GR 170497; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170497 , January 22, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RECLASSIFYING SENTENCE TO R.A. NO. 8353 IN BEHALF OF ROGELIO ORMILLA, ROGELIO RIVERA, ALFREDO NAVARRO, Petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio Ormilla, along with two others, was convicted of two counts of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count. Having served approximately 17 years of his sentence, Ormilla filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, praying for his release. He argued that Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) had downgraded the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons to prision mayor to reclusion temporal. Consequently, he contended that the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on him was excessive and should be modified, making him eligible for release to apply for pardon or parole.
The respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General, opposed the petition. They argued that under R.A. No. 8353 , the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons, as defined in its Article 266-A(1), remains reclusion perpetua to death. They further contended that Ormilla had not yet completed service of his first sentence, as the aggregate duration of two reclusion perpetua sentences is 60 years under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, and that he is ineligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus may be granted in favor of petitioner Rogelio Ormilla on the ground that an excessive penalty was imposed due to the alleged downgrading of penalties under R.A. No. 8353 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The writ of habeas corpus is available only in specific instances, such as when there is illegal confinement, a deprivation of constitutional rights affecting liberty, a court’s lack of jurisdiction, or the imposition of an excessive penalty rendering the sentence void as to the excess. None of these circumstances exists here. The Court clarified that Ormilla’s reliance on Article 266-B of R.A. No. 8353 was misplaced. The provision he cited, which imposes a penalty of prision mayor to reclusion temporal for rape committed by two or more persons, applies exclusively to rape under Article 266-A(2) involving sexual assault by insertion of a penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument into a genital or anal orifice.
Ormilla was convicted of rape by having carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation, which falls under Article 266-A(1). For this crime, Article 266-B explicitly prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when committed by two or more persons. This penalty is identical to that under the old Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, R.A. No. 8353 did not downgrade the penalty applicable to Ormilla’s case. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed, and his confinement remains lawful. Consequently, the petition for habeas corpus, which requires a showing of unlawful restraint, lacks merit.