Tag: Republic Act No. 10951

Reassessing Penalties: How R.A. 10951 Impacts Final Theft Convictions and Potential Release

The Supreme Court’s resolution in In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, In Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan addresses the procedure for modifying penalties in already decided cases, specifically those affected by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951, which adjusts the amounts used to determine penalties for crimes like theft. The Court clarified that while R.A. 10951 can be applied to modify sentences even after a final judgment, the actual determination of whether an inmate is entitled to immediate release should be made by the trial court, which is better positioned to evaluate the specific facts of each case, including time served and good conduct allowances. This decision provides a pathway for inmates convicted of theft to seek a review of their sentences based on the updated law.

From Conviction to Potential Freedom: Emalyn Montillano’s Fight for Sentence Re-evaluation Under R.A. 10951

Emalyn Montillano y Basig was convicted of Simple Theft by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City in 2017. She was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for stealing personal property worth Php 6,000.00. After serving a portion of her sentence, R.A. No. 10951 was enacted, adjusting the penalties for theft based on the value of the stolen property. Montillano then sought a modification of her sentence and immediate release, arguing that under the new law, her penalty should be reduced. She based her argument on R.A. No. 10951 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, which allowed for the reopening of terminated cases to modify penalties. Montillano’s case highlights the practical implications of R.A. No. 10951 and the legal procedures for its application.

At the heart of the case lies the interpretation and application of R.A. No. 10951, which amended Act No. 3815, otherwise known as “The Revised Penal Code.” Section 81 of R.A. No. 10951 specifically addresses the penalty for theft. For property valued over P5,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00, the penalty is now arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. This adjustment in penalties prompted a reevaluation of existing sentences, leading to the Supreme Court’s issuance of guidelines. The modification of penalties is not merely a clerical exercise. The trial court must determine the appropriate sentence within the range provided by R.A. No. 10951.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the potential for R.A. No. 10951 to impact the length of sentences for numerous inmates. However, the Court emphasized that each case must be evaluated individually. This approach contrasts with a blanket application of the new law, which could lead to unjust outcomes. The Court recognized the trial court’s superior position in making these factual determinations, considering factors such as the time served by the inmate and the applicability of good conduct time allowances. This ensures a more nuanced and equitable application of the law, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case.

To address the anticipated influx of petitions seeking sentence modifications, the Supreme Court outlined specific guidelines. These guidelines ensure a uniform and efficient process for handling such cases, considering the interests of justice and the need to avoid prolonged imprisonment. The guidelines specify who may file a petition, where to file it, and the required pleadings. Crucially, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the petitioner-convict is confined. This ensures that the court with the most familiarity with the case and the inmate’s circumstances is responsible for the review.

The guidelines also address the procedural aspects of these petitions, emphasizing the need for expediency and clarity. The Public Attorney’s Office, the inmate, or their counsel/representative may file the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is given ten (10) days to file a comment on the petition. To prevent unnecessary delays, no motions for extension of time or dilatory motions are allowed. This streamlined process aims to expedite the review of sentences and facilitate the release of eligible inmates as quickly as possible. The goal is to ensure that those who are entitled to a reduced sentence under R.A. No. 10951 receive it without undue delay.

The Supreme Court’s guidelines further clarify the judgment process. The court must promulgate a judgment no later than ten (10) calendar days after the lapse of the period to file a comment. The judgment must set forth the penalties imposable under R.A. No. 10951, the length of time the petitioner-convict has been in confinement, and whether time allowance for good conduct should be allowed. Finally, the judgment must determine whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to immediate release due to complete service of their sentence, as modified. These detailed requirements ensure that the trial court conducts a thorough review and provides a clear basis for its decision.

The guidelines also address the execution of the judgment and the possibility of further legal action. The judgment of the court is immediately executory, but the ruling is without prejudice to the filing before the Supreme Court of a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court where there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This provision allows for the possibility of further review by the Supreme Court in cases where the trial court’s decision is deemed to be a grave abuse of discretion, ensuring a final check on the fairness and legality of the process. Even with the specific guidelines, the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent.

In Montillano’s case, the Supreme Court ultimately granted her petition. However, instead of ordering her immediate release, the Court remanded the case to the RTC of Muntinlupa City for further determination. The RTC was instructed to determine the proper penalty in accordance with R.A. No. 10951 and whether Montillano was entitled to immediate release based on her time served and good conduct allowances. By remanding the case, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of the trial court’s role in evaluating the specific facts and circumstances of each case, consistent with the guidelines it established.

FAQs

What is R.A. No. 10951?	R.A. No. 10951 is a Philippine law that adjusts the amounts or values of property and damage used to determine penalties under the Revised Penal Code, affecting crimes like theft by modifying the corresponding fines and prison terms.
*What was the central issue in the Montillano* case?**	The central issue was whether Emalyn Montillano was entitled to a modification of her theft sentence and immediate release, based on the changes introduced by R.A. No. 10951.
Can R.A. No. 10951 be applied to cases with final judgments?	Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that R.A. No. 10951 can be applied to modify penalties in cases where the judgment is already final, as established in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan.
Who decides whether an inmate is entitled to immediate release after sentence modification?	The Regional Trial Court (RTC) that originally convicted the inmate is responsible for determining whether they are entitled to immediate release, considering factors like time served and good conduct allowances.
Where should a petition for sentence modification under R.A. No. 10951 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.
Who can file a petition for sentence modification?	The Public Attorney’s Office, the concerned inmate, or his/her counsel/representative, may file the petition.
What documents are required when filing a petition?	A certified true copy of the Decision sought to be modified and, where applicable, the mittimus and/or a certification from the Bureau of Corrections as to the length of the sentence already served by petitioner-convict are needed.
How quickly should the court issue a judgment on the petition?	The court should promulgate judgment no later than ten (10) calendar days after the lapse of the period for the OSG to file a comment.
What if the OSG fails to file a comment on the petition?	Should the OSG fail to file the comment within the period provided, the court, motu propio, or upon motion of the petitioner-convict, shall render judgment as may be warranted.

The Supreme Court’s resolution in In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, In Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan provides a crucial framework for applying the amended penalties under R.A. No. 10951 to existing convictions. By outlining clear guidelines and assigning the responsibility for factual determinations to the trial courts, the Court aims to ensure both fairness and efficiency in the process. This decision has the potential to impact the sentences of numerous inmates and underscores the importance of ongoing evaluation and reform within the criminal justice system.

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, 64621, August 14, 2018

August 14, 2018

Retroactive Application of Amended Penalties: Adjusting Sentences Under Republic Act No. 10951

The Supreme Court held that Republic Act (RA) No. 10951, which reduces penalties for certain crimes, can be applied retroactively even to cases where the judgment is final. This means individuals already serving sentences may have their penalties adjusted, potentially leading to earlier release, and the Court provided guidelines for Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to handle such cases.

Can a Final Judgment Be Changed? The Retroactive Reach of RA 10951

The case of In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, In Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan – Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, revolves around the retroactive application of RA No. 10951, a law that amended the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by adjusting the amounts and values used to determine penalties for certain crimes. Rolando Elbanbuena, the petitioner, sought his release from prison, arguing that the amended penalties under RA No. 10951 should apply to his case, potentially reducing his sentence and entitling him to immediate release. Elbanbuena, a former Disbursing Officer, was convicted of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. He did not appeal the conviction, and it became final.

Subsequently, RA No. 10951 was enacted, prompting Elbanbuena to file a petition for the adjustment of his penalty based on the new law and the ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan. This put into question the immutability of final judgments when a new law prescribes lighter penalties for the same crime. The general principle is that a final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. However, the Supreme Court has recognized exceptions, particularly when circumstances arise after the finality of the decision that make its execution unjust or inequitable. The passage of RA No. 10951, which reduced the penalties for certain crimes, presents such an exceptional circumstance.

In Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court acknowledged the novel situation where a judgment convicting an accused had become final and executory, yet the penalty imposed was reduced by a subsequent law. The Court ruled that to avoid injustice and multiplicity of suits, it was proper to reopen the case and recall the entry of judgment to apply the new law. This ruling established a precedent for the retroactive application of RA No. 10951, even to cases with final judgments. Building on this principle, the Court extended the benefits of RA No. 10951 to cases where the imposable penalties for crimes like theft, estafa, robbery, malicious mischief, and malversation have been reduced, considering the circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that as long as the new law is favorable to the accused, it should apply regardless of when the judgment was rendered or when the service of sentence began.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agreed that RA No. 10951 could be invoked to seek a modification or reduction of penalties. However, the OSG argued that immediate release was not automatic, as the reduced penalties needed to be fixed by a court, and it had to be determined whether the petitioners had fully served their sentences under the new penalties. The Supreme Court agreed that determining immediate release would involve ascertaining the actual time served and whether time allowances for good conduct should be considered. The Court recognized that trial courts are better equipped to make such factual findings.

Considering the potential influx of similar petitions, the Court deemed it necessary to establish guidelines to ensure justice and efficiency. These guidelines outline the procedure for actions seeking modification of penalties based on RA No. 10951 and the immediate release of convicts who have fully served their modified sentences. The guidelines specify who may file the petition, where to file it, the pleadings allowed, the OSG’s role, the effect of failing to file a comment, the court’s judgment, and the applicability of the regular rules of procedure. The Court directed that the petition should be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the petitioner-convict is confined. The case shall be raffled and referred to the branch to which it is assigned within three days from the filing of the petition. The only pleadings allowed are the petition and the comment from the OSG, and no dilatory motions will be entertained. The petition must be verified by the petitioner-convict and include a certified true copy of the decision sought to be modified, as well as the mittimus and/or a certification from the Bureau of Corrections regarding the length of the sentence served.

Within ten days of notice, the OSG must file its comment on the petition, and failure to do so allows the court to render judgment motu proprio or upon motion of the petitioner-convict. The court must promulgate judgment within ten calendar days after the period for filing comment has lapsed. The judgment must specify the penalties imposable under RA No. 10951, the length of time the petitioner-convict has been confined, whether time allowance for good conduct should be granted, and whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to immediate release due to complete service of the modified sentence. Furthermore, the judgment is immediately executory, without prejudice to the filing of a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Supreme Court if there is grave abuse of discretion. It is important to note, also, that the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory capacity.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court granted Elbanbuena’s petition. The Court remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa City to determine the proper penalties under RA No. 10951 and whether Elbanbuena is entitled to immediate release based on having fully served his modified sentences. The decision emphasizes the Court’s commitment to ensuring that the benefits of RA No. 10951 are extended to those who are eligible, while also streamlining the process for resolving these cases. Ultimately, the ruling serves as a practical step towards a more equitable and just application of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Republic Act No. 10951, which reduces penalties for certain crimes, can be applied retroactively to cases where the judgment is already final and executory.
What is Republic Act No. 10951?	Republic Act No. 10951 amends the Revised Penal Code by adjusting the amounts and values used to determine penalties for certain crimes, generally resulting in reduced penalties.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court decided that RA No. 10951 can be applied retroactively, even to final judgments, and provided guidelines for lower courts to implement this.
Where should petitions for adjustment of penalties be filed?	Petitions should be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the petitioner-convict is confined.
What documents are required when filing a 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 quickly should the court act on these petitions?	The court should promulgate judgment no later than ten calendar days after the lapse of the period to file comment from the OSG.
What factors will the court consider in its judgment?	The court will determine the 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.
What role does the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) play?	The OSG is required to file a comment on the petition within ten days from notice, providing its legal opinion on the applicability of RA No. 10951.
What happens if the OSG fails to file a comment?	If the OSG fails to file a comment, the court may render judgment motu proprio or upon motion of the petitioner-convict.

This ruling provides a crucial avenue for those serving sentences under the old penal code to seek a review of their penalties and potential release, aligning their sentences with the current legal standards. The Supreme Court’s guidelines aim to streamline the process and ensure that the benefits of RA No. 10951 are effectively and efficiently extended to eligible individuals.

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, IN RELATION TO HERNAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN – ROLANDO ELBANBUENA Y MARFIL, G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018

July 31, 2018

The Fine Line Between Consignment and Loan: When a Witness Recants

In Cecilia Rivac v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Cecilia Rivac for estafa (swindling) under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court ruled that Rivac misappropriated jewelry received on consignment from Asuncion Fariñas, despite Fariñas later recanting her testimony. This case highlights the importance of upholding original testimonies given in court and adhering to the principle that recantations are viewed with suspicion, especially when they occur after a judgment of conviction.

Shifting Stories: Did Rivac Defraud Fariñas or Just Borrow Jewelry?

The case began with an information filed against Cecilia Rivac, accusing her of estafa for failing to return or remit payment for jewelry she received on consignment from Asuncion Fariñas. According to the prosecution, Rivac received jewelry worth P439,500.00 on August 4, 2007, under an agreement to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the jewelry within seven days. When Rivac failed to comply, Fariñas sent a demand letter. Rivac then offered a parcel of land as partial payment, but Fariñas refused after discovering it was involved in a land dispute. Rivac pleaded “not guilty,” claiming her liability was civil, not criminal. She argued that she received a loan from Fariñas, offering her land title as collateral, and signed a blank consignment document as proof of the loan. She further claimed to have paid interest for several months but was unable to pay the entire loan, leading Fariñas to threaten foreclosure.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Rivac guilty, emphasizing the consignment document as evidence of the agreement. The RTC sentenced her to imprisonment and ordered her to pay Fariñas P439,500.00. Rivac then moved to reopen the proceedings to present the testimonies of Fariñas and Atty. Ma. Valenie Blando. The RTC partly granted the motion, allowing Fariñas to testify, who then “clarified” that the consignment document never became effective because she did not allow Rivac to take the jewelry until the loan was paid. Despite this, the RTC affirmed its original judgment, stating that Fariñas’s revised testimony was a recantation viewed with disfavor and inconsistent with Rivac’s defense. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld Rivac’s conviction, ruling that reopening the case was improper and affirming the presence of all elements of estafa. The CA highlighted the unreliability of Fariñas’s recantation and affirmed her original testimony.

The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC improperly reopened the proceedings, and whether it correctly upheld Rivac’s conviction for estafa. Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows a judge to reopen proceedings before the finality of a judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The Court cited Cabaries v. Maceda, which outlined the requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening must occur before the finality of a conviction; (2) the judge must issue the order motu proprio or upon motion; (3) a hearing must be conducted; (4) the order must aim to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional evidence must conclude within thirty days. The Court emphasized that the paramount interest of justice guides the decision to reopen a case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the CA erred in holding that the RTC improperly reopened its proceedings, as reopening was permissible to prevent a miscarriage of justice. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, allowing the appellate court to correct errors, whether assigned or unassigned. The Court then turned to the substantive issue of whether Rivac was indeed guilty of Estafa. Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC defines Estafa as defrauding another with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, specifically, by misappropriating or converting money, goods, or other personal property received in trust or on commission. The elements of Estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) are: (a) receipt of money, goods, or property in trust; (b) misappropriation or conversion of the property; (c) prejudice to another; and (d) demand by the offended party for the return of the property.

In Cheng v. People, the Court clarified that the essence of estafa is appropriating or converting money or property to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or return the items, failing to account for their whereabouts. The Court found that all elements of Estafa were present in Rivac’s case: Rivac received jewelry from Fariñas on consignment, Rivac was obligated to remit proceeds or return the jewelry within seven days, Rivac failed to fulfill this obligation, and Rivac caused prejudice to Fariñas. The Court acknowledged Fariñas’s testimony during the reopened proceedings where she claimed the consignment document was never effective. The Court then addressed the legal significance of Fariñas’s testimony in the reopened proceedings.

The Court characterized Fariñas’s testimony as a recantation, which is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Retracted testimonies are unreliable because they can be easily influenced by intimidation or monetary consideration. Special circumstances are needed to raise doubts about the original testimony before retractions are considered. The Court cited People v. Lamsen, which highlighted the dangers of setting aside a testimony solemnly given in court based solely on a witness changing their mind. The Supreme Court stated that such a rule would make trials a mockery and put the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Especially when a retraction occurs after a judgment of conviction, it portrays the witness as a liar, reducing the retraction to a mere afterthought without probative value.

The Court emphasized that a testimony solemnly given in court should not be lightly disregarded. Before doing so, both the original and subsequent testimonies must be carefully compared, the circumstances scrutinized, and the reasons for the change analyzed. Affidavits of recantation, especially those executed ex-parte, are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court. Here, the Court found no reason to overturn Rivac’s conviction. Fariñas had ample opportunity to correct her testimony but did not do so until after judgment was rendered. The Court viewed Fariñas’s turnaround as a last-minute attempt to save Rivac from punishment, supporting the decision to uphold Rivac’s conviction for Estafa. The Court then determined the proper penalty to impose on Rivac.

During the resolution of this case, Republic Act No. (RA) 10951 was enacted, adjusting the values of property and damage on which penalties are based, considering the present value of money. While Rivac committed the crime before RA 10951, the law expressly provides for retroactive application if it is favorable to the accused. Section 85 of RA 10951 adjusted the graduated values where penalties for Estafa are based. Applying the provisions of RA 10951, as well as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering that the aggregate value of the misappropriated jewelry is P439,500.00, Rivac must be sentenced to imprisonment for the indeterminate period of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Finally, Rivac was ordered to pay the value of the misappropriated jewelry, plus legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this ruling until fully paid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Cecilia Rivac was guilty of estafa for failing to return or pay for jewelry she received on consignment, despite the complainant later recanting her testimony.
What is estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the RPC?	Estafa under this article involves defrauding another with abuse of confidence by misappropriating or converting property received in trust or on commission. It requires proving that the offender received the property, misappropriated it, caused prejudice to another, and was demanded to return the property.
Why did the RTC reopen the proceedings?	The RTC reopened the proceedings to receive the testimony of Asuncion Fariñas, who claimed she now remembered that the consignment document was never effective. This was done to determine the true nature of the transaction and whether Rivac was criminally liable.
Why was Fariñas’s recantation viewed with suspicion?	Recantations are viewed with suspicion because they can be influenced by intimidation or monetary consideration and often occur after a judgment of conviction, undermining the credibility of the original testimony.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 10951 in this case?	RA 10951 adjusted the property value thresholds for penalties under the Revised Penal Code, allowing for a potentially lighter sentence for Rivac due to the updated values. This law was applied retroactively because it was favorable to the accused.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed Rivac’s conviction for estafa but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional, and ordered her to pay P439,500.00 plus legal interest.
What is the legal presumption of misappropriation?	The legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.
What factors does the court consider when evaluating a retraction?	The court carefully compares the original and subsequent testimonies, scrutinizes the circumstances, and analyzes the reasons for the change. Affidavits of recantation are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court.

This case underscores the importance of consistent and reliable testimony in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that recantations are viewed with skepticism, particularly when they occur after a conviction, and that original testimonies given under oath carry significant weight.

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: CECILIA RIVAC VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018

January 22, 2018