Ra 10951 .docx

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has provided a guideline in applying RA 10951 in the case of Rolando Elbanbueda, G.R. No. 237721. On August 29, 2017, RA No. 10951 was promulgated and made certain amendments to the Revised Penal Code on certain crimes which basically lowered their penalties. The first case to which this law has been applied to was in Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan. However, despite the fact that Hernan has already been benefited of this new law, other detainees are still having some difficulties in getting released from prison as the application of the law was very vague. lawyers both in the private sector and government are confused as to how the said law should be applied. There was no clear guideline provided in Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan. On July 31, 2018, in the case of Rolando Elbanbueda with G.R. No. 237721, the Supreme Court has finally provided a guideline for petitioners of RA 10951, to wit: 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 of the OSG. No motions for extension of time, or other dilatory motions for postponements, 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 the petitionerconvict. (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 the 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 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. The Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) has recently undergone a much -needed facelift since its passage almost 8 decades ago, thanks to Republic Act 10951 (“R.A. 10951”). This law addresses the problem of unjust and disproportionate penalties by adjusting the fines imposed, and the values of properties and damages on which penalties are based, in order to reflect current monetary and property values, and account for inflation since the 1930s. The implications of the amendments introduced in R.A. 10951 are better understood by discussing the same in relation to a particular crime. Here, R.A. 10951 will be discussed in relation to one of the most common crimes against property – qualif ied theft. Qualified theft is committed when a domestic servant or a person who abuses the confidence entrusted to him/her commits theft. The crime is also committed when property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, large cattle, or consists of coconuts from the plantation, or fish from a fishpond or fishery, or when the taking of property

is done on the occasion of a calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

finality thereof, in order to have their penalty modified.

The penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that specified for simple t heft, and this remains unchanged despite the passage of R.A. 10951. However, given the amendments to the value of property stolen, upon which the penalty for simple theft is based, the degree of penalty or duration of imprisonment imposed for qualified theft necessarily changed, as well.

Do you happen to know anyone charged or convicted with qualified theft, or any oth er crime under the RPC? Why not be a bearer of some good news and inform him/her of R.A. 10951?

To better illustrate this, let us say that John Doe was found guilty of qualified theft for stealing money amounting to Php300,000.00. Prior to R.A. 10951, the threshold amount corresponding to the basic penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods is Php22,000.00. If the property stolen exceeds the said amount, the basic penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. An additional year of imprisonment shall further be imposed for every additional Php10,000.00 in excess of Php22,000.00. The total imposable penalty, however, shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion temporal . Following these rules, John Doe will be punished with reclusion perpetua, the penalty two degrees higher than reclusion temporal . Consequently, if the evidence of guilt is strong, John Doe, shall not be entitled to bail. Of course, the value of money or property in the 1930s is a far cry from the value of money or property today. Punishing qualified theft of Php300,000.00 with reclusion perpetua, or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment, is a little too severe and unnecessary for such amount in this day and age. Under the present law, if the value of the property stolen is more than Php20,000.00 but not exceeding Php600,000.00, the pena lty shall only be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. John Doe would thus be meted the penalty of reclusion temporal, which is two degrees higher than prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. As such, he shall be entitled to bail as a matter of right. Given the obvious and undeniable leniency accorded by R.A. 10951 in favor of the accused, it may be given retroactive application. This means that accused persons, who are preventively detained pending trial or appeal can app ly for bail or be released on recognizance if they already served the minimum sentence as adjusted. Those charged with non-bailable cases or cannot put up bail under the previous schedule of penalties, on the other hand, can apply for bail reflecting the a djusted values. Even convicts serving their sentences can file an action to have their cases reopened, despite the