CASE 2017-0039: OPHELIA HERNAN, Petitioner, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 217874, 05 DEC 2017, PERALTA, J.) (WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT CAN STILL BE MODIFIED) (BRIEF TITLE: HERNAN VS. PEOPLE)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated February 2, 2015 and Decision dated November 13, 2009 of the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum term, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as maximum term.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator ( OCA) for dissemination to the First and Second Level courts, and also to the Presiding Justices of the appellate courts, the Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, Public Attorney’s Office, Prosecutor General’s Office, the Directors of the National Penitentiary and Correctional Institution for Women, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information, guidance, and appropriate action.
Likewise, let the Office of the President, the Senate of the Philippines, and the House of Representatives, be furnished copies of this Decision for their information.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT A JUDGMENT THAT HAS ACQUIRED FINALITY BECOMES IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE, AND MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT EVEN IF THE MODIFICATION IS MEANT TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW AND WHETHER IT WILL BE MADE BY THE COURT THAT RENDERED IT OR BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND.
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION?
YES, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION: WHEN, HOWEVER, CIRCUMSTANCES TRANSPIRE AFTER THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION RENDERING ITS EXECUTION UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE, THE COURT MAY SIT EN BANE AND GIVE DUE REGARD TO SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WARRANTING THE RELAXATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY.
“The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that it is still necessary to reopen the instant case and recall the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, not for further reception of evidence, however, as petitioner prays for, but in order to modify the penalty imposed by said court. The general rule is that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. 54 When, however, circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, the Court may sit en bane and give due regard to such exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability. The same is in line with Section 3(c),55 Rule II of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Comi, which provides that cases raising novel questions of law are acted upon by the Court en bane. To the Court, the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 entitled An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815 Otherwise Known as the “Revised Penal Code” as Amended which accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to the crime charged herein is an example of such exceptional circumstance. . .”
R.A. NO. 10951, THEN NEWLY PASSED, ENTITLED AN ACT ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED AND THE FINES IMPOSED. WILL THIS APPLY TO PETITIONER?
YES. THUS FINAL JUDGMENT MUST BE MODIFIED.
“Thus, in order to effectively avoid any injustice that petitioner may suffer as well as a possible multiplicity of suits arising therefrom, the Court deems it proper to reopen the instant case and recall the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, which imposed the penalty of six ( 6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum. Instead, since the amount involved herein is Pl 1,300.00, which does not exceed !!40,000.00, the new penalty that should be imposed is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, which has a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day, to six (6) years. The Court, however, takes note of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender appreciated by the Sandiganbayan in favor of petitioner.60 Hence, taking into consideration the absence of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of one ( 1) mitigating circumstance, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should be prision correccional medium to prision correccional maximum in its minimum period, or from two (2) years, four ( 4) months, and one (1) day, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days, in accordance with Article 6461 of the RPC. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon petitioners is anywhere within the period of arresto mayor, maximum to prision correccional minimum with a range of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Accordingly, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as maximum.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
SCD-2017-0039-PHELIA HERNAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN – G.R. NO. 217874. DECEMBER 5, 2017
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 