The Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951 clarifies the procedure for modifying penalties in final judgments due to the retroactive effect of Republic Act (RA) No. 10951. This law reduces penalties for certain crimes based on the value of the object involved. The ruling provides guidelines for convicts seeking adjustments to their sentences and potential release if their re-computed sentence has been fully served, ensuring equitable application of the amended law.

Justice Reconsidered: Can New Laws Change Old Sentences?

The case revolves around Rolando Elbanbuena, a former disbursing officer convicted of malversation of public funds through falsification of documents. After his conviction became final in 2000, RA No. 10951 was enacted in 2017, amending the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and potentially reducing his sentence. The central legal question is whether a law reducing penalties can be applied retroactively to cases where the judgment is already final, and if so, what procedure should be followed to implement this change.

Elbanbuena sought immediate release, arguing that his re-computed sentence under RA No. 10951 had been fully served. The Supreme Court acknowledged the potential injustice of enforcing an outdated penalty but recognized the need for a structured approach to address similar petitions. The Court highlighted its ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, where it established that the passage of RA No. 10951 constitutes an exceptional circumstance allowing for the re-opening of final judgments to adjust penalties.

The Court, in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, emphasized the importance of justice and equity in applying RA No. 10951, stating:

The general rule is that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. When, however, circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, the Court may sit en banc and give due regard to such exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability.

The Court clarified that RA No. 10951’s effectivity after a judgment does not preclude its application if favorable to the accused. The crucial issue is not just the modification of the sentence but also the determination of whether the convict is entitled to immediate release. To address these concerns effectively, the Supreme Court outlined specific guidelines for handling such petitions.

Specifically, Section 40 of RA No. 10951 amended Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, affecting penalties for malversation. The amended law states:

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property. – Presumption of malversation. – Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000).

2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).

The guidelines established by the Supreme Court are intended to streamline the process of adjusting penalties and determining eligibility for release. These guidelines cover the scope of application, eligible petitioners, and the appropriate venue for filing petitions.

The following table outlines the key procedures for petitions related to RA No. 10951:

Aspect	Procedure
Scope	Modification of penalties based on RA No. 10951 and potential release.
Who May File	Public Attorney’s Office, inmate, or counsel/representative.
Where to File	Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the place of confinement.
Pleadings	Petition and comment from the OSG; no dilatory motions allowed.
Comment by OSG	Within ten (10) days from notice.
Judgment	Promulgated within ten (10) calendar days after the lapse of comment period; specifies penalty, time served, and eligibility for release.

Elbanbuena’s case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for a determination of the applicable penalties under RA No. 10951 and whether he had fully served the re-computed sentence. This ensures that Elbanbuena’s case is assessed fairly under the revised law.

FAQs

What is RA No. 10951?	RA No. 10951 is a law that adjusts the amounts or values of property and damages on which penalties are based under the Revised Penal Code, potentially reducing sentences for certain crimes.
Can RA No. 10951 apply to cases with final judgments?	Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that RA No. 10951 can be applied retroactively to cases where the judgment is already final, provided it is favorable to the accused.
Who can file a petition for sentence modification under RA No. 10951?	The Public Attorney’s Office, the inmate, or his/her counsel/representative can file the petition.
Where should the petition be filed?	The petition should be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the petitioner-convict is confined.
What documents are required for the petition?	The petition must include a certified true copy of the Decision sought to be modified, the mittimus, and/or a certification from the Bureau of Corrections as to the length of the sentence already served.
How long does the OSG have to comment on the petition?	The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has ten (10) days from notice to file its comment to the petition.
What happens if the OSG fails to file a comment?	If the OSG fails to file a comment within the period provided, the court may render judgment as warranted, either on its own or upon motion of the petitioner-convict.
What information must the court’s judgment contain?	The judgment must set forth the penalty/penalties imposable under RA No. 10951, the length of time the petitioner-convict has been in confinement, and whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to immediate release.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures a fair and consistent application of RA No. 10951, providing a clear framework for adjusting penalties in light of the amended law. This will impact numerous cases, potentially leading to the release of inmates who have already served their re-computed sentences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN RE: CORRECTION/ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTY PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951, G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018