G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014 Lito Corpuz, petitioner Vs. People of the Philippines, respondent ISSUE Whether or not there is a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties (excessive fines) that the courts continue to impose against property committed today – specially in estafa.
RULING Petition to review on Certiorati petitioned by Lito Corpuz is DENIED. The Court affirmed with modification the decision of RTC and Court of Appeals finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, sub -paragraph (b) of the RPC. The Court affirmed with Modification that the penalty imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 3 years, 2 months and 11 days of prison correccional, as minimum, and 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. FACTS
Facts according to private complainant: o According to private complainant Danilo Tongcoy, he and the petitioner (Corpuz) met at the Admiral Royale Casino is Olongapo City sometime in 1990. o Private complainant (Tongcoy) was then engaged in a business of lending money to casino players and petitioner (Corpuz) heared that Tongcoy had some jewelries for sale. o Corpuz approached approached Tongcoy on May May 2, 1991 and offered to sell the the said jewelries on a commission basis. o Tongcoy agreed and turned over to the petitioner the following items with a total value of 98,000 pesos: 18k diamond ring for men (45,000 pesos) woman’s bracelet (12,000 pesos) 1 men’s necklace (*price not indicated in case but it’s 16,000 pesos) men’s bracelet (25,000 pesos) o According to Tongcoy, Corpuz signed a receipt. And they both agreed that the petitioner shall remit the proceed of the sale and/or, if unsold to return the same it ems, within a period of 60 days. o The period expired without the petitioner remitting the proceeds of sale or returning the unsold jewelries.
Private complainant was able to meet the petitioner, and the latter promised that he will pay for the value of items entrusted to him. (But to no avail) o Private complainant then filed against petitioner the crime of estafa. Petitioner Corpuz entered a plea of not guilty. Trial in the merits ensued. Defense presented the lone testimony of the petitioner. o Petitioner and private complainant were collecting agents of Antonio Balajadia, who is engaged in loaning business o Petitioner denied having transacted any business with private complainant. o Petitioner admitted of obtaining a loan from Balajadia for which he signed a black receipt. o Petitioner claimed that the same receipt then dated May 2, 1991 was used as evidence against him for the supposed agreement to sell the jewelries, which he never saw. RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph b of the RPC. (ruling: 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional in i t’s medium period as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of reclkusion temporal in its minimum period as the maximum. To indemnify the amount of 98,000 as actual damage and to pay for the cost of suit.) Case was elevated to the court of appeals. Petition was also denied. CA affirmed with modification (indeterminate penalty of 4 years 2 months of prison correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prison mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year for each additional 10,000 pesos or a total of 7 years) o According to the petitioner, CA erred in affirming the rules of trial court, admitting the evidence of receipt, although it was merely a photocopy, thus violating the rule of evidence. Records show that the petitioner never objected the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified. Established doctrine is when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection is considered waived. o Another procedural issue raised by the petitioner that there was a formally defective information filed against him. The information does not contain the period when the jewelries were to be returned and and that the date date of the crime was different from the one testified by the private complainant (Tongcoy) According to CA, objections as to the matter of form and substance in information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner (time of the occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime.) Exclusion of the period and wrong date of occurrence of the crime do not make the information fatally defective. o Moreoever, according to the petitioner the last element of estafa, which is, that there is a demand by the offended party on the offender, was not proven. Court disagrees. No specific type of proof is required to show there was demand. o
o
Demand need not be formal; it maybe verbal. (should a written demand be necessary, the law should have stated so)
k
The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime. The credibility of prosecution’s sole witness was also questioned by the petitioner. o SC gived great respected to the evaluation of the RTC for it has a unique opportunity to observe the witness (specially when affirmed by the CA), an opportunity denied by the appellate court QUESTION OF THE CONTINUED VALIDITY OF IMPOSING ON PERSONS CONVICTED OF CRIMED INVOLVING PROPERTIES CAME UP. Members of the division reached no unanimity on the question above, they ref erred the case to the Court en banc for consideration and resolution. Thus, several amici curiae (an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case) were invited. (Senate president and speaker of the house was invited) Legislature pegged these penalties to the value of money and property in 1932 when the RPC was enacted. There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the court continues to impose on crime against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money 80 years ago in 1932. The court however cannot modify the range of penalties because that would constitute juridical legislation. However, this does not render the whole situation without remedy. The framers of the RPC anticipated this matter by including Art. 5 o “Art. 5 – duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties” o If not punishable by law – court shall render the proper decision and shall report to Chief Executive thru DOJ and the reasons why the act should be made subject of penal legislation o In case of excessive penalties – where the act is already punishable by law, the only remedy is not to suspend the execution of the sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive thru DOJ the reasons why the court considers the said penalty to be noncommensurate with the act. (why the penalty is excessive) Some of the justices feels that the penalties imposed in the RPC is excessive, exces sive, based on my understanding. However, However, they could not change these penalties si nce it is the Legislation’s job to do so. An argument raised by Dean Jose Manula Diokno, one the esteemed amici curiae, that the incremental penalty rule) provided under Art 315 (Estafa) of the RPC incremental penalty (IPR – incremental violated the Equal Protection Clause and is a cruel and unusal punishement. The equal protection clause require equality among equals, which is tested by 4 requisites: o Classification rest on substantial distinctions
IPR does not rest on substantial distinctions as 10k may be substancial in the past, but not today. (violates first requisite) o Germane to the purpose of law IPR was devised so that those who commit estafa involving higher amounts would receive heavier penalties, however this is no longer achieved cause a person who steals 142k would receive the same penalty as someone who steals 100M. (violates second requisite) o Not limited to existing conditions only The IPR is limited to existing conditions at the time the law was promulgated, conditions that no longer exist today. (violated 3 rd req.) o Applies equally to all members of the same class (not violated ) Assuming the court submits the argument of Dean Diokno and declares the incremental penalty in Art 315 unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause, then this proposition poses more questions than answers. According According to the court, the only remedy it to refer these matters to Congress for them to exercise their inherent power to legislate laws. Dean Diokno’s was of the opinion that if the Court declares the IPR unconstitutional, unconstitutional, the remedy if to go to Congress Changing the penalty through court decision may not be legal and constitutionally feasible. The duty of the Court is merely to apply the laws in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative power by judicial legislation. The Court should shy away from encroaching the primary function of the Legislative Body; otherwise this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Justice Antonio Caprio’s opinion also states that the incremental penalty provisions should be declared unconstitutional. unconstitutional. He also suggested that until the law is i s amended by the Congress, all crimes of Estafa will no longer be punished by the appropriate penalties. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, drastic twist in the application of law has no legal basis and directly counter to what the law provides. According to case, death penalty was reintroduced, however the court did not impede the imposition of the death penalty on the grounds that it is a “cruel punishment”. So even if the imposed penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the court cannot declare the provisions of the law where the penalty emanates to be unconstitutional. The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual. Even if they find the penalties imposed cruel, it is for the Congress to amend the law and adapt it in our modern time. OPINIONS Chief Justice, Sereno o Concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but votes to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing subject of the offense. The current penalty imposed has remained untouched for 83 years. o The punishment imposed on petitioner is within range of the penalty imposable on the petitioner under this Code IF he “killed the private complainant in a anfry confrontation” or IF the petitioner ‘kidnapped the private petitioner and kept him detained for three years.
Crimes resulting in the deprivation of life li fe and liberty (like the sample of homicide and kidnapping) are unquestionably more serious than crimes resulting in the deprivation of property. By imposing a level of punishment for estafa EQUAL to more serious crimes such as homicide and kidnapping, ART. 315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty based on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and disproportionate disproportionate to the severity of the crime punished. Justice Brion o Concur with the conclusion that Lito Corpuz is guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt. o Modifying the penalties (as proposed by some justices) is not judicial interpretation but it is judicial legislation that is unconstitutional and illegal breach of the doctrine of separate powers. o Does not agree with the expressed opinion that the incremental penalty imposed on estafa is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment. o
** THERE ARE SOME WHO STILL THINKS THAT THE PENALTIES IMPOSED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, based on what I read, it is i s still up to the congress to amend the penalties in the RPC. If the court modifies the penalties, it would be considered a judicial legislation not judicial interpretation.
