G.R. No. 170497 - Ormilla vs. Director, Bureau of Corrections

A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of three persons—Rogelio Ormilla, Rogelio Rivera, and Alfredo Navarro.
Only Rogelio Ormilla signed his conformity and verification; Rivera and Navarro failed to manifest their conformity through signature.
Consequently, the petition is deemed to pertain solely to petitioner Ormilla.

Petitioner Ormilla, along with Rivera and Navarro, was convicted of two counts of rape.
The conviction was based on the commission of rape by force and intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
For each count of rape, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, which, under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, totals an aggregate confinement period of 60 years.

At the time of the petition, petitioner Ormilla had been confined at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa for approximately 17 years.
Despite the lengthy period of incarceration, petitioner continued to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention.

Ormilla asserted that under Republic Act No. 8353 (known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons had been downgraded to prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
He claimed that the imposition of reclusion perpetua was now excessive under the new legal regime.
Petitioner prayed for his release from confinement so that he may apply for pardon or parole in light of the purportedly downgraded penalty.

The respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General, argued that the imposed penalty under R.A. No. 8353 for rape committed by two or more persons remains reclusion perpetua to death.
They emphasized that, under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of perpetual penalties is computed as 30 years, meaning that petitioner’s aggregate sentence amounts to 60 years for separate counts.
Additionally, the respondents contended that petitioner is ineligible for parole given the restrictions imposed by Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law on offenses punishable by life imprisonment.

Whether the petitioner’s claim that his penalty is excessive on the basis of the new provisions in R.A. No. 8353 constitutes a ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Whether the alleged downgrade in the penalty for rape, as purported by the petitioner, is applicable in his case given that he was convicted under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the provisions of R.A. No. 8353, specifically the downgraded penalty of prision mayor to reclusion temporal for rape committed by two or more persons, can be retroactively applied to the petitioner’s conviction.
Whether the petitioner’s offense, committed under circumstances involving force and intimidation, falls within the ambit of the provisions of R.A. No. 8353 or remains governed by the provisions of Article 335 and subsequently Article 266-A and 266-B as amended.