People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz, et al.

A court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it misapplies the penalty provisions of Republic Act No. 10951 in adjusting a convict's sentence, and the retroactive application of the Act is permitted only to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.

Republic Act No. 10951, enacted on August 29, 2017, amended the Revised Penal Code by reducing the penalties for certain crimes, including estafa. In Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that the passage of Republic Act No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance warranting not only the reopening of an already terminated case, but also the recall of an Entry of Judgment for purposes of modifying the penalty to be served. In Re: Elbanbuena subsequently issued guidelines governing procedures for actions seeking modification of penalties under Republic Act No. 10951 and immediate release of petitioner-convicts, and the Office of the Court Administrator issued OCA Circular No. 179-2018 highlighting these guidelines for all first and second level courts.

On February 8, 2001, nine separate criminal informations charged Anthony Archangel y Sy with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for issuing nine worthless bank checks. Of the nine cases, five were dismissed on March 29, 2001 by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City, leaving four cases docketed as Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, U-11227, and U-11228. The accusatory portion for Criminal Case No. U-11223 alleged that Sy purchased construction materials from Allan Apaga and, with intent to defraud by means of deceit and false pretenses, issued Philippine Veterans Bank Checks Nos. 0070220 and 0070218 dated September 19 and 17, 2000, in the amounts of PHP 41,800.00 and PHP 41,500.00, respectively, representing that they were good and sufficiently funded, when his checking account was already closed, causing Apaga to part with his construction materials to his damage and prejudice.

Trial ensued, and on September 3, 2007, Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City promulgated its Decision finding Sy guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of estafa and acquitting him on one count. For each of Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, and U-11227, the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of four years, two months, and one day to six years of prision mayor as minimum, to six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered Sy to pay the complaining witness the amounts of PHP 41,500.00, PHP 55,923.00, and PHP 34,909.00, respectively, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs of suit. Sy was acquitted in Criminal Case No. U-11228 on ground of reasonable doubt.

On December 22, 2018, Sy, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Petition to Adjust and Fix Penalty (With Urgent Motion to Release) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, praying for his immediate release from confinement. Sy argued that the passage of Republic Act No. 10951 provided basis to warrant the adjustment of the imposable penalty upon him, and that since he was convicted of estafa involving amounts of PHP 41,500.00, PHP 55,923.00, and PHP 34,909.00, the adjusted imposable penalty should be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period for each count. Sy added that he had already served 21 years, 10 months, and 14 days with earned good conduct time as evidenced by his prison record, and that when the ameliorative benefit of Republic Act No. 10951 was applied, he already exceeded the maximum years of incarceration for his conviction.

In an Order dated February 6, 2019, the RTC Muntinlupa directed the Office of the Solicitor General to file its comment, which the OSG timely complied with on February 28, 2019. In the assailed Resolution dated March 14, 2019, the RTC, through the public respondent, modified the original penalty imposed on Sy for three counts of estafa and ordered his immediate release from prison pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 10951. The adjusted penalty for Criminal Case Nos. U-11223 and U-11226 became an indeterminate sentence of one year of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum as minimum, and one year and eight months of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum as maximum; for Criminal Case No. U-11227, the adjusted penalty was two months of arresto mayor minimum and medium as minimum, and three months of arresto mayor minimum and medium as maximum.

Dissatisfied, the People, through the OSG, filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 179-2018. The OSG argued that the public respondent erroneously applied the first 4th paragraph of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, when the applicable penalties were the second 4th and 5th paragraphs, which impose prision mayor in its medium period for amounts over PHP 40,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 1,200,000.00. The OSG also argued that even assuming the correct provision was applied, the same would have effectively raised the penalty imposed on Sy, contrary to Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951, and that Sy's immediate release was unwarranted since he had only served 14 years, 9 months, and 27 days compared to his total maximum sentence of 24 years.

The Supreme Court, without giving due course to the Petition, issued a Resolution dated January 8, 2020 requiring Sy to file a Comment and granting the People's prayer for a temporary restraining order. The TRO enjoined the public respondent, her successor, representatives, agents, or other persons acting on her behalf from enforcing the assailed Resolution in Spec. Proc. No. 18-371. Sy filed a Comment dated June 30, 2020, after multiple extensions of time. The Court directed the respective Clerks of Court of Branch 256, RTC Muntinlupa City, and Branch 48, RTC Urdaneta City, to elevate the complete records of the case, and the OSG filed its Reply dated July 6, 2021. The Court gave due course to the Petition on November 10, 2021, requiring the parties to file their respective Memoranda. The People filed its Memorandum dated January 11, 2022, but Sy, through PAO, did not file a Memorandum. The Clerks of Court of both branches eventually elevated the records of the case in October 2023.

• Misapplication of Penalty Provision: The OSG argued that the public respondent erroneously applied the first 4th paragraph of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, when the applicable penalties for estafa committed through the issuance of worthless checks were the second 4th and 5th paragraphs, which impose prision mayor in its medium period for amounts over PHP 40,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 1,200,000.00.
• Disadvantageous Application: The OSG argued that even assuming the correct provision of law was applied, the public respondent should not have applied the same since it would have effectively raised the penalty imposed on Sy, contrary to Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951, which limits retroactive application to instances where the law is favorable to the accused.
• Unwarranted Release: The OSG argued that Sy's immediate release was unwarranted since he had only served 14 years, 9 months, and 27 days compared to his total maximum sentence of 24 years.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The OSG argued that the public respondent's failure to apply the law is not a mere error in judgment but constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

• Basis for Adjustment: Sy argued that the passage of Republic Act No. 10951 provided basis to warrant the adjustment of the imposable penalty upon him, and that his Petition to Adjust and Fix Penalty complied with the decision of this Court in Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan.
• Adjusted Penalty: Sy argued that since he was convicted of estafa involving amounts of PHP 41,500.00, PHP 55,923.00, and PHP 34,909.00, the adjusted imposable penalty should be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period for each count of estafa.
• Full Service of Sentence: Sy argued that he had already served 21 years, 10 months, and 14 days with earned good conduct time as evidenced by his prison record, and that when the ameliorative benefit of Republic Act No. 10951 was applied, he already exceeded the maximum years of incarceration for his conviction in Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, and U-11227.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in adjusting respondent Sy's prison sentence and ordering respondent Sy's immediate release from prison.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when she misapplied the penalty for estafa committed through the issuance of worthless checks under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, as amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, and ordered Sy's immediate release from prison.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court first addressed the propriety of direct resort to the Supreme Court, noting that the general rule requiring observance of the hierarchy of courts admits exceptions where there are special and important reasons. Citing In Re: Elbanbuena, the Court noted that the guidelines issued therein expressly allow the filing before the Supreme Court of a special civil action under Rule 65 where there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in judgments relative to the adjustment of penalty under Republic Act No. 10951. The OSG availed of the proper remedy.

The Court then examined the elements of certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction, and has been expanded through time to include any action contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence.

On the merits, the Court examined Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, which amended Article 315 of the RPC. The provision created two groups of penalties for estafa: the first group prescribes the penalty for general estafa, while the second group prescribes the penalty for estafa committed through specific fraudulent means, including the issuance of a worthless check under paragraph 2(d). The public respondent applied the first 4th paragraph of the first group, which imposes arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period for amounts over PHP 40,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 1,200,000.00. However, the applicable penalty was the second 4th paragraph of the second group, which imposes prision mayor in its medium period for the same amount range, and the second 5th paragraph, which imposes prision mayor in its minimum period for amounts not exceeding PHP 40,000.00.

Citing Abalos vs. People, where the accused was found guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) for issuing worthless checks in the aggregate amount of PHP 267,500.00, the Court applied the second 4th paragraph of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951 and imposed prision mayor in its medium period. The Court agreed with the OSG that the public respondent's failure to apply the law constituted grave abuse of discretion, and not merely an error in judgment.

The Court further held that even if the public respondent had correctly applied the second 4th and 5th paragraphs of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, the same would have been disadvantageous to Sy. Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951 expressly states that the Act has retroactive effect only to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment. In Abalos, the Court found that the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10951 prejudiced the accused, so the penalty under the RPC prevailed because it was beneficial to the accused. Here, the new penalty under Republic Act No. 10951 had the effect of unduly raising the penalty for two counts of estafa and aggravating the same. The original penalty imposed by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City, which was eight years maximum for each of Criminal Case Nos. U-11223 and U-11226, should be maintained.

Finally, the Court held that the immediate release of Sy was not warranted because his Prison Record was signed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, who is not authorized under the law and applicable jurisprudence to grant time allowances for good conduct. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 10592, only the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail may grant allowances for good conduct.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Defined as such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction. It exists where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. Through time, its meaning has been expanded to include any action contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence. Applied here because the public respondent misapplied the penalty provisions of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, which constituted grave abuse of discretion rather than a mere error in judgment.
• Retroactive Application of Penal Laws — Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951 provides that the Act has retroactive effect only to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment. Applied here because the new penalty under Republic Act No. 10951 was not favorable to Sy, as it had the effect of unduly raising the penalty for two counts of estafa; thus, the original penalty under the RPC prevailed.
• In Re: Elbanbuena Guidelines — Procedures governing actions seeking (1) modification, based on the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10951, of penalties imposed by final judgments; and (2) immediate release of the petitioner-convict on account of full service of the penalty or penalties, as modified. The guidelines allow direct resort to the Supreme Court via a special civil action under Rule 65 where there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Authority to Grant Time Allowances — Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 10592, only the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail may grant allowances for good conduct. A prison record signed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, who is not authorized under the law, does not support a claim for immediate release.

• "Grave abuse of discretion is defined in jurisprudence as such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction." — This defines the controlling standard for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65, which the Court applied in finding that the public respondent's misapplication of the penalty provisions constituted grave abuse.
• "SECTION 100. Retroactive Effect. — This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment." — This states the retroactivity rule of Republic Act No. 10951, which the Court applied to hold that the new penalty was not favorable to Sy and thus the original penalty under the RPC should prevail.
• "Considering that the actual amount involved in this case is [PHP] 232,500.00, the proper imposable penalty is prision mayor in its medium period." — Quoted from Abalos vs. People, this demonstrates the correct application of the second 4th paragraph of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951 for estafa through worthless checks, which the public respondent failed to apply.
• "The Court cannot emphasize enough the pivotal role lower court judges play in the promotion of the people's faith in the judiciary." — This final note underscores the Court's admonition that judges are expected to know the laws and apply them properly, as the misapplication of laws displays not only a lack of familiarity with the law but a betrayal of justice and confidence in the judiciary.

• Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, 822 Phil. 148 (2017) — Controlling precedent establishing that the passage of Republic Act No. 10951 is an exceptional circumstance warranting not only the reopening of an already terminated case, but also the recall of an Entry of Judgment for purposes of modifying the penalty to be served.
• In Re: Elbanbuena, 837 Phil. 1025 (2018) — Followed; issued guidelines governing procedures for actions seeking modification of penalties under Republic Act No. 10951 and immediate release of petitioner-convicts, including the rule on direct resort to the Supreme Court via Rule 65.
• Abalos vs. People, 859 Phil. 450 (2019) — Followed; applied the second 4th paragraph of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951 for estafa through worthless checks, imposing prision mayor in its medium period, and held that the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10951 prejudiced the accused.
• City Warden of the Manila City Jail vs. Estrella, 416 Phil. 634 (2001) — Cited for the rule that only the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail may grant allowances for good conduct.

• Article 315, paragraph 2(d), Revised Penal Code — The crime of estafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. Sy was convicted of three counts of this offense.
• Section 85, Republic Act No. 10951 — Amended Article 315 of the RPC, creating two groups of penalties for estafa: the first group for general estafa, and the second group for estafa committed through specific fraudulent means, including the issuance of worthless checks. The Court held that the public respondent misapplied the first group instead of the second group.
• Section 100, Republic Act No. 10951 — Provides that the Act has retroactive effect only to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment. Applied to hold that the new penalty was not favorable to Sy.
• Section 5, Republic Act No. 10592 — Amended Article 99 of the RPC, providing that only the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Applied to hold that Sy's prison record, signed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, was not authorized.
• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, requiring a showing that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.