OPHELIA HERNAN VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN GR 217874

FACTS:

Petitioner Hernan worked at DOTC-CAR in Baguio City as a Supervising Fiscal Clerk, entrusted with
cashier duties. She received cash and collections from customers for telegraphic transfers, toll fees,
and special message fees. These collections were deposited into DOTC's Land Bank of the
Philippines account.

During a cash examination on December 17, 1996, discrepancies were discovered in deposit slips
for P11,300.00 and P81,348.20 dated September 19 and November 29, 1996. The slips lacked
validation stamps from the bank. While Hernan accounted for the larger amount, the P11,300.00
remittance was unaccounted for.

Hernan was charged with malversation of P11,300.00 and found guilty by the RTC. She appealed to
the CA, which affirmed the conviction but adjusted the penalty. The CA later revoked its decision
due to jurisdictional issues.

Hernan then appealed to the Sandiganbayan, which upheld the RTC's decision with a modified
penalty. Her Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and the denial became final in June 2013.

In July 2013, Hernan sought to reopen the case and stay execution through an Urgent Motion, which
Sandiganbayan denied, leading to the execution of the conviction.

Hernan's subsequent Petition for Reconsideration with a request to recall the entry of judgment
was filed in January 2014 and was also denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the case may be reopened for further reception of evidence.

RULING:

NO, but the instant case was nevertheless reopened ONLY to modify the penalty imposed in view of
the enactment of an amendatory law favorable to the accused.

The general rule is that a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest
court of the land. When, however, circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, the Court may sit en banc and give due regard to
such exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability.
To the Court, the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 which accordingly reduced the
penalty applicable to the crime charged in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is an example of
such exceptional circumstance. RA 10951 is an act adjusting the amount or the value of property
and damage on which a penalty is based, and the fines imposed under the Revised Penal Code,
amending for the purpose Act no. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code".

We are faced with a unique scenario wherein the petitioner, who is the accused, has a final and
executory conviction, yet the penalty has been lessened due to the enactment of this law.
Consequently, in line with the established principle of laws having retroactive effect when favorable
to the accused, the petitioner's sentence must be adjusted. Moreover, considering the recent
legislation on probation, namely R.A. No. 10707, the petitioner may even be eligible to apply for
probation, provided she does not have any disqualifying factors.

The Court held that when exceptional circumstances exist, such as the passage of the instant
amendatory law imposing penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the Court shall not
hesitate to direct the reopening of a final and immutable judgment, the objective of which is to
correct not so much the findings of guilt but the applicable penalties to be imposed.

LEGAL QUESTION:

Can R.A. 10951 have a retroactive effect to those accused who had

been convicted?

Yes. In only those who are convicted under the amendment have their cases reopened for the
adjustment of their penalties to a more lenient and favorable penalty to the accused.