R.A. 10951 Penalty Adjustment: How Final Theft Convictions Can Be Modified and Inmates Released

The Supreme Court has clarified the procedure for inmates seeking penalty adjustments under Republic Act No. 10951, which reduced the penalties for theft and other property crimes by raising the value thresholds that determine the applicable penalty. In a 2018 resolution, the Court addressed a petition from a convicted thief who sought immediate release after the new law reduced her penalty. The ruling provides important guidance for persons convicted of theft whose sentences may now exceed what the law currently allows.

The Case of Emalyn Montillano

Emalyn Montillano was convicted of simple theft for stealing property worth Php 6,000.00. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four years of prision correccional as maximum. She did not appeal the conviction.

While she was serving her sentence, R.A. No. 10951 took effect on August 29, 2017. The law adjusted the value of property on which criminal penalties are based under the Revised Penal Code. Under the new law, theft of property worth over Php 5,000.00 but not exceeding Php 20,000.00 is now punishable by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period — a range of two months and one day to two years and four months.

Montillano filed a petition before the Supreme Court, invoking the Court's earlier ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017), which allowed the reopening of already terminated cases for the purpose of modifying or reducing penalties under R.A. No. 10951. She argued that with her time served and good conduct time allowance, she had already completed her sentence as modified by the new law.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted Montillano's petition but did not itself determine her new penalty or decide whether she should be released. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for the proper determination of these questions.

The Court cited its earlier ruling in In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty pursuant to R.A. No. 10951 in Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan – Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil (G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018). In that case, the Court explained that determining whether a petitioner is entitled to immediate release involves ascertaining the actual length of time served and whether good conduct time allowance should be allowed. These factual determinations are better undertaken by the trial court, which is more equipped to make findings of both fact and law.

Guidelines for Filing Petitions

Recognizing that many similar petitions would follow, the Court issued guidelines for actions seeking penalty modification under R.A. No. 10951. The key points are:

• Who may file: The Public Attorney's Office, the inmate, or the inmate's counsel or representative.
• Where to file: With the Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the inmate is confined. The case must be raffled and referred to the assigned branch within three days.
• Pleadings allowed: Only the petition and the comment from the Office of the Solicitor General. No motions for extension or dilatory motions are allowed.
• Required documents: The petition must include a certified true copy of the decision sought to be modified and, where applicable, the mittimus or a certification from the Bureau of Corrections as to the length of sentence served.
• Verification: The petition must be verified by the inmate himself or herself.
• OSG comment: The Solicitor General must file a comment within ten days from notice. If no comment is filed, the court shall render judgment as may be warranted.
• Judgment timeline: The court must promulgate judgment no later than ten calendar days after the lapse of the period to file a comment.

What the Trial Court Must Determine

The judgment of the trial court must set forth: (1) the penalty or penalties imposable under R.A. No. 10951; (2) where proper, the length of time the inmate has been in confinement and whether good conduct time allowance should be allowed; and (3) whether the inmate is entitled to immediate release due to complete service of the sentence as modified.

The judgment is immediately executory, but a party may still file a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court if there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Practical Takeaways

• R.A. No. 10951 applies to final judgments. Persons already convicted of theft or other property crimes may have their penalties modified if the value of the property involved falls under a lower penalty bracket under the new law.
• File in the trial court, not the Supreme Court. Petitions for penalty modification should be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the inmate is confined, not directly with the Supreme Court.
• Prepare the necessary documents. A certified true copy of the decision and a certification of time served from the Bureau of Corrections are essential.
• Act promptly. The rules are designed for speed: the OSG has only ten days to comment, and the court must decide within ten days after that period lapses.
• Good conduct time allowance matters. The trial court must determine whether good conduct time allowance should be credited, which can significantly shorten the actual time served.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.