People v. Montillano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emalyn Montillano y Basig was charged and convicted of Simple Theft for taking personal property valued at Php 6,000.00. Since the property was recovered, no civil liability was imposed by the trial court. Procedural History: On June 15, 2017, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, rendered a judgment finding Montillano guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years of prision correccional as maximum. No appeal was filed, and the judgment became final and executory. The Petition: Montillano filed a "Petition for Release" before the Supreme Court, invoking the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10951 (RA 10951), which adjusted the value-based penalties for theft. She argued that under Section 81 of RA 10951, her penalty should be reduced to arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Citing Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, she prayed for the modification of her sentence and her immediate release, asserting she had already served sufficient time including Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA).
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the modification of her sentence and immediate release pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951 and the ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 15, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 in Criminal Case No. 16-782 is hereby REMANDED to the said court for the determination of: (1) the proper penalty in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951; and (2) whether petitioner Emalyn Montillano y Basig @ "Dagul" is entitled to immediate release on account of full service of her sentence, as modified.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court recognized that Republic Act No. 10951 (RA 10951) should be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the accused, consistent with the principles of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It acknowledged the ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, which permits the re-opening of final and executory cases for the sole purpose of modifying the penalty in light of new legislation. However, the Court emphasized that determining the actual length of time served and the validity of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) credits involves factual findings that the Supreme Court is not equipped to handle. Following the precedent in In Re: Elbanbuena, the Court ruled that such petitions must be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the place of confinement. The Court issued specific procedural guidelines to govern these actions, ensuring that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is given an opportunity to comment and that judgments are rendered promptly to avoid prolonged imprisonment. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the RTC of Muntinlupa to determine the proper penalty and the petitioner's eligibility for immediate release.
Main Doctrine
The Court clarifies the procedural mechanism for the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10951 (RA 10951) to final judgments. While substantive law allows for the reduction of penalties, the Supreme Court delegates the factual determination of time served and Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) to the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) where the convict is confined. This ensures that the judiciary maintains an orderly process for the anticipated influx of petitions while protecting the convict's right to immediate release upon full service of the modified sentence.