EN BANC
[G.R. No. 240622. August 14, 2018.]
EDITHA R. MACARAEG, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAUGUST 14, 2018, which reads as follows: DHITCc
"G.R. No. 240622 (Editha R. Macaraeg v. People of the Philippines). — In this Motion to Reopen Case with Urgent Motion for Release dated July 24, 2018, petitioner Editha R. Macaraeg, through the Public Attorney's Office, prays for (1) the reopening of the criminal cases against her in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 1 and the ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan; 2 (2) the consequent adjustment of the penalties imposed on and already being served by her; and (3) the issuance of an order for her immediate release.
Petitioner Macaraeg was charged with eight (8) counts of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38 in Criminal Case Nos. L-7076, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7081, 7082 & 7083 entitled People of the Philippines v. Editha R. Macaraeg. In a Decision dated October 7, 2009, the RTC found her guilty of the crimes charged. In a Decision dated May 15, 2012, the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment of the RTC.
In a Resolution 3 dated December 3, 2012 in G.R. No. 203734, the Court affirmed the Decision dated May 15, 2012 of the Court of Appeals with modification on the imposable penalties, and stating that in the successive service of her sentences, she shall be credited in full with the period of her detention, and subject to the application of the Three-Fold Rule provided under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus:
|
Criminal Case No. |
Sentence |
Actual Damages |
|
1. L-7076 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 17 years, as maximum |
Pay Spouses Bravo P112,500.00 |
|
2. L-7077 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, as maximum |
Pay Spouses Bravo P33,750.00 |
|
3. L-7078 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years, as maximum |
Pay Spouses Bravo P70,875.00 |
|
4. L-7079 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, as maximum |
Pay Spouses Bravo P39,375.00 |
|
5. L-7080 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years, as maximum |
Pay Spouses Bravo P28,125.00 |
|
6. L-7081 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 15 years, as maximum |
Pay Elvira Palavino P99,000.00 |
|
7. L-7082 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 11 years, as maximum |
Pay Elvira Palavino P58,275.00 |
|
8. L-7083 |
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years, as maximum |
Pay Elvira Palavino P79,200.00 |
Per Entry of Judgment, 4 the Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 203734 became final and executory on February 7, 2013. cEaSHC
On August 29, 2017, R.A. No. 10951 was enacted into law providing for, among other matters: (1) adjustment of the values of the property and damage on which various penalties are based, taking into consideration the present value of money; and (2) its explicit retroactive effect if favorable to the accused.
On December 5, 2017, the Court ruled in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan5 that the passage of R.A. No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance allowing not only the re-opening of an already terminated case, but also the recall of an Entry of Judgment for purposes of re-computing the indeterminate period of imprisonment to be served by a convicted accused involving crimes affected by the adjustment of penalties in the said law.
In her Motion to Reopen Case with Urgent Motion for Release, petitioner contends that since she was convicted of 8 counts of Estafa, the maximum duration of her sentence shall not be more than Three-Fold the length corresponding the most severe of the penalties imposed, and that the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years. Petitioner thus claims that she has to serve her sentence anywhere within the range of 3 months and 3 days to 1 year, as minimum, to 3 years and 3 days to 5 years, as maximum. Per Time Served with Earned Good Conduct Time Allowance, petitioner has served an equivalent period of 4 years and 6 months and 17 days as of April 6, 2018, the date of her Prison Record. 6 Assuming the Court would fix her sentence to the minimum of the most severe of the penalties in view of R.A. No. 10951, petitioner posits that she has already served more than 3 months and 3 days to 1 year; hence, she must be immediately released from confinement.
The Court resolves to reopen Criminal Case Nos. L-7076, 7077, 7078, 7079, 7080, 7081, 7082 & 7083, and to remand to the court a quo petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case with Urgent Motion for Release for the adjustment of petitioner's penalty and for the determination as to whether petitioner had fully served her adjusted sentence, and thus, entitled to immediate release.
In the case of In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951 in Relation to Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan — Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, 7 the Court recognized that in view of the passage of R.A. No. 10951 and the ruling in Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, there will be an anticipated influx of petitions coming from convicted accused involving crimes affected by the adjustment of penalties. To address this concern, the Court laid down the following guidelines:
I. Scope.
These guidelines shall govern the procedure for action seeking[:] (1) the modification, based on the amendments introduced by [RA 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.
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 filing of the petition.
IV. Pleadings
(A) Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the petition and the comment from the [Office of the Solicitor General (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 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[/herself]. CTIEac
V. Comment by the OSG
Within ten (10) days from notice, the OSG shall file its comment to the petition.
VI. Effect of failure 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 [not] 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 10951];
b. Where proper, the length of time the petitioner-convict has been in confinement (and whether [good conduct time allowance] 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 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 of the 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. 8
Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to reopen Criminal Case Nos. L-7076, L-7077, L-7078, L-7079, L-7080, L-7081, L-7082 and L-7083, and remand the instant motion, which is in the nature of a petition for correction/adjustment of penalty, to the regional trial court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where petitioner is confined, i.e., RTC of Mandaluyong City where the Correctional Institute for Women, Nueve de Pebrero, Barangay Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City is found.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Criminal Case Nos. L-7076, L-7077, L-7078, L-7079, L-7080, L-7081, L-7082 and L-7083 are hereby REOPENED, and the Motion to Reopen Case with Urgent Motion for Release is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City for the determination of: (a) the proper penalties in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951; and (b) petitioner Editha R. Macaraeg's entitlement to immediate release on account of full service of her sentence, as modified.
Let copies of the said motion, together with the attached documents, be furnished the RTC of Mandaluyong City for raffle and assignment, and the Office of the Solicitor General for its Comment thereto within ten (10) days from notice.
Let copies of this Resolution be also furnished the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to the First and Second Level Courts, as well as to the Presiding Justices of the appellate courts, the Department of Justice, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney's Office, the Office of the Prosecutor General, 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." (adv29) SaCIDT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "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, as Amended.'"
2. G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017, penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.
3.Rollo, pp. 35-37.
4.Id. at 38-40.
5.Supra note 2.
6.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
7. G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018.
8.Id.