IN THE MATTER OF THE G.R. No. 170497
APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS RECLASSIFYING
SENTENCE TO R.A. NO. 8353 IN
BEHALF OF,
ROGELIO
ORMILLA,
ROGELIO
RIVERA,
ALFREDO
NAVARRO,
Petitioners, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
THE
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS,
AND THE Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF
THE
Respondents.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition[1]
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed for and in behalf of Rogelio Ormilla, Rogelio Rivera and Alfredo
Navarro, praying for their release from confinement on the ground that
an excessive penalty was imposed on them.
At the outset, we note that only Ormilla signed his conformity to the
petition while Rivera and Navarro failed to manifest their conformity or sign
the verification. Hence, the instant
petition pertains only to petitioner Ormilla.
Petitioner, together with Rivera and Navarro, was convicted of two counts
of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count. He is presently confined at the National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa and has served approximately 17 years of his
sentence.[2]
In the instant petition, Ormilla alleged that he should be released from
confinement by virtue of Republic Act No. 8353 (R.A. No. 8353), otherwise known
as “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.” He
claimed that under the new rape law, the penalty for rape committed by two or
more persons was downgraded to prision mayor to reclusion temporal. Thus, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed on him is
excessive and should be modified in accordance with R.A. No. 8353. He prayed that he be released so he could
apply for pardon or parole.
In their Comment,[3]
respondents, represented herein by the Office of the Solicitor-General, contended
that the penalty imposed under R.A. No. 8353 for rape committed by two or more
persons is reclusion perpetua to death. Under Article 70[4] of
the Revised Penal Code, the duration of perpetual penalties is 30 years. Since petitioner was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape, the aggregate of the two penalties is 60 years. Respondents argued that petitioner has yet to
complete the service of his first sentence, as he has been in confinement for
only 17 years. Respondents further
argued that petitioner is ineligible for parole, because Section 2 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law prohibits its application to persons convicted of offenses
punished by life imprisonment.
The sole issue for resolution is
whether the writ may be granted in favor of petitioner.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may be availed of in cases of
illegal confinement by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which
the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto. In Feria v. Court of Appeals,[5]
the Court held that the writ may also be issued where, as a
consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court had
no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has been
imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess.[6]
None of the above circumstances is present in the instant case.
Recall that petitioner was charged and convicted under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code which states:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime
of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever
the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (Emphasis added)
With the
enactment of R.A. No. 8353, petitioner claims that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua has become excessive, as the new law now punishes rape with prision
mayor, citing Article 266-B
as follows:[7]
Article 266-B. Penalties.
--- x x x
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion
temporal.
x x x x. (Emphasis added)
Petitioner’s reliance on the above-mentioned portion of Article 266-B is
misplaced. Note that the penalty of prision mayor is imposed for rape committed
under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A which is committed by any person who inserts
his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It bears stressing that petitioner, together
with Rivera and Navarro, was charged with and convicted of rape by having
carnal knowledge of a woman using force and intimidation under Article 335,
which is now embodied in paragraph 1
of Article 266-A.
The full text of Article 266-A reads:
Art. 266-A. Rape;
When and How Committed. – Rape
is committed –
1) By a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the
offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d) When the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances above be present;
2) By any
person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital
or anal orifice of another person. (Emphasis added)
Under Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the penalty for rape committed by two
or more persons, using force, threat or intimidation is reclusion perpetua to death, to wit:
Art. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape
under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is
committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
x x x x
It must be emphasized that the same penalties were imposed under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8353. It is clear therefore that R.A. No. 8353 did
not downgrade the applicable penalties to petitioner’s case.
Considering that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly
imposed and that petitioner is confined under authority of law, the petition
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice