G.R. No. 240563 . August 14, 2018. IN RE: CORRECTION/ADJUSTMENT OF PENALTY PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951 , IN RELATION TO HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN. EMALYN MONTILLANO y BASIG, Petitioner.
FACTS

Petitioner Emalyn Montillano was convicted of Simple Theft involving property valued at Php 6,000.00 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. In its Judgment dated June 15, 2017, she was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision correccional as maximum. The judgment became final and executory as no appeal was filed. Subsequently, Republic Act No. 10951 took effect on August 29, 2017, which adjusted the penalties for theft based on the value of stolen property. Under its Section 81, for property valued over Php 5,000.00 but not exceeding Php 20,000.00, the prescribed penalty is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Invoking this new law and the precedent in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, which allowed the reopening of final judgments for penalty modification, Montillano filed a Petition for Release directly with the Supreme Court. She sought modification of her sentence and immediate release, contending that with her time served and good conduct allowances, she had already completed the penalty as potentially reduced under R.A. No. 10951 .

ISSUE

Is the petitioner entitled to the modification of her penalty under R.A. No. 10951 and to immediate release from confinement?

RULING

Yes, but the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for proper determination. The Court affirmed that R.A. No. 10951 , being a favorable law that mitigates penalties, applies retroactively to final judgments, as established in Hernan. Therefore, Montillano is entitled to have her sentence recomputed under the new law. However, the Court, citing its recent ruling in In Re: Elbanbuena, declined to directly compute the modified penalty and determine entitlement to immediate release. It held that such a determination necessitates factual findings, such as the exact length of time actually served and the proper application of good conduct time allowances, which are better undertaken by the trial court possessing the original records and jurisdiction over execution matters. To ensure judicial efficiency and uniformity given the anticipated influx of similar petitions, the Court promulgated specific guidelines. These direct that petitions for penalty modification and release under R.A. No. 10951 should be filed with the RTC having territorial jurisdiction over the place of confinement. The trial court is tasked to promptly determine the imposable penalty under the new law, compute the time served with allowances, and rule on whether immediate release is warranted. Consequently, while granting the petition, the Supreme Court did not order Montillano’s release outright. Instead, it remanded the case to the RTC of Muntinlupa City to perform the detailed computations and make the conclusive determination regarding her entitlement to liberty.