Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, in Relation to Republic Act No. 10951
OCA Circular No. 245-2017 informs judges of the Supreme Court's decision in *Hernan v. Sandiganbayan*, which reduced the penalty for malversation of public funds under Republic Act No. 10951, a law that adjusts penalties based on the value of property involved in crimes. The ruling allows for the modification of sentences to favor the accused, even for judgments that have become final. It mandates that judges and legal officers apply this law in similar cases, enabling those already imprisoned to potentially benefit from reduced sentences or immediate release if they have served the modified minimum. Furthermore, the Circular instructs prison directors and legal counsel to assist in identifying and advocating for affected inmates.
December 27, 2017
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 245-2017
| TO | : | All Judges of the First and Second Level Courts |
| RE | : | Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, in Relation to Republic Act No. 10951 |
All concerned are hereby informed of the decision of the Court en banc in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017, where the penalty of imprisonment of the accused who was found guilty of malversation of public funds by the regional trial court, affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, was reduced by the Supreme Court pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, entitled 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. The pertinent portions of the decision are as follows:
x x x 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. Because of this, not only must petitioner's sentence be modified respecting the settled rule on the retroactive effectivity of laws, the sentencing being favorable to the accused, she may even apply for probation, as long as she does not possess any ground for disqualification. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
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 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. x x x
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.
Henceforth: (1) the Directors of the National Penitentiary and Correctional Institution for Women are hereby ordered to determine if there are accused serving final sentences similarly situated as the accused in this particular case and if there are, to coordinate and communicate with the Public Attorney's Office and the latter, to represent and file the necessary pleading before this Court in behalf of these convicted accused in light of this Court's pronouncement; (2) For those cases where the accused are undergoing preventive imprisonment, either the cases against them are non-bailable or cannot put up the bail in view of the penalties imposable under the old law, their respective counsels are hereby ordered to file the necessary pleading before the proper courts, whether undergoing trial in the RTC or undergoing appeal in the appellate courts and apply for bail, for their provisional liberty; (3) For those cases where the accused are undergoing preventive imprisonment pending trial or appeal, their respective counsels are hereby ordered to file the necessary pleading if the accused have already served the minimum sentence of the crime charged against them based on the penalties imposable under the new law, R.A. No. 10951, for their immediate release; and (4) Lastly, all courts, including appellate courts, are hereby ordered to give priority to those cases covered by R.A. No. 10951 to avoid any prolonged imprisonment.
Under Section 102, R.A. 10951, the aforementioned law "shall take effect within fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation."
On 29 August 2017, R.A. 10951 was circulated online on www.officialgazette.gov.ph. On 01 September 2017, it was published by the Manila Bulletin. It then later appeared in other broadsheets.
In compliance with the instant decision, copy of Hernan v. Sandiganbayan is hereby attached as "Annex A."
For the information and guidance of all concerned. ETHIDa
(SGD.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator
ANNEX A
G.R. No. 217874December 5, 2017