Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017

    Uploaded by

    mae ann rodolfo
    The Supreme Court ruled that while a final judgment is generally immutable, exceptional circumstances that arise after finality can allow modification. Here, a new law reduced penalties for the crime, presenting such an exceptional circumstance. Though the judgment was final, the penalty must be modified under the new law. Additionally, the reduced penalty now allows the possibility of probation. Therefore, the Court reopened the case solely to modify the penalty in light of the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017

    Uploaded by

    mae ann rodolfo
    83 views8 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while a final judgment is generally immutable, exceptional circumstances that arise after finality can allow modification. Here, a new law reduced penalties for the crime, presenting such an exceptional circumstance. Though the judgment was final, the penalty must be modified under the new law. Additionally, the reduced penalty now allows the possibility of probation. Therefore, the Court reopened the case solely to modify the penalty in light of the new law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while a final judgment is generally immutable, exceptional circumstances that arise after finality can allow modification. Here, a new law reduced penalties for the crime, presenting such an exceptional circumstance. Though the judgment was final, the penalty must be modified under the new law. Additionally, the reduced penalty now allows the possibility of probation. Therefore, the Court reopened the case solely to modify the penalty in light of the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views8 pages

    Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017

    Uploaded by

    mae ann rodolfo
    The Supreme Court ruled that while a final judgment is generally immutable, exceptional circumstances that arise after finality can allow modification. Here, a new law reduced penalties for the crime, presenting such an exceptional circumstance. Though the judgment was final, the penalty must be modified under the new law. Additionally, the reduced penalty now allows the possibility of probation. Therefore, the Court reopened the case solely to modify the penalty in light of the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the final judgment


    can still be modified.
    RULING:
    No, but with exception. 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 bane and
    give due regard to such
    exceptional circumstance
    warranting the relaxation of the
    doctrine of
    immutability.
    Let it be remembered that the
    doctrine of finality of judgment is
    grounded on the fundamental
    principle of public policy and sound
    practice that, at the risk of
    occasional error, the judgment of
    courts and the award of quasi-
    judicial agencies must become final
    on some definite date fixed by
    law. The only exceptions to the
    general rule are the correction of
    clerical errors, the so-called nunc
    pro tune entries which cause no
    prejudice to any party, void
    judgments, and whenever
    circumstances transpire after the
    finality of the decision which render
    its execution unjust and
    inequitable. None of the exceptions
    is present in this case.
    The foregoing notwithstanding, the
    Court finds that it is still necessary
    to reopen the instant case and
    recall the Entry of Judgment dated
    June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan,
    not for further reception of
    evidence, however, as petitioner
    prays for, but in order to modify the
    penalty imposed by said court.
    To the Court, the recent passage of
    Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951
    entitled 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" as Amended
    which accordingly reduced the
    penalty applicable to the crime
    charged herein is an example of such
    exceptional circumstance.
    Therefore, We have here a novel
    situation wherein the judgment
    convicting the accused, petitioner
    herein, has already become final and
    executory and yet the penalty
    imposed thereon has been
    reduced by virtue of the passage of
    said law. Because of this, not only
    must petitioner's sentence be
    modified respecting the settled rule
    on the retroactive effectivity of laws,
    the sentencing being
    favorable to the accused, she may
    even apply for probation, as long as
    she does not possess any
    ground for disqualification, in view
    of recent legislation on probation, or
    R.A. No. 10707 entitled An
    Act Amending Presidential Decree
    No. 968, otherwise known as the
    "Probation Law of 1976," As
    Amended. allowing an accused to
    apply for probation in the event that
    she is sentenced to serve a
    maximum term of imprisonment of
    not more than six (6) years when a
    judgment of conviction
    imposing a non-probationable
    penalty is appealed or reviewed, and
    such judgment is modified
    through the imposition of a
    probationable penalty.
    Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017

    FACTS:On or about September 16, 1996, in Baguio City, Ophelia Hernan, a public officer, being thenthe
    Disbursing Officer of the Department of Transportation and Communications, Baguio City,and as such
    an accountable officer, entrusted with and responsible for the amount of11,300.00 which
    accused received and collected for the DOTC, and intended for deposit under₱the account of DOTC
    with the Land Bank of the Philippines-Baguio City, by reason of herposition, while in the
    performance of her official functions, taking advantage of her position, didthen and there, wilfully,
    feloniously, and unlawfully misappropriate or consent, or throughabandonment or negligence,
    permit other persons to take such amount of 11,300.00 to the₱damage and prejudice of the
    government.Ophelia Hernan was convicted by the RTC of the crime of malversation. Hernan’s first
    counsel,filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction but modified the
    penaltyimposed. Upon motion, however, the CA set aside its decision on the finding that it has
    noappellate jurisdiction over the case. Instead, it is the Sandiganbayan which has
    exclusiveappellate jurisdiction over petitioner occupying a position lower than Salary Grade 27. Hernan
    procured a new counsel who appealed to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayanaffirmed the
    conviction. Atty. Leticia Gutierrez Hayes-Allen, her 2nd counsel, filed a motion forreconsideration
    blaming the first counsel in failing to elicit facts that would have acquittedHernan of the
    charge. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion filed in a Resolution dated August31, 2010 which became
    final and executory on June 26, 2013.On July 26, 2013, Atty. Meshack Macwes, third counsel, filed a
    motion to reopen the case andstay the execution of the judgment because the second counsel allegedly
    failed to receive 2010Sandiganbayan’s Resolution. Hernan’s second counsel was appointed to the PAO
    and thuschanged office address. However, the Sandiganbayan was not notified of the
    change ofaddress. Hernan’s counsel invoked the ruling in People v. Chavez wherein the Court held
    thatentry of judgment without receipt of the Resolution was premature. But the Sandiganbayan
    stilldenied the motion to reopen finding the pleadings prohibited.On January 9, 2014, Hernan’s third
    counsel filed a “Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer forRecall of Entry of Judgment in lieu of Prayer
    for Stay of Execution of Judgment”. On February 2,2015, the Sandiganbayan denied the petition
    finding the petition a third Motion forReconsideration which was likewise prohibited.Hernan’s
    counsel then filed a Rule 65 of the Rules of Court petition seeking to reverse and setaside the Resolution
    dated February 2, 2015 and Decision dated November 13, 2009 of theSandiganbayan 2nd Division
    which affirmed, with modification, the Decision dated June 28,2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
    Branch 7, Baguio City convicting petitioner of the crimeof malversation of public funds. Petitioner
    imputes grave abuse of discretion in the denial of theSandiganbayan of her motion to reopen of the case
    since evidence, not produced before thetrial court, would warrant reversal of the conviction

    ISSUE: Whether or not the final judgment can still be modified.RULING:No, but with exception. The
    general rule is that a judgment that has acquired finality becomesimmutable and unalterable, and
    may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification ismeant to correct erroneous
    conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court thatrendered it or by the highest
    court of the land. When, however, circumstances transpire after thefinality of the decision rendering its
    execution unjust and inequitable, the Court may sit en bane andgive due regard to such exceptional
    circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine ofimmutability.Let it be remembered
    that the doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and
    sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-
    judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law. The only exceptions to the
    general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tune entries which cause no
    prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
    decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. None of the exceptions is present in this
    case.The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that it is still necessary to reopen the instant case
    andrecall the Entry of Judgment dated June 26, 2013 of the Sandiganbayan, not for further reception
    ofevidence, however, as petitioner prays for, but in order to modify the penalty imposed by said court.
    To the Court, the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 entitled 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" as Amended which accordingly reduced the penalty applicable to the crime charged herein is an
    example of such exceptional circumstance. Therefore, We have here a novel situation wherein the
    judgment convicting the accused, petitioner herein, has already become final and executory and yet the
    penalty imposed thereon has been reduced by virtue of the passage of said law. Because of this, not
    only must petitioner's sentence be modified respecting the settled rule on the retroactive effectivity of
    laws, the sentencing being favorable to the accused, she may even apply for probation, as long as she
    does not possess any ground for disqualification, in view of recent legislation on probation, or R.A. No.
    10707 entitled An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of
    1976," As Amended. allowing an accused to apply for probation in the event that she is sentenced to
    serve a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than six (6) years when a judgment of conviction
    imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through
    the imposition of a probationable penalty.

    You might also like