SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218910. April 1, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LUTHER SABADO, SATURNINO SABADO Y LOMBOY AND HOSPICIO HARUTA Y MARTINEZ, accused,
LUTHER SABADO Y PANGANGAAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218910 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luther Sabado, Saturnino Sabado y Lomboy and Hospicio Haruta y Martinez, Accused; Luther Sabado y Pangangaan, Accused-Appellant). — This is a motion filed by accused-appellant Luther Sabado y Pangangaan (Sabado) praying for the modification of the penalty in the final and executory judgment case for the crime of qualified theft, and application of the duly adjusted penalties as to implement the provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 10951. 1
Sabado was charged and convicted of the crime of Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3638-07. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Luther Sabado GUILTY of the crime of Qualified Theft under the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused is likewise ordered to pay the amount of [P]500,000.00 to private complainant Diamond Pawnshop.
Let the instant case against Saturnino Sabado y Lomboy and Hospicio Haruta y Martinez, both of whom are still at-large, be sent to the ARCHIVES until such time that they are apprehended and the Court acquires jurisdiction over their persons.
SO ORDERED.2 (Emphases in the original.)
On August 29, 2017, RA No. 10951 was promulgated. The law provides, among others, the adjustment of the value of the property and damage on which various penalties are based, taking into consideration the present value of money, and its explicit retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. The imposable penalties were effectively reduced. 3 In the case of Ophelia Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, 4 the Court held that the passage of RA No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance which allowed the reopening of an already terminated case and also the recall of an Entry of Judgment for the purpose of recomputing the indeterminate period of imprisonment to be served by the convicted accused involving crimes affected by the adjustment of penalties in the law. CAIHTE
Section 81 of RA No. 10951, which amended Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:
SEC. 81. Article 309 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:
"ART. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
"3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000)."
Aside from modification of penalty, Sabado seeks release from confinement on the account that he allegedly served ten (10) years, nine (9) months, and eight (8) days of imprisonment and fifteen (15) years, two (2) months and twenty-three (23) days with earned good conduct time allowance. This Court, in 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, 5 ruled that the determination of whether the accused is entitled to immediate release would necessarily involve ascertaining, among others, the actual length of time actually served and whether good conduct time allowance should actually be allowed, and thus should be better undertaken by the trial court, which is relatively more equipped to make findings of both fact and law. Thus, the Court laid down the following guidelines in the interest of justice and efficiency:
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.
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 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. DETACa
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 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.
From the foregoing, the Court remands this motion to the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the locality where Sabado is confined, i.e., RTC, Muntinlupa City, where the New Bilibid Prison, Sampaguita Road, Muntinlupa City, is found, for the adjustment of his penalty. 6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Criminal Case No. 3638-07 for Qualified Theft under the Revised Penal Code is hereby REOPENED, and the Urgent Motion to Avail of the Benefits of Republic Act No. 10951 with Prayer for Issuance of Order of Release filed by accused-appellant Luther Sabado y Pangangaan is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City for the determination of: (1) the proper penalty in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951; and (2) whether accused-appellant Luther Sabado y Pangangaan is entitled to immediate release on account of full service of his sentence, as modified.
Let copies of the said motion be furnished the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City for raffle and assignment, and the Office of the Solicitor General for its COMMENT to the same within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk 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," which was approved by President Rodrigo R. Duterte on August 29, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
3.People v. Erlinda Racho y Somera, G.R. No. 227505, October 2, 2017.
4. G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017.
5. G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018.
6.Rollo, p. 34.