The Supreme Court of the Philippines has provided a VI. Effect of failure to file comment.

guideline in applying RA 10951 in the case of Rolando

Should the OSG fail to file the comment within the period
Elbanbueda, G.R. No. 237721. provided, the court, motu proprio, or upon the motion of
the petitioner-convict, shall render judgment as may be
On August 29, 2017, RA No. 10951 was promulgated and warranted.
made certain amendments to the Revised Penal Code on
certain crimes which basically lowered their penalties. VII. Judgment of the court.

The first case to which this law has been applied to was in To avoid any prolonged imprisonment, the court shall
Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan. However, despite the fact promulgate judgment no later than ten (10) calendar days
that Hernan has already been benefited of this new law, after the lapse of the period to file comment. The
other detainees are still having some difficulties in getting judgment shall set forth the following:
released from prison as the application of the law was
very vague. lawyers both in the private sector and a. The penalty/penalties imposable in accordance with RA
government are confused as to how the said law should 10951;
be applied. There was no clear guideline provided in
Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan. b. Where proper, the length of time the petitioner-convict
has been in confinement (and whether time allowance for
On July 31, 2018, in the case of Rolando Elbanbueda good conduct should be allowed); and
with G.R. No. 237721, the Supreme Court has finally
provided a guideline for petitioners of RA 10951, to wit: c. Whether the petitioner-convict is entitled to immediate
release due to complete service of his sentence/s, as
I. Scope. modified in accordance with RA 10951.

these guidelines shall govern the procedure for actions
seeking (1) the modification, based on the amendments
introduced by RA No. 10951, of penalties imposed by
final judgments; and, (2) the immediate release of the
petitioner-convict on account of full service of the
penalty/penalties, as modified.
II. Who may file.
The Public Attorney’s Office, the concerned inmate, or
his/her counsel/representative, may file the petition.
The judgment of the court shall be immediately executory,
without prejudice to the filing before the Supreme Court of
a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court where there is showing of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
VIII. Applicability of the regular rules.
The Rules of Court shall apply to the special cases herein
provided in a suppletory capacity insofar as they are not
inconsistent therewith.

III. Where to file.
The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court
exercising territorial jurisdiction over the locality where the
petitioner-convict is confined. The case shall be raffled
and referred to the branch to which it is assigned within
three (3) days from the filing of the petition.
IV. Pleadings.
(A) Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to
be filed are the petition and the comment of the OSG. No
motions for extension of time, or other dilatory motions for
postponements, shall be allowed. The petition must
contain a certified true copy of the Decision sought to be
modified and, where applicable, the mittimus and/or a
certification from the Bureau of Corrections as to the
length of the sentence already served by the petitioner-
convict.
(B) Verification. — The petition must be in writing and
verified by the petitioner-convict himself.
V. Comment by the OSG. Within ten(10) days from notice,
the OSG shall file its comment to the petition.
The Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) has recently
undergone a much -needed facelift since its passage
almost 8 decades ago, thanks to Republic Act 10951
(“R.A. 10951”). This law addresses the problem of
unjust and disproportionate penalties by adjusting
the fines imposed, and the values of properties and
damages on which penalties are based, in order to
reflect current monetary and property values, and
account for inflation since the 1930s.
The implications of the amendments introduced in
R.A. 10951 are better understood by discussing the
same in relation to a particular crime. Here, R.A.
10951 will be discussed in relation to one of the
most common crimes against property – qualif ied
theft.
Qualified theft is committed when a domestic
servant or a person who abuses the confidence
entrusted to him/her commits theft. The crime is
also committed when property stolen is a motor
vehicle, mail matter, large cattle, or consists of
coconuts from the plantation, or fish from a
fishpond or fishery, or when the taking of property
is done on the occasion of a calamity, vehicular finality thereof, in order to have their penalty
accident or civil disturbance. modified.
The penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher Do you happen to know anyone charged or
than that specified for simple t heft, and this convicted with qualified theft, or any oth er crime
remains unchanged despite the passage of R.A. under the RPC? Why not be a bearer of some good
10951. However, given the amendments to the value news and inform him/her of R.A. 10951?
of property stolen, upon which the penalty for
simple theft is based, the degree of penalty or
duration of imprisonment imposed for qualified
theft necessarily changed, as well.
To better illustrate this, let us say that John Doe
was found guilty of qualified theft for stealing
money amounting to Php300,000.00.
Prior to R.A. 10951, the threshold amount
corresponding to the basic penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods is
Php22,000.00. If the property stolen exceeds the
said amount, the basic penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period. An additional year of
imprisonment shall further be imposed for every
additional Php10,000.00 in excess of Php22,000.00.
The total imposable penalty, however, shall not
exceed 20 years of reclusion temporal . Following
these rules, John Doe will be punished
with reclusion perpetua, the penalty two degrees
higher than reclusion temporal . Consequently, if the
evidence of guilt is strong, John Doe, shall not be
entitled to bail.
Of course, the value of money or property in the
1930s is a far cry from the value of money or
property today. Punishing qualified theft of
Php300,000.00 with reclusion perpetua, or 20 years
and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment, is a little too
severe and unnecessary for such amount in this day
and age.
Under the present law, if the value of the property
stolen is more than Php20,000.00 but not exceeding
Php600,000.00, the pena lty shall only be prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
John Doe would thus be meted the penalty
of reclusion temporal, which is two degrees higher
than prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods. As such, he shall be entitled to bail as a
matter of right.
Given the obvious and undeniable leniency accorded
by R.A. 10951 in favor of the accused, it may be
given retroactive application. This means that
accused persons, who are preventively detained
pending trial or appeal can app ly for bail or be
released on recognizance if they already served the
minimum sentence as adjusted. Those charged with
non-bailable cases or cannot put up bail under the
previous schedule of penalties, on the other hand,
can apply for bail reflecting the a djusted values.
Even convicts serving their sentences can file an
action to have their cases reopened, despite the