G.R. No. 240563 - IN RE: Montillano y Basig

The petitioner, Emalyn Montillano y Basig, was convicted of the crime of Simple Theft for stealing personal property valued at Php6,000.00.
The conviction was based on her own admission, and the trial court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
In the RTC Judgment dated June 15, 2017, she was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as the minimum to four (4) years of prision correccional as the maximum.
It was noted in the judgment that since the stolen property had been recovered, no civil liability was imposed, and credit was given for the preventive imprisonment already undergone.

Subsequent to the RTC judgment, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 was promulgated on August 29, 2017.
Under Section 81, paragraph 4 of R.A. No. 10951, the adjusted penalty for theft, where the value of the property exceeds P5,000.00 but does not exceed P20,000.00, is provided as arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
The petitioner invoked the provisions of R.A. No. 10951, appealing for modification of her sentence and immediate release, citing her accumulated time served and the possibility of earned good conduct time allowance.

According to her prison record as of May 8, 2018, the petitioner had already served two (2) years, three (3) months, and twenty-seven (27) days.
Based on these circumstances and the adjustments provided by R.A. No. 10951, the petitioner presented her case before the Supreme Court, seeking to have her sentence modified and her immediate release ordered.

In light of the recent decision in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan and another similar case involving Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, the Supreme Court recognized the surge in petitions for penalty modifications under R.A. No. 10951.
The Court issued guidelines covering:

The scope of such petitions, including both the modification of the penalty imposed by a final judgment and the immediate release of the petitioner-convict upon full service of the modified sentence.
Eligibility on who may file the petition (i.e., the Public Attorney’s Office, the inmate, or his/her counsel/representative).
The proper venue for filing such petitions, specifically the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the location where the petitioner is confined.
The limitations on pleadings allowed (only the petition and the comment from the Office of the Solicitor General) as well as the requirement that the petition must be verified and contain supporting documents like a certified true copy of the decision and, if applicable, certification of time served.
The time frame for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file its comment and the consequences of such failure.
The procedural requirement that the RTC must render judgment no later than ten (10) calendar days after the comment period, addressing specifics such as the adjusted penalty, the actual time served (inclusive of any good conduct time allowance), and the petitioner’s entitlement to immediate release.

The petitioner’s relief included modifying her sentence in accordance with R.A. No. 10951 and obtaining immediate release if it was determined that the full penalty, as adjusted, had been served.
The Supreme Court ultimately remanded the case back to the RTC to determine:

The proper penalty in conformity with R.A. No. 10951.
Whether petitioner Emalyn Montillano y Basig is entitled to immediate release on account of complete service of her modified sentence.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for, namely, the modification of her sentence pursuant to R.A. No. 10951 and her immediate release following the adjustment of the penalty.

Whether the application of the provisions of R.A. No. 10951 to modify the penalty imposed in a previously terminated case is proper under the circumstances.
Whether the determination of actual time served, including any applicable good conduct time allowance, should be undertaken by the trial court rather than the appellate court.
Whether the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court adequately address the procedure and issues involved in seeking immediate release under the amended penalty system.