~epublic of i6elbHippine~

i>upreme Court
;fllanila
EN BANC

IN RE: CORRECTION G.R. No. 237721

/ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTY
PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT Present:
NO. 10951, IN RELATION TO
HERNAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN - CARPIO, Senior Associate Justice*
ROLANDO ELBANBUENA Y VELASCO, JR.,
MARFIL, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
Petitioner. PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA,
CAGUIOA,
MARTIRES,
TIJAM,
REYES, JR., and
GESMUNDO, JJ.

Promulgated:
July 31, 2018'

x: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x:
DECISION

JARDELEZA, J.:

This is a petition 1 praying for the release of petitioner Rolando M.

Elbanbuena (Elbanbuena) pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act (RA)
No. 10951 2 and this Court's ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan. 3

Petitioner Elbanbuena worked as a Disbursing Officer of Alingilan

National High School in Alingilan, Bacolod. He was charged with four

• Per Section 12, Republic Act No. 296, The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.
1
Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2
An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and
the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise
Known as "The Revised Penal Code," a~ended.
' G.R. No. 217874, Dooembe.-5, 2017. '(}
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 237721

counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of a public

document under Articles 217 and 171 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). After trial, Elbanbuena was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in the Information. 4 The dispositive
portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the accused is hereby found guilty of the

complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds through
falsification of public or commercial documents in
Criminal Cases Nos. 95-17264, 95-17265, and 95-17266
and for Malversation of Public Funds in Criminal Case No.
95-17263, and the accused is hereby sentenced as follows:

1) To suffer imprisonment in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-

17264, 95-17265, 95-17266, from prision mayor
maximum or ten (10) years one (1) day to twelve (12)
years to reclusion temporal maximum or seventeen
(17) years four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years; in three (3) counts;

2) To suffer imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 95-

17263 of prision mayor medium or eight years one
(1) day to ten (10) years to reclusion temporal
minimum or twelve (12) years one (1) day to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months; and[]

3) To suffer civil interdiction and absolute

disqualification during the period of the sentence.

SO ORDERED. 5

Since Elbanbuena did not appeal the ruling, it became final and
executory on August 10, 2000. 6 On January 9, 2003, Elbanbuena started
serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City. 7

On August 29, 2017, RA No. 10951 was promulgated. It amended Act

No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, and reduced the
penalties for certain crimes. Pertinently, Section 40 of RA No. 10951
provides:

4
On October 15, 1993, and by virtue of his office, Elbanbuena received Land Bank Check No. 8617487
in the amount of P29,000.00, intended for deposit in the school's Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) account. He, however, failed to deposit said check.
On October 18, 1993, Elbanbuena received two (2) Land Bank Check Nos. 8617490 and 8617425 in the
amount of Pl00.00 and P595.00, respectively. However, he falsified the amounts stated in the checks,
making it appear that the checks were issued in the amounts of P38,100.00 and P24,595.00, respectively.
He encashed the checks against the MOOE Fund account in Land Bank and misappropriated the same for
his own personal use.
On October 20, 1993, Elbanbuena received Land Bank Check No. 8617486 in the amount of P8,350.24.
Once again, he falsified the amount in the check by changing the amount in words and figures to
P98,350.24. He encashed the check against the MOOE Fund account in Land Bank and misappropriated
the amount of P98,350.24 for his own personal use. Rollo, pp. 28-32.
5
6 Jd.at33(2.
Id. at 33
7
Id. at 2 .
Decision 3 G.R. No. 237721

Sec. 40. Article 21 7 of the same Act, as amended by

Republic Act No. 1060, is hereby further amended to read
as follows:

Art. 217. Malversation ofpublic 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
(Pl,200,000).

3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum

period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if
the amount involved is more than One million two
hundred thousand pesos (P 1,200,000) but does not
exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos
(P2,400,000).

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium

and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more
than Two million four hundred thousand pesos
(P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four
hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000).

5. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum

period, if the amount involved is more than Four million
four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000) but does not
exceed Eight million eight hundred thousand pesos
(P8,800,000). If the amount exceeds the latter, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also

suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification
and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or
equal to the total value of the property embezzled.

The failure of a public officer to have duly

forthcoming any public funds or property with which ~~
is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorizf
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 237721

officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put

such missing funds or property to personal uses.
(Emphasis supplied.)

On December 5, 2017, this Court issued its ruling in Hernan v.

Sandiganbayan. 8 There, the Court held:

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 bane and give due regard to such
exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of
the doctrine of immutability. The same is in line with
Section 3(c), Rule II of the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court, which provides that cases raising novel questions of
law are acted upon by the Court en bane. To the Court,
the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 x x
x which accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to
the crime charged herein is an example of such
exceptional circumstance. x x x

xx xx

Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, therefore, We

have here a novel situation wherein the judgment
convicting the accused, petitioner herein, has already
become final and executory and yet the penalty imposed
thereon has been reduced by virtue of the passage of said
law.xx x

Thus, in order to effectively avoid any injustice that

petitioner may suffer as well as a possible multiplicity of
suits arising therefrom, the Court deems it proper to reopen
the instant case and recall the Entry of Judgment dated June
26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, xx x.

On a final note, judges, public prosecutors, public

attorneys, private counsels, and such other officers of the
law are hereby advised to similarly apply the provisions of
RA No. 10951 whenever it is, by reason of justice and
equity, called for by the facts of each case. Hence, said
recent legislation shall find application in cases where the
imposable penalties of the affected crimes such as theft,
qualified theft, estafa, robbery with force upon things,
malicious mischief, malversation, and such other crimes,
the penalty of which is dependent upon the value of the
object in consideration thereof, have been reduced, as in the
case at hand, taking into consideration the presence of
L
' Supmnoto1
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 237721

existing circumstances attending its commission. For as

long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation
shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity
comes after the time when the judgment of conviction is
rendered and even if service of sentence has already begun.
The accused, in these applicable instances, shall be entitled
to the benefits of the new law warranting him to serve a
lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun
serving his previous sentence, and said service already
accomplishes the term of the modified sentence. In the
latter case, moreover, the Court, in the interest of justice
and expediency, further directs the appropriate filing of
an action before the Court that seeks the reopening of
the case rather than an original petition filed for a
similar purpose.

Indeed, when exceptional circumstances exist, such as

the passage of the instant amendatory law imposing
penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the
Court shall not hesitate to direct the reopening of a final
and immutable judgment, the objective of which is to
correct not so much the findings of guilt but the applicable
penalties to be imposed. 9 (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted.)

Hence, this petition which seeks, among others, the modification, in

conformity with RA No. 10951, of the Decision 10 dated July 5, 2000
rendered by Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City and,
pursuant thereto, Elbanbuena's immediate release from confinement.

In a Resolution 11 dated April 3, 2018, this Court required the Office of

the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition (and its consolidated
cases) and recommend guidelines relative thereto and similar petitions.

On July 4, 2018, the OSG filed its consolidated comment wherein it

agreed that petitioners may invoke RA No. 10951 to seek a
modification/reduction of the penalties for some of the crimes for which they
are presently serving sentence. The OSG, however, took the position that
Elbanbuena (and the other petitioners similarly situated) may not be
immediately released at this point:

12. x x x While R.A. No. 10951 did reduce the

imposable penalties for petitioners' crimes under the RPC,
the reduced penalties to be actually imposed for these
crimes have yet to be fixed by a court of competent
jurisdiction.

13. The determination of whether petitioners are now

entitled to be released requires that the court exercising

9
10 Id. (
Rollo, pp. 27-
11 Id. at 34-37.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 237721

jurisdiction over this petition.first: (a) fix the new penalties

for the crimes for which petitioners are presently serving
sentence, as provided under R.A. No. 10951; and,
thereafter (b) ascertain whether petitioners have indeed
fully served their respective sentences based on such new
penalties. Both have yet to be made. 12 (Italics in the
original.)

As held by this Court in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, the passage of RA

No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance which warrants not only the re-
opening of an already terminated case, but also the recall of an Entry of
Judgment for purposes of modifying the penalty to be served. Thus, in
Hernan, this Court re-opened the case for the sole purpose of re-computing
the proper sentence to be imposed in accordance with RA No. 10951. In
contrast, petitioner Elbanbuena here seeks not only a modification of his
sentence in accordance with RA No. 10951; he also seeks immediate
release from confinement on account of his alleged full service of the re-
computed sentence. The determination of whether he is entitled to
immediate release, however, would necessarily involve ascertaining, among
others, the actual length of time Elbanbuena has actually been in
confinement and whether time allowance for good conduct should be
allowed. Such an exercise would, at the first instance, be better undertaken
by a trial court, which is relatively more equipped to make findings of both
fact and law.

However, and especially in view of the anticipated influx of similar

petitions, 13 the Court, in the interest of justice and efficiency, resolves to
issue the following guidelines: 14

I. Scope.
These guidelines shall govern the procedure for actions seeking
( 1) the modification, based on the amendments introduced by RA
No. 10951, of penalties imposed by final judgments; and, (2) the
immediate release of the petitioner-convict on account of full
service of the penalty/penalties, as modified.
II. Who may file.
The Public Attorney's Office, the concerned inmate, or his/her
counsel/representative, may file the petition.

12
OSG consolidated comment, p. 6.
13
See list submitted by the Deputy Director General for Operations of the Bureau of Corrections pursuant
to the Court's order in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan. (Rollo, pp. 21-24.)
14
Pursuant to this Court's power under Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution which provides:
Sec. 5(5). Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,
and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure orspe ral courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court
Decision 7 G.R. No. 237721

III. Where to file.

The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court 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 (3) days from the filing
of the petition.
IV. Pleadings.
(A) Pleadings allowed. - The only pleadings allowed to be filed
are the petition and the comment from the OSG. No motions
for extension of time, or other dilatory motions for
postponement, shall be allowed. The petition must contain 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.
(B) Verification. -The petition must be in writing and verified by
the petitioner-convict himself.
V. Comment by the OSG.
Within ten (10) days from notice, the OSG shall file its comment
to the petition.
VI. Effect offailure to file comment.
Should the OSG fail to file the comment within the period
provided, the court, motu proprio, or upon motion of the
petitioner-convict, shall render judgment as may be warranted.
VII. Judgment of the court.
To avoid any prolonged imprisonment, the court shall promulgate
judgment no later than ten (10) calendar days after the lapse of the
period to file comment. The judgment shall set forth the following:
a. The penalty/penalties imposable in accordance with RA No.
10951;
b. Where proper, the length of time the petitioner-convict has been
in confinement (and whether time allowance for good conduct
should be allowed); and
c. Whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to immediate release
due to complete service of his sentence/s, as modified in
accordance with RA No. 10951.
The judgment of the court shall be immediately executory, 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
showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
VIII. Applicability ofthe regular rules.
The Rules of Court shall apply to the special cases herein provided
in a suppletory capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent
therewith.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.

The Decision dated July 5, 2000 in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-17263, 95-
Decision 8 G.R. No. 237721

17264, 95-17265, and 95-17266 is hereby REMANDED to the Regional

Trial Court in Muntinlupa City for the determination of: (1) the proper
penalty/penalties in accordance with RA No. 10951; and (2) whether
petitioner ROLANDO ELBANBUENA y MARFIL is entitled to
immediate release on account of full service of his sentences, as modified.

Let copies of this Decision also be furnished to the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to the First and Second Level courts, and
also to the Presiding Justices of the appellate courts, the Department of
Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, Public Attorney's Office, Prosecutor
General's Office, the Directors of the National Penitentiary and Correctional
Institution for Women, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their
information, guidance, and appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Senior Associate Justice

d~ hJ/n A~ .In k~
TERESITA J.lioNARDo-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~
.PERALTA
slice

Associate Justice
Decision 9 G.R. No. 237721

~~ice
/
s ui!ff.AJJ!tTIRES NOEL G Z TIJAM
Associate Justice Ass

ANDRElffiLYES, JR. G.GESMUNDO

Assbclte Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

Senior Associate Justice

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

~
--- r-
R O. ARICHETA
of Court En Banc
Supreme Court