G.R. No. 37914 - Rodriguez vs. Director of Prisons

Manuel Rodriguez, a prisoner, filed an original petition for habeas corpus seeking his immediate release on the ground of illegal detention.
He claimed that he had already served the penalty corresponding to his offense under the Revised Penal Code.

At arraignment for the crime of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the petitioner pleaded guilty.
The trial court, accepting the plea, rendered a judgment of conviction and imposed a sentence without any modifying circumstances.
Under the old Penal Code (article 534, paragraph 3, as amended by Act No. 3244), he was sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, with additional penalties including an indemnity of P647.70 and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The penalty imposed by the trial court was based on the provisions of the old Penal Code.
The Revised Penal Code (article 315, paragraph 3) for estafa provides a lesser penalty range (from four months and one day to two years and four months), with its medium degree being more lenient than that of the old Penal Code.
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that penal laws have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal.

The petitioner’s trial record clearly shows a voluntary confession of guilt, which under the Revised Penal Code is recognized as a mitigating circumstance (article 13, paragraph 7).
The trial court, however, did not consider this mitigating circumstance because it was not recognized under the old Penal Code.
The petitioner argued that under the retroactive effect provided by article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance should now be taken into account, warranting the application of the more lenient penalty prescribed therein.

Based on the revised legal provisions, the minimum penalty that should be imposed is four months and one day of arresto mayor.
The petitioner had already served seven months and twenty-nine days of imprisonment, which exceeds the revised minimum penalty.

Whether the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding the crime of estafa are more favorable to the petitioner than those of the old Penal Code.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilt, as provided in the Revised Penal Code, should be considered retroactively in habeas corpus proceedings.
Whether habeas corpus may serve as the proper remedy to obtain the benefit of the more lenient penalty under the Revised Penal Code even after a final judgment has been rendered.