Title
Aguinaldo IV vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 226615
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2021
Petitioner convicted of Estafa sought reconsideration and recomputation of penalty under RA 10951. Court denied reconsideration but granted recomputation, reducing sentence to probationable range, allowing probation eligibility.
reduction in penalty
probation
conviction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181284)

Factual Background

The private complainant alleged that petitioner defrauded him of PHP 2,050,000.00. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147, convicted petitioner of Estafa as defined in Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and imposed an indeterminate sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction in an Amended Decision dated August 25, 2016. The CA deleted awards of actual damages and interest upon acknowledgment that petitioner had paid the judgment award of PHP 2,050,000.00.

Trial and Appellate Proceedings

The trial court imposed a sentence whose minimum and maximum were computed under Article 315 as then applicable. The CA affirmed the conviction and the penalty as imposed by the trial court. Petitioner sought reconsideration before the Supreme Court, which issued a Resolution on October 10, 2018 affirming the CA Amended Decision. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s Resolution was denied in a January 14, 2019 Resolution, which directed immediate issuance of Entry of Judgment and precluded further pleadings.

Supreme Court Initial Resolution

The Supreme Court on October 10, 2018 affirmed the CA Amended Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The affirmed sentence, as reflected in the CA decision, ranged from four years and two months of prison correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Supreme Court thereafter denied reconsideration and ordered entry of judgment issued on January 14, 2019.

Post-Judgment Motions

Despite the Entry of Judgment and a directive barring further pleadings, petitioner filed: an Omnibus Motion dated March 20, 2019 seeking leave to file another reconsideration, referral to the Court en banc, and second reconsideration; and an Urgent Motion for Recomputation of Penalty dated March 9, 2020 seeking adjustment of the sentence under Republic Act No. 10951. The Supreme Court required petitioner’s counsel to submit petitioner’s prison record, but counsel manifested that petitioner was on bail pending appeal and not confined.

Doctrine of Immutability and Exceptions

The Court noted that the Entry of Judgment rendered petitioner’s conviction final and executory and invoked the doctrine of immutability of judgment as explained in Uy v. Del Castillo, which recognizes that final judgments are ordinarily immutable to promote orderly administration and finality. The Court reiterated that the doctrine is not absolute and may be relaxed to serve substantial justice where factors such as matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; special or compelling circumstances; the merits of the case; lack of fault by the party favored by suspension; absence of frivolousness; and no unjust prejudice to the other party are present.

Application to Petitioner’s Reconsideration Motion

The Court treated the Omnibus Motion as mere reiteration of grounds already considered and found no exceptional circumstances to relax the doctrine of immutability. Consequently, the Omnibus Motion was denied for lack of merit.

Application of RA 10951 and Recalculation of Penalty

The Court considered petitioner’s Urgent Motion for recomputation under Republic Act No. 10951, which readjusted the amount or value of property and damages on which penalties under the Revised Penal Code are based and expressly provided for retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. The Court observed that petitioner’s offense involved PHP 2,050,000.00 and that RA 10951 repositioned the penalty brackets in Article 315. The Court cited Section 85 of RA 10951, which placed fraud over PHP 1,200,000 but not exceeding PHP 2,400,000 within the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The Court further relied on Bigler v. People for the principle that the Court retains power to correct penalties that are outside the range authorized by law even after conviction is final, because an excessive penalty renders the sentence void as to the excess.

Recomputed Sentence and Probation Consequences

Applying RA 10951, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and noting the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court recalculated petitioner’s penalty to an indeterminate term of four months and twenty days of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, eleven months, and ten days of prision correccional as maximum. The Court lifted the Entry of Judgment dated January 14, 2019 solely to effectuate modification of the penalty. The Court observed that the reduction converted the sentence to a probationable penalty under Republic Act No. 10707, which permits an accused-convict to apply for probation when an appellate modification converts a non-probationable penalty into a probationable one before finality.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court denied petitioner’s Omnibus Motion dated March 20, 2019. The Court granted petitioner’s Urgent Motion for Recomputation of Penalty dated March 9, 2020. The Entry of Judgment dated January 14, 2019 was lifted for the limited purpose of modifying the penalty. The Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code as previously determined, but modified the sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four months and twenty days of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, eleven months, and ten days of prision correccional as maximum. The Court left intact the CA’s deletion of actual damages and interest due to petitioner’s acknowledged payment of PHP 2

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms