CAPTION
G.R. No. 180016. April 29, 2014.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html
LITO CORPUZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Ponente: J. Diosdado Peralta
HIGHLIGHTED ISSUE FOR THE COURSE: EXCESSIVE FINES
*Opinion of J Peralta: Ponente
*Separate Dissenting Opinion – J. Abad
Listen to Youtube
*Listen to: SolGen Hilbay’s Speech in Youtube
Special Issue raised by the Court:
Is the legality of a legal provision subject to the passage of time?
Criminal penalties involving property and inflation
Actual Issue raised by petitioner:
Nature: Petition that the lower and appellate courts ERRED on four grounds of his criminal sentence.
RPC was Approved: December 8, 1930
83 years later, the monetary figures are still the same
FACTS
On May 2, 1991, Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy agreed that petitioner will sell his pieces of jewelry on commission basis with an aggregate value of ₱98,000.00 as evidenced by receipt. They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the same items, within a period of 60 days. The period expired without petitioner remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry, to the prejudice of Danilo Tangcoy. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed and refused to return the said items or to remit the amount.
Tangcoy accused petitioner Lito Corpuz of the felony of Estafa.
On Jan 1992, petitioner pleaded not guilty. He defended himself that he did not even see those jewelry and argued that the signed blank check, May 2 1991, was used as evidence against him was not for the purposes of repaying the jewelry, but as a requirement of payment for his loan to a certain Antonio Balajadia.
Both RTC and CA found him guilty under Article 315, paragraph one (1), subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code
RPC Article 315: if the amount of the fraud… exceeds the latter sum (P22,000) … the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years… the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusión temporal, as the case may be.
RTC Sentence:
FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correccional in its medium period AS MINIMUM
to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period AS MAXIMUM
CA Sentence:
4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum
to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year for each additional ₱10,000.00, or a total of 7 years.
//Affirmed3 Corpuz’s conviction but modified the penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus incremental penalty of one year for each additional ₱10,000 for a total maximum of 15 years.4
Petitioner filed with SC:
- The prosecution evidences were merely machine copies – violates the best evidence rule
- The Criminal Information are not sufficient to charge him under Article 315
- No fixed date to return the money/jewelry
- The date in the Information is not the same with private complainant (Info: 05 JULY 1991 v Testified: 02 MAY 1991)
- The demand to return the money/jewelry was not proven
- Prosecution’s case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt
- Conflicting testimonies of complainant Tangcoy
- Petitioner’s version is more logical
- Equipose rule was not applied in this case
- Penal statutes are strictly construed against the state (there is ambiguity)
SC Response:
- The CA was correct. Petitioner failed to interpose a timely objection- he never objected to their admissibility.
- The CA did not err. The /gruh-vey-men/ (gravaman – most essential part of an accusation) of the crime of estafa under Article 315 is conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. Time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime
- Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court – an information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
- ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). “Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. (b) By misappropriating… to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property… or by denying having received such money, goods, “
- The said date is also near the due date.
- Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court – an information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
- SC Disagrees. There was an oral demand as private complainant narrated how he was able to locate petitioner after almost two (2) months.
- Tangcoy found Corpuz and talked to him twice. Corpuz promised to take obligation and pay the amount owed.
- The law was silent on the element of demand. When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify.
- Absence of written demand is not fatal.
- Cited Tubb v. People: Query tantamounts to demand
- Petition is devoid of merit
- Observing the demeanor of witnesses is the unique opportunity of the trial courts. Appellate courts merely rely on records. Truth is established not by quantity of witnesses but by quality of their testimonies.
ISSUE
W/N the lower and appellate courts ERRED on four grounds of his criminal sentence.
HELD
Decisions of the Lower Courts AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: From 3 yrs, 2 months, 11 days as prision correcional, as minimum, to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
//That the penalty imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS of prision correccional, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Computation following the literal numerical figures of RPC Art 315.
If we do the math based on the face value of RPC Article 315, P98,000 less P22,000 = P76,000
P76,000 divided by P10,000 = 7.6 years
Prision mayor min period: 6 years, 1 day to 8 years
Therefore, 8 yrs + 7.8 yrs = 15.8 yrs
Petitioner: “The Information is Defective”
the gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315 is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner… time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime
RA 10951 – effect of this case: does not confer jurisdiction, but adjusts fines in the RPC
LESSON
Classmate: I think ang essence di sa case is there is a need to review the current value of the purchasing power of the peso now compared before kay daw ka unreasonable sa penalty in relation to the subject amount of prosecution.. Like how much is 200 pesos then when the law has been passed compared today. Ho much is 200 pesos in the year 1935 as to the value today.
SPECIAL ISSUE
While this Court’s Third Division was contemplating this case, the question came up whether imposing the value of money in 1930 to conviction of crimes should be valid or continued.
Depreciating value or inflationary element of the monetary provisions under the RPC Article 315 through the passage of time, seems to lead to increasing and excessive penalty as prohibited by the Constitution.
The division refered the case to Court En Banc and invited amici curiae (friend or advisors for the Court). However, this Court cannot modify … that would be judicial legislation. The legislature’s perceived failure… cannot be remedied through this Court’s decisions. However, the situation is not without remedy for the framers may have presumed this situation by including Article 5:
ART. 5. Duty of the court… in cases of excessive penalties. – Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress … it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
2 Reasons to Go this Path
- Acts which should be repressed but are not yet punishable
- When penalties are excessive/harsh
Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and wife: “Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian principle that justice must be tempered with mercy.”
OPINIONS OF AMICI CURIAE: DEAN DIOKNO
- The incremental penalty provided under Article 315 of the RPC violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- Four requisites of reasonableness:
- The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
- It is germane to the purposes of the law;
- It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
- It applies equally to all members of the same class.
- Article 315 of RPC constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
- Citing Citing Solem v. Helm, whether a sentence is proportional to the crime
- (1) Compare the nature and gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the penalty;
- (2) Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, i.e., whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties; and
- (3) Compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
- Citing Citing Solem v. Helm, whether a sentence is proportional to the crime
DISSENTING OPINIONS
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE ABAD
but affirming the sentence with modification
If taken literally, the current provision will be cruel, degrading, unusual.
Summary
- w/n SC can raise constitutionality even when Corpuz did not raise such question (Motu Proprio)
- w/n penalty imposed violates his consti right of equal protection
- w/n it’s cruel, unusual, degrading punishment
- w/n Court can declare penalties unconstitutional and adjust amount to its 1932 equivalent
- Motu Proprio (an official act taken without a formal request from another party)
- The Court has taken cognizance of the same despite lack of jurisprudential requirements for judicial review.
- People v. Hon. Judge Vera
- GSIS v Cebu City – while the respondent manifested loss of interest, social justice and public interest demand that [x x x] the constitutionality of the proviso be resolved
- The Court has taken cognizance of the same despite lack of jurisprudential requirements for judicial review.
- Property Crime Penalties and Inflation
- This case will use ₱1 is to ₱100—in comparing the prices of the past (1930-1949) with the present.
- Escalation of Penalties
- 79 cavans of rice in 1930-1949 = 2 years and 4 months maximum
- Now, it’s 20 years, she would leave the prison an old woman. ₱142,200.00 (₱1,800.00 per cavan) which is the application of:
₱22,001 and above = 8 yrs. & 1 day plus 1 year for every additional ₱10,000.00 (but not more than 20 years)
- This uneven treatment is true in Corpuz’s case. The ₱98,000.00 jewelry items subject of his offense would have a value of only ₱980 in 1932. This result would undoubtedly deny Corpuz his constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
- Incremental Penalty and the Cruel, Unusual, and Degrading Punishment Clause
- such law violates his constitutional right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment, joined by Diokno and J. Carpio
- the penalty grossly disproportionate to the wrong committed. This view would thus have the incremental penalty voided.
- If Justice Carpio’s view adopted (1:100), the penalties will also be disproportionate
- For instance, Estafa of cooking oil worth P2.03 in 1930-1949, he would be imprisoned for 6 months maximum for estafa. P203 today, he would be imprisoned for 2 years and 4 months maximum.
- Housemaid guilty of Qualified Theft today:
- a) 6 years in prison for a toothbrush worth ₱5;29
- b) 12 years in prison for a lipstick worth ₱39;30
- c) 14 years and 8 months in prison for a pair of female slippers worth ₱150;31
- d) 20 years in prison for a wristwatch worth ₱19,000;32 or
- e) 30 years in prison for a branded lady’s handbag worth ₱125,000.33
- Judicial Construction of Statutes
- Annulling Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code or portions of it slaps the hand of the legislature that enacted it
- did not foresee the onslaught of inflation in the second half of the century.
- Comparison Reynaldo, the houseboy, vs Ricardo and Apolonio for their brutal crime. Same penalty.
Summary of dissent of Abad: it is the amount of money or value of the thing defrauded, taken, malversed, or damaged that undergoes adjustment or correction resulting from a realistic appreciation of the facts of the case. The law is not amended or changed.
Concerns for this dissent:
- If adopted, the same would result in the lowering of the penalties that courts have these past years been meting out for crimes involving property. It is pointed out that the ruling fails to take into account its effect on the victims.
- BUT, the dissent is not advocating the lowering of the penalties for those crimes; it merely seeks the restoration of the correct penalties.
- The victims of crimes today are not entitled to retributions that are harsher than what the law provides. They have no right to exact more blood than the victims of yesterday.
Oral Arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBohIuvPeE&feature=share
SENIOR SOL GEN HILBAY
- Congress could have chosen from a wide regime of penalty schemes
- Variable imprisonment for every absolute value: 1 day imprisonment: P10 swindled
- Flat rate of imprisonment regardless of amount swindled, with civil damages
- No imprisonment but only fine on increasing amounts
- Value of assets stolen in relation to assets of victim or perpetrator
- Imprisonment based on purchasing power on a certain period of time
- SCHEME of ABSOLUTE VALUE of PENALTY
- External manifestation of implicit concept of proportionality
- This Court CANNOT impose NAKED PREFERENCE
- Court should not impose penalty based on inflating value of peso but should be ABSOLUTE VALUE
- DETERMINING THE JUSTNESS OF THE PENALTY is a COMPLICATED MATTER
- There is no relative value we can compare to, it’s a complicated matter
- Is the adjustment more just and constitutional? Not necessarily. This non sequitur. There is no spatial requirement. Adjusting along the continuum of time is complicating.
- P98,000 is still an overwhelming amount to majority of our population. 4 yrs to 15 yrs is not so unfair.
- The PUNITIVE value protects the income capacity of GENERAL POPULATION
- Protection of the poor and the middle class. They value P98,000 more as compared to 9.8 Million
- Dangers of over-simplification
“Anton Pandan” 2:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBohIuvPeE&feature=share
Test for Validity of Proposal
- Purchasing power of the peso as the standard?
- Absolute or relative value? It violates Verba Legis (Literal)
- Is the penalty so repulsive by today’s standards? (4 yrs) No
- Inflation and fairness: Referral of the matter to the President and Congress. Article 5
ART. 5. Duty of the court… in cases of excessive penalties. – Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress … it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
FOCUS DISCUSSION IN THE CLASS
There are many species of relative value. There is no clear answer or alternative for the penalty. Therefore, the Congress meant absolute value.
Since 1930 to 2014, Congress did not do anything to change it. Meaning, they did not think there’s something wrong with it. They did not see it as unfair.
JUSTICE LEONEN
- The concept of currency can be read in 3 ways:
- 200 is absolute but Pesos is a concept of currency which has many uses
- Medium of Exchange
- Store of Value
- Absolute Number
- P22,000 can be read in 3 ways. From your point of view can be read only in one way. You said Value. Value is relative.
- Leonen: What is our assurance that your view is the only way? The only viable interpretation.
- Collectively Shocking to the senses:
- Who are these collective?
- Who will do the survey? Congress
- How about this court, are we not collective? There is a reason we are a collegial court.
- Isn’t the constitution say “cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment”
- Proposal is we do our role of INTERPRETATION not declare UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Courts need to implement a penalty
- Two Tasks
- Finding liability – draw elements of offese
- Sentencing penalty – indeterminate penalties and intepretation
JUSTICE DE CASTRO
You said protecting the rights of the poor, what about the rights of the criminal?
Congress still values this as just and fair.
JUSTICE PEREZ
Hilbay: “There is traction in Congress now to take a serious look.”
Perez: “Then ABSOLUTE VALUE does not apply here.”
Source: Class Notes Doc