G.R. No. 237721 - IN RE: Elbanbuena y Marfil

Petitioner Rolando M. Elbanbuena, a Disbursing Officer of Alingilan National High School in Bacolod, was charged with four counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents under Articles 217 and 171 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
At trial, Elbanbuena was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged, resulting in a judgment that imposed multiple prison terms and ancillary penalties (civil interdiction and absolute disqualification).
The judgment became final and executory on August 10, 2000, with Elbanbuena having begun his sentence on January 9, 2003, at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.

On August 29, 2017, Republic Act (RA) No. 10951 was promulgated, amending Act No. 3815 (the Revised Penal Code) by reducing the penalties for certain crimes, including malversation of public funds.
Section 40 of RA No. 10951 specifically amended Article 217, setting forth a new, less severe penalty framework based on the monetary value involved in the malversation.
On December 5, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, recognizing that while a final judgment is generally immutable, exceptional circumstances—such as the enactment of a more lenient penal law—warrant a reopening of the case.

Elbanbuena filed his petition seeking (a) a modification or reduction of the penalties imposed on him pursuant to RA No. 10951 and (b) his immediate release from confinement on the ground that he had already served his sentence as re-computed under the new law.
The petition highlighted the precedent set in Hernan, emphasizing that the new law’s favorable provisions to the accused necessitate a recalculation of the sentence previously imposed.

The Supreme Court, in response to the petition and the expected influx of similar cases, issued specific guidelines for handling actions seeking (a) the modification of penalties under RA No. 10951 and (b) the immediate release of inmates based on full service of the modified sentence.
These guidelines detail:

Who may file the petition (i.e., the Public Attorney's Office, the inmate, or counsel/representative).
The proper venue (Regional Trial Court with territorial jurisdiction over the locality of confinement).
The required pleadings and verification.
The role and deadline for filing the comment by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The process mandates that the court must fix the new penalties and assess whether the petitioner has fully served his revised sentence before determining immediate release.

Whether the final and executory judgment, rendered prior to the promulgation of RA No. 10951, may be modified to reflect the reduced penalties provided by the new law.
The legal question arises as to the extent of the doctrine of finality when confronted with an exceptional circumstance resulting from subsequent favorable legislation.

Whether Elbanbuena, after having commenced his sentence, is entitled to immediate release on account of his having fully served the re-computed sentence under RA No. 10951.
The issue involves determining the actual length of confinement, including any allowances for good conduct, which are typically better ascertained by a trial court experienced in fact-finding.

Whether the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court—such as the requisites for pleadings, the role of the OSG, and timelines for judgment issuance—are applicable to all similar petitions seeking modification of penalties.
Whether these procedural measures sufficiently address the potential for multiplicity of suits and prevent prolonged imprisonment of affected inmates.

Whether the appropriate venue should be the Regional Trial Court, given its role in determining both the re-computed penalties and the factual elements regarding confinement.
The issue also extends to ensuring that the modification of the penalty is effectuated in a manner that is administratively efficient and just to avoid injustice due to outdated penal computations.