G.R. No. 237721. July 31, 2018.
IN RE: CORRECTION/ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTY PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951, IN RELATION TO HERNAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN – ROLANDO ELBANBUENA Y MARFIL, Petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolando Elbanbuena, a school disbursing officer, was convicted in 2000 of multiple counts of malversation of public funds, some through falsification. The amounts involved totaled approximately ₱160,645.24. The trial court sentenced him to various prison terms, the maximum of which was reclusion temporal maximum (17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years). His conviction became final and executory, and he began serving his sentence in 2003. Subsequently, Republic Act No. 10951 took effect on August 29, 2017, which adjusted the penalty thresholds for various crimes under the Revised Penal Code, including malversation. Following this, the Supreme Court, in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, ruled that the new law constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting the reopening of final judgments to correct penalties and avoid injustice.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty imposed on Elbanbuena, pursuant to a final and executory judgment, may be reduced and corrected in accordance with the more lenient penalties prescribed under R.A. No. 10951.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered Elbanbuena’s immediate release. The Court applied the doctrine established in Hernan, which held that the passage of R.A. No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance that justifies relaxing the doctrine on the immutability of final judgments to prevent a grossly unjust situation. The legal logic is rooted in equity and substantive justice. While final judgments are generally immutable, a supervening event—such as a law reducing penalties—can be given retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused, as provided under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the new penalty scales under R.A. No. 10951 to the amounts malversed, the maximum imposable penalty for Elbanbuena is now only prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 10 years). Having already served more than 15 years in prison by the time of the petition, he had already completed serving the maximum penalty under the new law. Therefore, his continued detention based on the old, heavier penalties had become unjust and inequitable. The Court directed the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release him unless detained for another lawful cause.