G.R. No. 247463 - People vs. Hon. Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz, et al.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247463)

Factual Background

On February 8, 2001, nine Criminal Informations charged Anthony Archangel y Sy with Estafa for issuing nine worthless checks under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Five of those cases were dismissed on March 29, 2001 by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City. Four cases remained docketed as Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, U-11227, and U-11228. Trial proceeded, and the RTC of Urdaneta City found Sy guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of Estafa in a Decision dated September 3, 2007. The Court sentenced Sy to indeterminate terms of prision mayor for each of the three convictions and ordered civil indemnity to the complainant.

Petition to Adjust and RTC Action

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, invoking this Court’s decision in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan and seeking application of Republic Act No. 10951 to recompute his penalties and secure immediate release. Sy asserted that, after adjustment, his imposable penalties for the three convictions fell within the lower ranges under RA 10951 and that he had already served sufficient time with good conduct time allowances to warrant release.

Resolution of Branch 256, RTC Muntinlupa City

In an Order dated February 6, 2019, the RTC directed the Office of the Solicitor General to comment. After receiving a comment, the RTC, through Hon. Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz, issued a Resolution on March 14, 2019. The RTC modified the penalty imposed for the three convictions and directed the Bureau of Corrections to release Sy from the National Bilibid Prison unless he was detained for other lawful causes. The RTC set adjusted indeterminate sentences for each count purportedly under RA 10951 and ordered immediate release.

Petition for Certiorari and Temporary Restraining Order

Dissatisfied, the People of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court issued a Resolution on January 8, 2020 granting a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the RTC March 14, 2019 Resolution. The TRO restrained Hon. Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz, her successor, and all persons acting on her behalf from implementing the assailed Resolution.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adjusting Sy’s prison sentence and ordering his immediate release.

Arguments of the People through the OSG

The OSG contended that the public respondent misapplied Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, relying on the first fourth paragraph of Article 315 as amended when the correct penalties for Estafa by issuance of worthless checks are found in the separate group of paragraphs addressing specific fraudulent means. The OSG argued that the proper provisions were the second fourth and fifth paragraphs of Section 85, which impose higher penalties for checks involving amounts over PHP 40,000.00 but less than PHP 1,200,000.00. The OSG further argued that applying RA 10951 raised the penalty for two of the convictions, making the new law disadvantageous to Sy so that Section 100 of RA 10951 bars retroactive application. The OSG also pointed out that Sy had not actually served the recomputed aggregate maximum term, and that there was no proof of lawful grant of good conduct time under Republic Act No. 10592.

Legal Standards on Certiorari and Direct Resort

The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 is available only when a tribunal or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court observed that direct resort to the Supreme Court is generally disfavored but may be permitted under exceptional circumstances. The Court relied on In Re: Elbanbuena and Hernan v. Sandiganbayan for the proposition that the enactment of RA 10951 constituted such an exceptional circumstance justifying reopening and recall of entries of judgment to modify penalties and determine entitlement to immediate release. The Court emphasized that guidelines issued in In Re: Elbanbuena and OCA Circular No. 179-2018 govern the procedures for actions seeking modification of penalties under RA 10951 and for petitions for immediate release.

Court’s Analysis — Misapplication of RA 10951 Constituted Grave Abuse

The Court examined the statutory scheme enacted by Section 85 of RA 10951, noting that the statute creates two groups of penalties: general penalties for Estafa and separate penalties for Estafa committed by certain fraudulent means, including issuance of worthless checks under paragraph 2(d). The Court found that Branch 256 misapplied the first 4th paragraph of Article 315 as amended, instead of applying the specific second 4th and 5th paragraphs governing Estafa by issuance of worthless checks. The Court agreed with the OSG that such failure to apply the correct statutory provision was not mere error in judgment but amounted to grave abuse of discretion constituting lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis — RA 10951 Was Not Favorable and Retroactivity Did Not Apply

The Court addressed Section 100 of RA 10951, which provides that the Act has retroactive effect only to the extent it is favorable to the accused. Applying precedent, including Abalos v. People, the Court concluded that the amendments in Section 85 were disadvantageous to Sy for two of his convictions because the new penalty ranges effectively raised the penalties for those counts. Consequently, retroactive applica

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247463)

Parties and Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging an RTC resolution modifying sentence and ordering release.
HON. AMELIA A. FABROS-CORPUZ, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, was the public respondent who issued the assailed March 14, 2019 Resolution.
ANTHONY ARCHANGEL Y SY was the private respondent and convicted prisoner who petitioned the RTC to adjust and fix his penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951.
The petition was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to OCA Circular No. 179-2018 and sought annulment of the RTC Resolution for grave abuse of discretion.

Key Facts

On February 8, 2001, nine Informations charged ANTHONY ARCHANGEL Y SY with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for issuance of worthless checks.
Five of the nine cases were dismissed by Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City on March 29, 2001, and four cases remained docketed as Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, U-11227, and U-11228.
Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City promulgated a Decision on September 3, 2007 finding SY guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of Estafa and sentencing him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
On December 22, 2018, SY, through the Public Attorney’s Office, filed a Petition to Adjust and Fix Penalty before Branch 256, RTC, Muntinlupa City, invoking Hernan v. Sandiganbayan and Republic Act No. 10951.
The amounts involved in the three convictions were PHP 41,500.00, PHP 55,923.00, and PHP 34,909.00 respectively, and SY claimed he had already served 21 years, 10 months, and 14 days according to his prison record.

Procedural History

Branch 256, RTC, Muntinlupa City issued an Order dated February 6, 2019 directing the OSG to comment, and the OSG filed a timely Comment.
The RTC issued the assailed Resolution on March 14, 2019 modifying the penalties and directing the Bureau of Corrections to release SY from the National Bilibid Prison unless detained for other lawful causes.
The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the OSG, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court and this Court issued a TRO on January 8, 2020 restraining enforcement of the March 14, 2019 Resolution.
The Supreme Court gave due course to the Petition by Resolution dated November 10, 2021 and required memoranda from the parties, and the case proceeded to resolution on the merits.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 10951 amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by recalibrating monetary thresholds and corresponding penalties for Estafa, including specific provisions for fraud by issuance of worthless checks.
Section 100 of Republic Act No. 10951 provides that the Act shall have retroactive effect only to the extent it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.
Republic Act No. 10592 and amended Article 99 govern the grant of time allowances for good conduct by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections and other penal officials.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law and Articles 64–65 of the Revised Penal Code inform the computation and imposition of indeterminate penalties where applicable.

Issue

The sole issue was whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in adjusting SY’s prison sentence and ordering his immedia