SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 163662. October 14, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JULIE GRACE K. VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 14, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 163662 (People of the Philippines v. Julie Grace K. Villanueva). — Accused-appellant Julie Grace K. Villanueva (accused-appellant) was convicted of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 60 in Criminal Case No. 95-2217. In a Decision 1 dated February 25, 2015, this Court affirmed her conviction with modification, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum, and to pay private complainant Loreto Madarang the amount of P995,000.00, 2 with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the Decision until full payment. 3 The Court's February 25, 2015 Decision became final and executory on May 20, 2015 per Entry of Judgment 4 of even date.
Meanwhile, on August 29, 2017, Republic Act No. (RA) 10951 5 was enacted into law providing for, among others: (1) the 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.
Invoking RA 10951, accused-appellant now comes before this Court, through the present Motion 6 to Fix Penalty in Accordance with RA 10951, averring that she is entitled to have her sentence modified and be released immediately from confinement, 7 in view of the aforesaid circumstances.
The general rule is that a final and executory judgment is immutable. However, a final and executory judgment may be modified under exceptional circumstances, one of which is the passage of RA 10951, which allows 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. 8
In line with this, the Court, in the case of InRe: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty pursuant to R.A. No. 10951 in Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan — Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, 9 ruled that the determination of whether an accused is entitled to immediate release would necessarily involve ascertaining, among others, the actual length of time served and the applicability of good conduct time allowance, which the trial court is relatively more equipped to determine. Further, in anticipation of an influx of similar petitions, 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] 10951, of penalties imposed by final judgment; 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 [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 (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.
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] 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] 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 a 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.
In accordance with the foregoing disquisitions, the Court resolves to reopen Criminal Case No. 95-2217 and remand petitioner's Motion to Fix Penalty, which is in the nature of a petition for correction/adjustment of penalty, to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where she is confined, i.e., the RTC of Mandaluyong City, where the Correctional Institution for Women, Nueve de Pebrero, Barangay Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City is located. 10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Criminal Case No. 95-2217 is hereby REOPENED and the Motion to Fix Penalty in Accordance with Republic Act No. 1095 is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City for the determination of the proper penalties in said case.
Let copies of 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 to the same 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.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 755 Phil. 28-41 (2015). See also rollo, pp. 197-207, penned by then Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (later on became Chief Justice), with then Associate Justices Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro (later on became Chief Justice), Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Senior Associate Justice), concurring.
2.Rollo, p. 204.
3.Id. at 205-206.
4.Id. at 208.
5. "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," approved on August 29, 2017.
6.Rollo, pp. 221-224.
7. Per Certification dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Bureau of Corrections, accused-appellant has been confined in the Correctional Institution for Women since July 9, 1998 due to seven (7) commitment orders issued by different courts (see id. at 227).
8.Id.
9. See G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018.
10. See People v. Porcioncula, G.R. No. 218573, September 19, 2018.