third ofthe principal penalty.

It appearing that up to this date March 26, 1932, the petitioner has servedonly one year, two months, and fourteen days, there is still a balance of about nine

months and nine days to be served by him.