BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

TEDDY PEŇA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 261807 (AUGUST 14, 2024): A CASE OF RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11362, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT

On 08 August 2019, President Rodrigo R. Duterte issued Republic Act No. 11362, otherwise known as the Community Service Act, which essentially gives the court, in its discretion, to require community service in lieu of imprisonment for minor offenses. The law is not self-executory, hence, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC, or the Guidelines in the Imposition of Community Service as Penalty in lieu of Imprisonment (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines became effective on 02 November 2020, after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 

The purpose of the law is to promote restorative justice and decongest jails. The law allows community service in lieu of jail sentence for offenses punishable by arresto menor (imprisonment from 1 to 30 days) and arresto mayor (imprisonment from 1 month to 6 months). Under Article 88 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, “community service is actual physical activity which inculcates civic consciousness and is intended towards the improvement of a public work or promotion of a public service.”

After promulgation of judgment or order where the imposable penalty is arresto menor or arresto mayor, it shall be the court’s duty to inform the accused of and announce in open court his/her options within 15 calendar days from date of promulgation, to wit: (a) file an appeal; (b) apply for probation as provided by law; or (c) apply that penalty be served by rendering community service in the place where the crime was committed.

The application may be resolved within five (5) days from receipt of the application. Upon receipt of the application for community service, the court shall immediately notify the following: (a) barangay chairperson or authorized representative of the barangay where the crime was committed; (b)representative from the provincial or city’s Probation Office; and (c) the local government unit’s Social Welfare Development Officer (SWDO). 

The application shall be heard and decided with dispatch. Failure of the accused to appear at the said hearing, except for justified reasons, shall be a ground to deny the application and a warrant of arrest shall be issued against the accused. Any decision on the application, whether favorable or not, shall not be subject to appeal. If an application was denied and there is still time left to file an appeal or probation, the accused may do so. Also, an accused who has applied and was granted probation in a previous case is not disqualified to apply for community service in a subsequent case.

In the case of Teddy Peňa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 261807, the Supreme Court, which earlier denied the petition and affirmed the conviction of accused Teddy Peňa of Slight Physical Injuries and Unjust Vexation, issued a Resolution dated August 14, 2024 which granted his motion for reconsideration imploring to impose community service instead of imprisonment. Accused Peňa was sentenced straight penalty of 15 days of arresto menor and a fine of Php5,000.00 for Slight Physical Injuries and straight penalty of 15 days of arresto menor and a fine of Php200.00 for Unjust Vexation. The Court noted that the trial court’s decision was promulgated on June 29, 2016 while the Community Service Act took effect on August 8, 2019 after due publication and its Guidelines took effect on November 2, 2020. But the Supreme Court retroactively applied the same to accused Peňa since being a penal law beneficial to the accused. The Court held:

“While generally, laws are prospective in application, penal laws which are favorable to the person guilty of felony who is not a habitual criminal, as in this case, are given retroactive effect following Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. It goes without saying, therefore, that the benefits granted under Republic Act No. 11362, being more favorable to Peňa, and despite having been enacted three years after the promulgation of judgment in his case, can still be availed by him. x x x Due to the unavailability of the foregoing options to Peňa before the trial court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals, he may, at the first instances before this Court, validly apply for the conversion of his sentence from imprisonment to community service.”

The imposition of the penalty of community service is discretionary upon the court. Under the Community Service Act, the court may or may not grant an application subject to the following factors: (a) the gravity of the offense; (b) the circumstances of the case; (c) the welfare of the society; and (d) he reasonable probability that the accused shall not violate the law while rendering the service. Another limitation is that it cannot be granted to a habitual delinquent or a person, who within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of Serious or Less Serious Physical Injuries, Robbery, Theft, Estafa or Falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

Thus, in Teddy Peňa vs. People of the Philippines, supra, the Supreme Court held that the imposition of community service, being discretionary, should not be taken as an unbridled license to commit minor offenses. “It is merely a privilege since the offender cannot choose it over imprisonment as a matter of right. Further, in requiring community service, the court shall consider the welfare of the society and the reasonable probability that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the service. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 11362, apart from the law’s objective to improve public work participation and promote public service, it is expected that the State’s policy to promote restorative justice to decongest jails will be achieved.”