Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Settled is the rule that in

G.R. No. 180016. April 29, 2014.* assessing the credibility of witnesses, the Supreme Court gives great respect
LITO CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to
respondent. observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness
Criminal Law; Estafa; The gravamen of the crime of estafa under stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the
Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code records of the case.—Anent the credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness,
(RPC) is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to which is questioned by petitioner, the same is unmeritorious. Settled is the
the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great
ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of the period and the wrong respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity
date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the Information, do not to observe the
make the latter fatally defective.—The CA 3
_______________ VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 3
* EN BANC.
Corpuz vs. People
1
demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an
2
opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of the case. The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and
Corpuz vs. People binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
did not err in finding that the Information was substantially complete circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such finding is
and in reiterating that objections as to the matters of form and substance affirmed by the CA. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses,
in the Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. It is true but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and
that the gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.
subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; There seems to be a perceived
or property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to
occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount
of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago in 1932.
in the Information, do not make the latter fatally defective. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that
Same; Same; Estafa With Abuse of Confidence; Elements of.—The would constitute judicial legislation.—There seems to be a perceived
elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money, injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue
goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on to impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving amount of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago in
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender because that would constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature’s
or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or perceived failure in amending the penalties provided for in the said crimes
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a cannot be remedied through this Court’s decisions, as that would be
demand made by the offended party on the offender. encroaching upon the power of another branch of the government. This,
Same; Same; Demand; No specific type of proof is required to show however, does not render the whole situation without any remedy. It can
that there was demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be be appropriately presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code
verbal.—No specific type of proof is required to show that there was (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including Article 5, which
demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific reads: ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has indeed been made repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a demand. may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it
shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
1
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject from encroaching upon the primary function of a co-equal
of penal legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the 5
Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 5
statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
Corpuz vs. People
execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers by means of
excessive
judicial legislation.
4penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and
Same; Civil Indemnity; In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded
the injury caused by the offense.
to the offended party as a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to
Same; Penalties; For acts bourne out of a case which is not punishable
the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to the latter by the
by law and the court finds it proper to repress, the remedy is to render the
accused, which in a sense only covers the civil aspect.—In our jurisdiction,
proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive, through the
civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary
Department of Justice (DOJ), the reasons why the same act should be the
restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that
subject of penal legislation.—For acts bourne out of a case which is not
was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil
punishable by law and the court finds it proper to repress, the remedy is to
aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a crime where a person
render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive,
dies, in addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed to the offender,
through the Department of Justice, the reasons why the same act should
the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as restitution.
be the subject of penal legislation. The premise here is that a deplorable
Clearly, this award of civil indemnity due to the death of the victim could
act is present but is not the subject of any penal legislation, thus, the court
not be contemplated as akin to the value of a thing that is unlawfully taken
is tasked to inform the Chief Executive of the need to make that act
which is the basis in the imposition of the proper penalty in certain crimes.
punishable by law through legislation. The second paragraph is similar to
Thus, the reasoning in increasing the value of civil indemnity awarded in
the first except for the situation wherein the act is already punishable by
some offense cannot be the same reasoning that would sustain the adoption
law but the corresponding penalty is deemed by the court as excessive. The
of the suggested ratio. Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law
remedy therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to suspend the execution
only imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity, which is
of the sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive the reasons why the
P3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the
court considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate with the act
minimum amount for the award cannot be changed, increasing the amount
committed. Again, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive, this
awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the
time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.
present circumstance warrants it. Corollarily, moral damages under
Same; Courts; The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the
Article 2220 of the Civil Code also does not fix the amount of damages that
law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial
can be awarded. It is discretionary upon the court, depending on the mental
legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it
anguish or the suffering of the private offended party. The amount of moral
should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of
damages can, in relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does
interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law,
not exceed the award of civil indemnity.
or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms.—Verily, the
Same; Penalties; Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel
primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that
punishment, the Court cannot declare the provision of the law from which
it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the
the proper penalty emanates unconstitutional in the present action.—Even
course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise
if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court cannot
legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend,
declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty emanates
distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is
unconstitutional in the present action. Not only is it violative of due
repugnant to its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner that
process, considering that the
would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is clear
6

2
 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED and the likes must be painstakingly evaluated and weighed upon in
order to arrive at a wholistic change that all of us believe should be made
Corpuz vs. People
to our existing law. Dejectedly, the Court is ill-equipped, has no resources,
State and the concerned parties were not given the opportunity to
and lacks sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor
comment on the subject matter, it is settled that the constitutionality of a
studies and surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal
statute cannot be attacked collaterally because constitutionality issues
Code. This function clearly and appropriately belongs to Congress.
must be pleaded directly and not collaterally, more so in the present
Same; Same; It is truly beyond the powers of the Court to legislate
controversy wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of
laws, such immense power belongs to Congress and the Court should refrain
any of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
from crossing this clear-cut divide.—With due respect to the opinions and
Same; Same; Cruel and Unusual Punishment; It has long been held
proposals advanced by the Chief Justice and my Colleagues, all the
that the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed
proposals ultimately lead to prohibited judicial legislation. Short of being
at the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect
repetitious and as extensively discussed above, it is truly beyond the
of duration or amount, and applies to punishments which public sentiment
powers of the Court to legislate laws, such immense power belongs to
has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the
Congress and the Court should refrain from crossing this clear-cut divide.
whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel,
With regard to civil indemnity, as elucidated before, this refers to civil
disemboweling, and the like.—It has long been held that the prohibition of
liability which is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary
cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or character
restitution. It is truly based on the value of money. The same cannot be
of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount,
said on penalties because, as earlier stated, penalties are not only based on
and applies to punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel
the value of money, but on several other factors. Further, since the law is
or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the
silent as to the maximum amount that can be awarded and only pegged
pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and
the minimum sum, increasing the amount granted as civil indemnity is not
the like. Fine and imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition.
proscribed. Thus, it can be adjusted in light of current conditions.
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or
Sereno, CJ., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that I concur with the ponencia
punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and
in affirming the conviction of petitioner but vote to apply the penalty for
unusual. Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the
estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing subject of the offense.—I
ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive,” “wholly
concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but vote
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of
to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing
the community.” Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the
subject of the offense. Considering that the penalty has remained
Congress to amend the law and adapt it to our modern time.
untouched for eighty-three years, the Court cannot adhere to its literal
Same; Same; The Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks
imposition without first revisiting the assigned values on which such
sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies and
penalty was based. The Legislature of 1930 pegged the penalties at the
surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal Code (RPC).—
prevailing value of money at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal
The solution to the present controversy could not be solved by merely
Code. Apart from its representation as a basket of goods or as a means of
adjusting the questioned monetary values to the present value of money
exchange,
based only on the current inflation rate. There are other factors and
8
variables that need to be taken into consideration, researched, and
deliberated upon before the said values could be accurately and properly 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
adjusted. The effects on the society, the injured party, the accused, its Corpuz vs. People
socio-economic impact, money has no independent value by itself, and that is how the law has
7 always seen it. Even this outlook must then necessarily affect our views
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 7 regarding the liberty of persons and how money affects it.
Same; Same; Same; View that the legislative intent behind provisions
Corpuz vs. People
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is to create prison terms dependent upon
3
the value of the property subject of the crime.—The legislative intent behind Same; Same; Same; View that I agree with the view of Justice Roberto
provisions of the Revised Penal Code is to create prison terms dependent A. Abad that while Article 2206 of the Civil Code sets only a minimum
upon the value of the property subject of the crime. A prison term is amount, the Court since then has regularly increased amounts awarded by
virtually monetized, while an individual’s life and well-being hang in the the lower courts; Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality — among
balance. It is incumbent upon the Court to preserve the intent of Congress other instances when the Court has acknowledged “changed conditions” —
while crucially ensuring that the individual’s liberty is not impinged upon only shows that criminal rules, especially the implementation of penalties,
any longer than necessary. This is distinct from the situation contemplated must also evolve.—I agree with the view of Justice Roberto A. Abad that
under Article 5, par. 2 of the Penal Code, in which the Court would need to while Article 2206 of the Civil Code sets only a minimum amount, the
delve into the wisdom of the law, i.e., the appropriateness of the penalty Court since then has regularly increased amounts awarded by the lower
taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused by the courts. Tellingly, these decisions and resolutions are not mere suggestions
offense. Thus, the crux of the present case is simple judicial application of or guidelines for the trial courts’ exercise of discretion, but are actual
the doctrines that in cases of doubt: 1) the law must be construed in favor findings of error. Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality — among
of the accused; 2) it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right other instances when the Court has acknowledged “changed conditions” —
and justice to prevail. This duty of judicial construction is understood to only shows that criminal rules, especially the implementation of penalties,
permeate every corner where the Court exercises its adjudicative function, must also evolve. As societies develop, become more enlightened, new
specifically in how it expounds on criminal rules. To assume that the Court truths are disclosed. The Court as an institution cannot ignore these truths
would be changing the penalty imprudently leads to a misplaced to the detriment of basic rights. The reality is that property-related crimes
apprehension that it dabbles in judicial legislation, when it is merely are affected by external economic forces, rendering the penalties
exercising its constitutional role of interpretation. vulnerable to these forces.
Same; Same; Same; View that it is axiomatic that laws, customs, Same; Same; Same; Pro Reo Rule; View that the rationale behind the
public policy and practice evolve with the passage of time; so too, does pro reo rule and other rules that favor the accused is anchored on the
monetary valuation.—It is axiomatic that laws, customs, public policy and rehabilitative philosophy of our penal system.—The rationale behind the
practice evolve with the passage of time; so too, does monetary valuation. pro reo rule and other rules that favor the accused is anchored on the
Money has no value in and of itself except that which we assign, making it rehabilitative philosophy of our penal system. In People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil.
susceptible to construction and interpretation. Money is not real in the 109 (1933), the Court explained that it is “necessary to consider the
sense that it is capable of being indexed. Viewed in this way, human lives criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a member of society. This
and liberty cannot be made dependent on a mere index of almost a century opens up an almost limitless field of investigation and study which it is the
ago. I submit that in the present case, the Court is not even delving into duty of the court to explore in each case as far as is humanly possible, with
questions of validity of the substance of the statute. This is no different the end in
from the Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons or the 10
determination of valuation in expropriation cases. We have 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
9
Corpuz vs. People
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 9 view that penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is
Corpuz vs. People possible to the individual, with due regard to the imperative necessity of
continually checked penalties in criminal cases, adjusted the amounts protecting the social order.”
of damages and indemnities according to the appropriateness thereof in Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; Judicial Power; View that
light of current times. We have done so with eyes open, knowing that the establishing a policy or a rule of preference towards the unnecessary
adjustments reflect a realization that the value of the peso has changed deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness has always been
over time. If the purchasing power of the peso was accepted as a “judicially within the scope of judicial power.—The imposition of a policy on penalties
manageable standard” in those cases, there is no reason for the Court not is not far removed from the judicial construction exercised in the present
to apply it in favor of the accused herein, especially because it is mandated case. Establishing a policy or a rule of preference towards
to do so. the unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic
usefulness has always been within the scope of judicial power.
4
 Statutory Construction; View that in case of doubt in the interpretation parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes are equally or less severely
or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended punished; or (2) whether the punishment reasonably advances the state
right and justice to prevail.—Article 10 of the Civil Code states: “In case of interest behind the penalty.—Impermissible disproportionality is better
doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the gauged by testing punishments against the following alternative
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.” The Code parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes are equally or less severely
Commission found it necessary to include this provision to “strengthen the punished; or (2) whether the punishment reasonably advances the state
determination of the Court to avoid an injustice which may apparently be interest behind the penalty. These parameters strike the proper balance of
authorized in some way of interpreting the law.” providing practical tools of adjudication to weigh claims of cruel
Constitutional Law; Due Process; View that fear of clogged dockets punishment while at the same time affording Congress discretionary
and the inconvenience of a perceived distortion are operational concerns leeway to craft penal statutes addressing societal evils.
that are not sufficient justification to re-tilt the scales to the prejudice of the Same; Same; Same; View that by imposing a level of punishment for
accused.—Fear of clogged dockets and the inconvenience of a perceived estafa equal to more serious crimes such as homicide and kidnapping,
distortion are operational concerns that are not sufficient justification to Article 315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty based on the
re-tilt the scales to the prejudice of the accused. It does not impact on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and disproportionate to the severity of
fact that by adjusting the questioned amounts to the present value of the crime punished.—Article 315 of the Code calibrates the maximum
money, the Court would merely be following the mandate of Article 10 and penalty for estafa on an escalated basis once a threshold amount of fraud
fulfilling its proper constitutional role. is crossed (P22,000). The penalty escalates on a ratio of one year
Carpio, J., Dissenting Opinion: imprisonment for every P10,000 fraud, with 20 years as ceiling.
Constitutional Law; Cruel Punishment Clause; Penalties; View that Accordingly, for a fraud of P98,000, the trial
the Filipino people who ratified the present Constitution could not have 12
intended to limit the reach of the Cruel Punishment Clause to cover torture 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and other forms of odious punishments only because
Corpuz vs. People
11
court sentenced petitioner to a maximum term of 15 years. This
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 11 punishment, however, is within the range of the penalty imposable on
Corpuz vs. People petitioner under the Code had he “killed the [private complainant] jeweler
nearly four decades before the present Constitution took effect, the in an angry confrontation.” The same penalty would also be within the
Philippine government joined the community of nations in approving the range prescribed by the Code had petitioner kidnapped the private
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which bans complainant and kept him detained for three days. By any objective
“torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”— standard of comparison, crimes resulting in the deprivation of life or liberty
Indeed, the Filipino people who ratified the present Constitution could not are unquestionably more serious than crimes resulting in the deprivation
have intended to limit the reach of the Cruel Punishment Clause to cover of property. By imposing a level of punishment for estafa equal to more
torture and other forms of odious punishments only because nearly four serious crimes such as homicide and kidnapping, Article 315’s system of
decades before the present Constitution took effect, the Philippine calibrating the maximum penalty based on the amount of fraud is plainly
government joined the community of nations in approving the Universal arbitrary and disproportionate to the severity of the crime punished.
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which bans “torture or x x x Same; Same; Same; View that the Cruel Punishment Clause ensures
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In 1986, shortly that the state interest is advanced without sacrificing proportionality
before the Constitution took effect, the Philippines ratified the between the crime and punishment. In short, the Clause acts as
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) containing constitutional brake whenever Congress enacts punishment whose severity
an identically worded prohibition. These international norms formed part is gratuitous, wholly unconnected to the purpose of the law.—The penalties
of Philippine law as generally accepted principles of international law and of imprisonment and/or fine attached to each crime are meant to deter and
binding treaty obligation, respectively. incapacitate criminals from infringing such right. The Cruel Punishment
Same; Same; Same; View that impermissible disproportionality is Clause ensures that the state interest is advanced without sacrificing
better gauged by testing punishments against the following alternative proportionality between the crime and punishment. In short, the Clause
5
acts as constitutional brake whenever Congress enacts punishment whose measured using relevant standards unrelated to questions of criminal
severity is gratuitous, wholly unconnected to the purpose of the law. malice and injury.—Testing Article 315 against the Cruel Punishment
Same; Same; Same; View that the breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause under the standards espoused in this opinion does not make a dead
Clause by Article 315’s system of calculating the maximum penalty for letter law of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Code. Such provision,
estafa in excess of P22,000 means that only the minimum term of mandating courts to recommend executive clemency — when a strict
imprisonment provided under Article 315 for such crime can be imposed on enforcement of the provisions of th[e] Code would result in the imposition
petitioner, namely, prisión correccional in its maximum period.—The of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice
breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause by Article 315’s system of and the injury caused by the offense. (Emphasis supplied) operates within
calculating the maximum penalty for estafa in excess of P22,000 means the realm of criminal law, requiring fact-based judicial evaluation on the
that only the minimum term of imprisonment provided under Article 315 degree of malice of the accused and the injury sustained by the victim or
for such crime can be imposed on petitioner, namely, prisión correccional in his heirs. The Cruel Punishment Clause, on the other hand, is the
its maximum period. This level of penalty is covered by the Indeterminate constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are meas-
Sentence Law which renders the next lower penalty, namely, prisión 14
correccional in its medium period, as the minimum of the sentence. The 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
entirety of the sentence will be anywhere within the range of these
Corpuz vs. People
maximum and
ured using relevant standards unrelated to questions of criminal
13
malice and injury. Far from overlapping, the conclusions yielded by
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 13 analyses under these two rules are distinct — a penal statute may well
Corpuz vs. People avoid the taint of unconstitutionality under the Clause but, applying such
minimum penalties. Hence, petitioner’s term of imprisonment should statute under peculiar set of facts, may justify a recommendation for the
be modified to three (3) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prisión grant of clemency.
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) Same; Same; Same; View that the constitutional infirmity not only of
days of prisión correccional, as maximum. Article 315 but also of related provisions in the Code calls for a
Same; Same; Same; Syndicated Estafa (P.D. No. 1689); View that the comprehensive review by Congress of such 82-year old legislation.—The
penalty for the felony of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree (P.D.) constitutional infirmity not only of Article 315 but also of related provisions
No. 1689 is an altogether different matter. PD 1689 amended Article 315 of in the Code calls for a comprehensive review by Congress of such 82-year
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by adding a new mode of committing estafa old legislation. Pending such congressional review, this Court should
and imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment to death” or “reclusion decline to enforce the incremental penalty in Article 315 because such
temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds continued enforcement of the incremental penalty violates the Cruel
P100,000.”—The penalty for the felony of syndicated estafa under Punishment Clause.
Presidential Decree No. 1689 (PD 1689) is, however, an altogether different Brion, J., Concurring Opinion:
matter. PD 1689 amended Article 315 of the Code by adding a new mode Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; View that what they propose to
of committing estafa and imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment to do involves an undue and unwarranted invocation of the Supreme Court’s
death” or “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the judicial power — an act that cannot be done without violating the due
fraud exceeds P100,000.” Unlike Article 315, PD 1689 does not calibrate process rights of the Republic.—In my view, what they propose to do
the duration of the maximum range of imprisonment on a fixed time-to- involves an undue and unwarranted invocation of the Court’s judicial
peso ratio (1 year for every P10,000 in excess of P22,000), but rather power — an act that cannot be done without violating the due process
provides a straight maximum penalty of death or reclusion perpetua. This rights of the Republic. Notably, the Republic focused solely and was heard
places PD 1689 outside of the ambit of the proscription of the Cruel only on the matter of estafa. In fact, the present case is only about estafa,
Punishment Clause on the imposition of prison terms calibrated based on not any other crime. To touch these other crimes in the present case
the value of the money or property swindled, unadjusted to inflation. likewise involves acts of policy determination on the substance of the law
Same; Same; Same; View that the Cruel Punishment Clause, on the by the Judiciary — a violation of the highest order of the limits imposed on
other hand, is the constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are us by the Constitution.
6
 Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; View that in reviewing cannot be questioned by another department. Outside of their defined
criminal cases, we recognize our duty to correct errors as may be found in spheres of action, none of the great governmental departments has any
the judgment appealed raised by the parties as errors, regardless of whether power, and nor may any of them validly exercise the powers conferred upon
they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not.—I am not the others.
unaware that an appeal in criminal cases throws the case wide open for 16
review, and allows the reviewing tribunal the power to correct errors or to 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reverse the trial court’s decisions on the grounds other than those raised
Corpuz vs. People
by the parties as
Same; Same; Judicial Power; View that Section 1, paragraph 2,
15
Article VIII of the Constitution states that judicial power “includes the duty
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 15 of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
Corpuz vs. People are legally demandable and enforceable,” as well as to “determine whether
errors. In reviewing criminal cases, we recognize our duty to correct or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
errors as may be found in the judgment appealed regardless of whether of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not. This Government.”—Section 1, paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Constitution
discretion, however, is limited to situations where the Court intends states that judicial power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
to correct the trial court’s errors in applying the law and actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
appreciating the facts. A quick survey of jurisprudence shows that this enforceable,” as well as to “determine whether or not there has been grave
includes reevaluating factual questions presented before the trial court, abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
weighing the credibility of witnesses and other pieces of evidence presented of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Traditionally,
before the trial court, or applying the proper penalty. judicial power has been defined as “the right to determine actual
Same; Same; Same; View that at most, the Supreme Court’s wide controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of
discretion in reviewing criminal cases allows it to motu proprio provide a proper jurisdiction.” It is “the authority to settle justiciable controversies
proper interpretation of the penal law being applied.—At most, the or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before
Supreme Court’s wide discretion in reviewing criminal cases allows it the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights.”
to motu proprio provide a proper interpretation of the penal law being Same; Same; Same; View that no court can exercise judicial power
applied. This discretion, however, does not extend to the power to adjust unless real parties come before it for the settlement of actual controversy and
the penalty defined in the law, based on the monetary value of the property unless the controversy is of the nature that can be settled in a manner that
involved in the crime of estafa. More than this, the Court’s discretion does binds the parties through the application of existing laws.—No court can
not allow it to similarly adjust the penalties defined in other crimes, exercise judicial power unless real parties come before it for the settlement
similarly based on the monetary values of the property involved in these of actual controversy and unless the controversy is of the nature that can
other crimes, as these other crimes are not involved in the present be settled in a manner that binds the parties through the application of
case. These crimes and their penalties have neither been adjudicated upon existing laws. This traditional concept of judicial power, as the
by the trial court nor by the CA; neither is the “judicial interpretation” of application of law to actual controversies, reflects the constitutional
their penalties necessary to determine whether Corpuz committed the imperative of upholding the principle of separation of powers, such
crime of estafa in the present case. that the Judiciary has no power to entertain litigations involving
Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; View that within their the legality, wisdom, or the propriety of the conduct of the
respective spheres of influence, each department is supreme and the exercise Executive; neither has it the power to enlarge, alter or repeal laws
of its powers to the full extent cannot be questioned by another or to question the wisdom, propriety, appropriateness, necessity,
department.—Underlying the doctrine of separation of powers is the policy or expediency of the laws.
general proposition that the whole power of one department should not be Same; Same; Same; View that judicial interpretation of penal laws
exercised by the same hands that possess the whole power of the other should be aligned with the evident legislative intent, as expressed primarily
departments. Within their respective spheres of influence, each in the language of the law as it defines the crime.—On the legislature’s
department is supreme and the exercise of its powers to the full extent exclusive domain, through lawmaking, lies the
7
 17 clear, the Court cannot and should not add to or alter them to
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 17 accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the law
or from legislative history, i.e., to remedy the perceived grossly unfair
Corpuz vs. People
practice of continuing to impose on persons found guilty of estafa the
authority to define what constitutes a particular crime in this
penalties that the RPC Commission pegged on the value of money and
jurisdiction. It is the legislature, as representative of the sovereign people,
property in 1930.
that determines which acts or combination of acts is criminal and what the
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection Clause; View that the equal
ordained punishments shall be. Judicial interpretation of penal laws
protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived
should be aligned with the evident legislative intent, as expressed
of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in
primarily in the language of the law as it defines the crime.
the same place in like circumstances; The equal protection, however, does
Statutory Construction; Verba Legis; View that the cardinal canon in
not demand absolute equality under all circumstances.—Section 1, Article
statutory construction — the plain meaning rule or verba legis — requires
III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently provides: “nor shall any person be
that “the meaning of a statute should, in the first instance, be sought in the
denied the equal protection of the laws.” The equal protection clause means
language in which the act is framed; if the language is plain, the sole
that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection
function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.”—The cardinal
of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like
canon in statutory construction — the plain meaning rule or verba legis —
circumstances. It demands that all persons or things similarly situated
requires that “the meaning of a statute should, in the first instance, be
should be treated alike, both as to the rights conferred and responsibilities
sought in the language in which the act is framed; if the language is plain,
imposed. The equal protection, however, does not demand absolute
the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” In
equality under all circumstances. The protection recognizes that persons
interpreting any statute in the exercise of its judicial power of applying the
are not born equal and have varying handicaps that society has no power
law, the Court should always turn to this cardinal canon before all others.
to abolish. Thus, the equal protection clause permits reasonable
“Courts should always presume that a legislature says in a statute what it
classifications provided that the classification: (1) rests on substantial
means and means in a statute what it says there,” and that the legislature
distinctions; (2) is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to
knows “the meaning of the words, to have used them advisedly, and to have
existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same
expressed the intent by use of such words as are found in the statute.”
class.
Thus, when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, and does
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that that there has been no
not yield absurd and unworkable results, the duty of interpretation, more
change in the way the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines fraud and, hence,
so of construction, does not arise; the Court should resort to the canons of
there should be no reason for a change in the way a fraudulent act is
statutory construction only when the statute is ambiguous.
penalized; A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the same
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that as the words of Article 315
manner as a fraud committed in the present day.—The key element
are clear, the Court cannot and should not add to or alter them to
in estafa is the fraudulent act committed that has caused harm to
accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the law or from
others. Estafa penalizes the fraudulent act. I submit that there has
legislative history.—The language of the penalty clauses of Article 315 of
been no change in the way the RPC defines fraud and, hence, there
the RPC is plain and clear; no reservation, condition or qualification,
should be no reason for a change in the way a fraudulent act is
particularly on the need for adjustment for inflation, can be read from the
penalized. A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the
law, whether by express provision or by implication. The clear legislative
same manner as a fraud committed in the present day. That the
intention to penalize estafa according to the “amount of fraud” as
consequences of the fraudulent act constituted the basis for determining
enumerated in the law, therefore, should be deemed complete — Article
the gradation of penalties
315 embodies all that the legislature intended when the law was crafted.
19
As the words of Article 315 are
18 VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 19
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Corpuz vs. People
was a policy decision that Congress had the prerogative to make. This
Corpuz vs. People
included the value behind each threshold and its corresponding penalty.
8
What was true then is still true today. Thus, the disparity between the mutilates a coin in 2014 would get. The correspondence between the
monetary values of things and property in the 1930s and the prevailing gravity of the offense and the severity of the penalty does not change with
monetary values of like things and property do not amount to distinctions the passage of time. But, unwittingly, the penalties for crimes involving
so substantial that they would require this Court to treat and classify property under the Revised Penal Code are in breach of that principle.
Corpuz differently from persons who committed estafa in 1930. Although these penalties are meant to be proportionate to the harm
Statutory Construction; View that resorting to judicial legislation by caused, they are not described in specific and constant terms like the
construction encroaches into the exclusive domain of the legislature — a number of days of incapacity for work of the offended party in physical
course that clearly violated the constitutional separation of powers injuries cases.
principle.—Even granting arguendo that the penalty the CA imposed on Same; Same; Incremental Penalties; View that it is not only the
Corpuz is “grossly unfair” from the economic and pragmatic point of view incremental penalty that violates the accused’s right against cruel, unusual,
(as Justice Abad has carefully crafted), the solution to this “gross and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow across the board
unfairness” is not for this Court, by itself, to provide. Article 315 of the RPC touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and inhumanity will go
is plain and unambiguous and Corpuz’s case falls clearly within its on as it has gone on for decades unless the Court acts to rein it in.—It is not
provisions. Hence, under the circumstances and within the context of this only the incremental penalty that violates the accused’s right against cruel,
case, the Court’s duty is simply to apply the law. Resorting to judicial unusual, and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow across the
legislation by construction encroaches into the exclusive domain of the board touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and inhumanity
legislature — a course that clearly violated the constitutional separation will go on as it has gone on for decades unless the Court acts to rein it in.
of powers principle. Same; Same; Same; View that it may be assumed that those who
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; Cruel and Unusual Punishment; enacted the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in 1930 did not foresee the onslaught
View that in determining whether a penalty is cruel or unusual, we have of inflation in the second half of the century.—It may be assumed that those
considered not just the amount taken from the private injured party, but who enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930 did not foresee the onslaught
also considered the crime’s impact on national policy and order.—In this of inflation in the second half of the century. They had an agricultural
case, the Solicitor General has adequately provided the reason for the economy and, presumably, the purchasing power of the peso at that time
penalties behind the estafa, i.e., to protect and encourage the growth of had not changed perceptibly in the years that they had known. It would be
commerce in the country and to protect the public from fraud. This reason, imprudent to believe that, if those legislators had an inkling of the shape
to my mind, is sufficient to justify the penalties for estafa. That the amount and value of money and things would take down the years to 2014, they
taken from the private injured party has grown negligible through inflation would have still pegged those penalties to their 1930 economy. But they
does not ipso facto make the penalty wholly disproportional. In 21
determining whether a penalty is cruel or unusual, we have considered not VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 21
just the amount taken from the private injured party, but also considered
Corpuz vs. People
the crime’s impact on national policy and order. It cannot be gainsaid that
did. Clearly, they were uninformed and, therefore, their intent must
the perpetuation of fraud adversely impacts on the public’s confidence in
have been to match the penalties written in the law to the values of money
our financial system and hinders as well the growth of commerce.20
and property as they understood it at that time.
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court (SC) need not
Corpuz vs. People rewrite the penalties that the law provides. Rather, the clear intent of the
Abad, J., Dissenting Opinion: law can be given by “harmonizing” the law or “aligning the numerical
Criminal Law; Penalties; View that as a general principle, crimes figures” to the economic realities of the present.—The Court need not
found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) carry with them the same penalties rewrite the penalties that the law provides. Rather, the clear intent of the
whatever year the accused commits them.—As a general principle, crimes law can be given by, to borrow a phrase from Atty. Mario L. Bautista,
found in the Revised Penal Code carry with them the same penalties counsel for Corpuz, “harmonizing” the law or “aligning the numerical
whatever year the accused commits them. For example, one who mutilates figures” to the economic realities of the present. To put it another way,
a Philippine coin in 1932, when the code took effect, would go to jail for 2 ascertaining the facts of the case in order to faithfully apply to it the law
years and 4 months maximum, exactly the same penalty that another who
9
as the legislature intended it is a judicial function. Dean Candelaria of of estafa (swindling) were the values in 1932. It is clear that the gravity of
Ateneo shares this position. a crime where someone was defrauded of fifty pesos (P50.00) of property in
Same; Same; Same; View that the Civil Code stands on the same 1932 is not the same as the gravity of the same offense for property worth
footing as the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in terms of force and effect. One is fifty pesos (P50.00) in 2014. The purchasing power of the peso has
not superior to the other.—Some would say that Article 2206 of the Civil significantly changed after eight decades, and it is time that we interpret
Code merely governs civil indemnity whereas Article 315 of the Revised the law the way it should be: to reflect the relative range of values it had
Penal Code on penalties for estafa governs criminal liability, implying that when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, just
the latter is quite different. But the Civil Code stands on the same footing construing what it actually means.
as the Revised Penal Code in terms of force and effect. One is not superior Same; Same; View that an interpretation of a legal provision more
to the other. The point is that prudent judicial construction works equally beneficial to an accused or a person who is convicted will have a retroactive
on both codes. effect.—Definitely, an interpretation of a legal provision more beneficial to
Same; Same; Same; View that in any event, the rule is that in case of an accused or a person who is convicted will have a retroactive effect. This
doubt the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are to be construed in should be because such interpretation is corrective in nature. This should
favor of the accused.—In any event, the rule is that in case of doubt the not present extremely debilitating difficulties, and we do not have to have
provisions of the Revised Penal Code are to be construed in favor of the special rules. The convicted prisoner could simply file habeas corpus as a
accused. What has happened, however, is that the Court has beginning in post-conviction remedy whenever he or she would have served more than
1964 construed the minimum amount set in Article 2206 as subject to what would be
adjustment to cope with inflation although this worked against the accused 23
in murder and homicide cases. The Court has not come around to give the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 23
same construction to the inflation-affected penalty provisions of Article 315
Corpuz vs. People
of the Revised Penal Code which would be favorable to him.
required based on our new interpretations. It is also possible for the
22
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Corrections and Parole and Probation
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Administration to adopt its own guidelines on the release of prisoners. This
Corpuz vs. People difficulty is not insurmountable.
Leonen, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Same; Same; View that I am not convinced that a ruling that will
Statutory Construction; View that our duty is to interpret the law. It is affect penalties in other crimes where the gravity is measured in pesos will
a duty reposed on us by the Constitution. We provide meaning to law’s present difficulties too debilitating so as to amount to being
language and make laws written in a different historical context relevant to unimplementable.—Law has never been a discipline too autonomous from
present reality.—I concur with the ponencia of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta the other disciplines. The points of view of those that inhabit the world of
in affirming the conviction of Lito Corpuz. However, I dissent on the economics and finance are not strange to lawyers. The eyes through which
penalty imposed by the majority. I do not agree that it is judicial legislation the law views reality should not be too parochial and too narrow. Our
for us to reconsider the range of penalties created by Congress in 1932. The understanding should instead be open enough to allow us to see more by
range of penalties for the crime of estafa should be recomputed based on borrowing from other disciplines. Doing so enhances rather than weakens
present value. Our duty is to interpret the law. It is a duty reposed on us judicial rigor. I am not convinced that a ruling that will affect penalties in
by the Constitution. We provide meaning to law’s language and make laws other crimes where the gravity is measured in pesos will present
written in a different historical context relevant to present reality. difficulties too debilitating so as to amount to being unimplementable. I do
Criminal Law; Penalties; View that the purchasing power of the peso not see why courts of law cannot simply adopt the universally acceptable
has significantly changed after eight decades, and it is time that we formula for present value.
interpret the law the way it should be: to reflect the relative range of values Same; Same; View that an interpretative methodology for penalties is
it had when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, proposed because of the extraordinary lapse of time from the date of
just construing what it actually means.—Viewed in this way, I must dissent promulgation of the law (1932) to the present.—An interpretative
in the penalty imposed upon the accused. The pecuniary values that methodology for penalties is proposed because of the extraordinary lapse
provided the basis for the range of penalties for the crime of time from the date of promulgation of the law (1932) to the present.
10
Definitely, we will not be recomputing the penalties for all statutes. I am and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of the Supreme Court),
of the view that the approach for computing the penalties in this case will concurring; Rollo, pp. 31-41.
only be applicable to statutes that have been promulgated and have not 2 Rollo, p. 43.
been amended for no less than the past eight decades. The world was very 3 Id., at pp. 48-52.
different then. A world war intervened. Four different Constitutions with 25
their corresponding amendments were promulgated and took effect. There VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 25
are now more types of property than could have been imagined at that
Corpuz vs. People
time.
or returning the pieces of jewelry. When private complainant was able to
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
meet petitioner, the latter promised the former that he will pay the value
Court of Appeals.
of the said items entrusted to him, but to no avail.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Thus, an Information was filed against petitioner for the crime
Nini D. Cruz and Mario Luza Bautista for petitioner.
of estafa, which reads as follows:
24
That on or about the fifth (5th) day of July 1991, in the City of Olongapo,
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
Corpuz vs. People named accused, after having received from one Danilo Tangcoy, one (1)
The Solicitor General for respondent. men’s diamond ring, 18k, worth P45,000.00; one (1) three-baht men’s
PERALTA, J.: bracelet, 22k, worth P25,000.00; one (1) two-baht ladies’ bracelet, 22k,
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 worth P12,000.00, or in the total amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand Pesos
of the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito Corpuz (P98,000.00), Philippine currency, under expressed obligation on the part
(petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated March 22, of said accused to remit the proceeds of the sale of the said items or to
2007 and Resolution2 dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals return the same, if not sold, said accused, once in possession of the said
(CA), which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated July 30, 2004 items, with intent to defraud, and with unfaithfulness and abuse of
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding confidence, and far from complying with his aforestated obligation, did
the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code. misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the aforesaid
The antecedent facts follow. jewelries (sic) or the proceeds of the sale thereof, and despite repeated
Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy and petitioner met at the Admiral demands, the accused failed and refused to return the said items or to remit
Royale Casino in Olongapo City sometime in 1990. Private complainant the amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand Pesos (P98,000.00), Philippine
was then engaged in the business of lending money to casino players and, currency, to the damage and prejudice of said Danilo Tangcoy in the
upon hearing that the former had some pieces of jewelry for sale, petitioner aforementioned amount.
approached him on May 2, 1991 at the same casino and offered to sell the CONTRARY TO LAW.
said pieces of jewelry on commission basis. Private complainant agreed, On January 28, 1992, petitioner, with the assistance of his counsel,
and as a consequence, he turned over to petitioner the following items: an entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
18k diamond ring for men; a woman’s bracelet; one (1) men’s necklace and The prosecution, to prove the above-stated facts, presented the lone
another men’s bracelet, with an aggregate value of P98,000.00, as testimony of Danilo Tangcoy. On the other hand, the
evidenced by a receipt of even date. They both agreed that petitioner shall 26
remit the proceeds of the sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the same items, 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
within a period of 60 days. The period expired without petitioner remitting
Corpuz vs. People
the proceeds of the sale
defense presented the lone testimony of petitioner, which can be
_______________
summarized, as follows:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a
Petitioner and private complainant were collecting agents of Antonio
member of the Supreme Court), with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico
Balajadia, who is engaged in the financing business of extending loans to
11
Base employees. For every collection made, they earn a commission. LOWER COURT OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ITS
Petitioner denied having transacted any business with private EXHIBITS, WHICH ARE MERE MACHINE COPIES, AS THIS
complainant. However, he admitted obtaining a loan from Balajadia VIOLATES THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE;
sometime in 1989 for which he was made to sign a blank receipt. He B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING
claimed that the same receipt was then dated May 2, 1991 and used as THE LOWER COURT’S FINDING THAT THE CRIMINAL
evidence against him for the supposed agreement to sell the subject pieces INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA WAS NOT FATALLY DEFECTIVE
of jewelry, which he did not even see. ALTHOUGH THE SAME DID NOT CHARGE THE OFFENSE UNDER
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ARTICLE 315 (1) (B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN THAT —
the crime charged in the Information. The dispositive portion of the 1. THE INFORMATION DID NOT FIX A PERIOD WITHIN WHICH
decision states: THE SUBJECT [PIECES OF] JEWELRY SHOULD BE RETURNED, IF
WHEREFORE, finding accused LITO CORPUZ GUILTY beyond UNSOLD, OR THE MONEY TO BE REMITTED, IF SOLD;28
reasonable doubt of the felony of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph one 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(1), subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code;
Corpuz vs. People
there being no offsetting generic aggravating nor ordinary mitigating
2. THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME ALLEGED
circumstance/s to vary the penalty imposable;
IN THE INFORMATION AS OF 05 JULY 1991 WAS MATERIALLY
accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TESTIFIED TO BY THE PRIVATE
deprivation of liberty consisting of an imprisonment under the
COMPLAINANT WHICH WAS 02 MAY 1991;
Indeterminate Sentence Law of FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS
C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
of Prisión Correccional in its medium period AS MINIMUM, to
AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT’S FINDING THAT DEMAND TO
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion
RETURN THE SUBJECT [PIECES OF] JEWELRY, IF UNSOLD, OR
Temporal in its minimum period AS MAXIMUM; to indemnify private
REMIT THE PROCEEDS, IF SOLD — AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
complainant Danilo Tangcoy the amount of P98,000.00 as actual damages,
— WAS PROVED;
and to pay the costs of suit.
D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
SO ORDERED.
AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT’S FINDING THAT THE
27
PROSECUTION’S CASE WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 27 DOUBT ALTHOUGH —
Corpuz vs. People 1. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED ON TWO (2)
VERSIONS OF THE INCIDENT;
2. THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER — ACCUSED IS MORE
The case was elevated to the CA, however, the latter denied the appeal STRAIGHTFORWARD AND LOGICAL, CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN
of petitioner and affirmed the decision of the RTC, thus: EXPERIENCE;
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment 3. THE EQUIPOISE RULE WAS NOT APPRECIATED IN AND
dated July 30, 2004 of the RTC of San Fernando City (P), Branch 46, is APPLIED TO THIS CASE;
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the imposable prison term, 4. PENAL STATUTES ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST
such that accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 THE STATE.
years and 2 months of prisión correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of
prisión mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year for each additional P10,000.00, or In its Comment dated May 5, 2008, the Office of the Solicitor General
a total of 7 years. The rest of the decision stands. (OSG) stated the following counter-arguments:
SO ORDERED. The exhibits were properly admitted inasmuch as petitioner failed to
Petitioner, after the CA denied his motion for reconsideration, filed object to their admissibility.
with this Court the present petition stating the following grounds: The information was not defective inasmuch as it sufficiently
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN established the designation of the offense and the acts complained of.29
CONFIRMING THE ADMISSION AND APPRECIATION BY THE
12
 VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 29 or property received to the prejudice of the owner6 and that the time of
occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion
Corpuz vs. People
of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected
The prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime
in the Information, do not make the latter fatally defective. The CA ruled:
charged.
x x x An information is legally viable as long as it distinctly states the
This Court finds the present petition devoid of any merit.
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive
The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and
thereof. Then Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that a
carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in
the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions
the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party;
abuse of discretion.4 Petitioner is of the opinion that the CA erred in
the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
affirming the factual findings of the trial court. He now comes to this Court
wherein the offense was committed. In the case at bar, a reading of the
raising both procedural and substantive issues.
subject Information shows compliance with the foregoing rule. That the
According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial
time of the commission of the offense was stated as “on or about the fifth
court, admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit
(5th) day of July, 1991” is not likewise fatal to the prosecution’s cause
“A” and its submarkings, although the same was merely a photocopy, thus,
considering that Section 11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the
violating the best evidence rule. However, the records show that petitioner
precise time only when the same is a material ingredient of the offense.
never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was
The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of
identified, marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. The
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the appropriation or conversion of money
CA also correctly pointed out that petitioner also failed to raise an objection
or property received to the prejudice of the offender. Thus, aside from the
in his Comment to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even
fact that the date of the commission thereof is not an essen-
admitted having signed the said receipt. The established doctrine is that
_______________
when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time
6 Quinto v. People, 365 Phil. 259, 270; 305 SCRA 708, 718 (1999).
they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as
31
waived.5
Another procedural issue raised is, as claimed by petitioner, the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 31
formally defective Information filed against him. He contends that the Corpuz vs. People
Information does not contain the period when the pieces of jewelry were tial element of the crime herein charged, the failure of the prosecution to
supposed to be returned and specify the exact date does not render the Information ipso facto defective.
_______________ Moreover, the said date is also near the due date within which accused-
4 Libuit v. People, 506 Phil. 591, 599; 469 SCRA 610, 618 (2005). appellant should have delivered the proceeds or returned the said [pieces
5 Blas v. Angeles-Hutalla, 482 Phil. 485, 501; 439 SCRA 273, 286 of jewelry] as testified upon by Tangkoy, hence, there was sufficient
(2004). compliance with the rules. Accused-appellant, therefore, cannot now be
30 allowed to claim that he was not properly apprised of the charges proferred
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED against him.7
Corpuz vs. People
It must be remembered that petitioner was convicted of the crime
that the date when the crime occurred was different from the one
of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, which reads:
testified to by private complainant. This argument is untenable. The CA
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud
did not err in finding that the Information was substantially complete and
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow.
in reiterating that objections as to the matters of form and substance in the
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
Information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. It is true that the
xxxx
gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1,
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another,
subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money
money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in
13
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation Corpuz vs. People
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though Q How many times?
such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying A Two times, sir.
having received such money, goods, or other property; x x x Q What did you talk (sic) to him?
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that A About the items I gave to (sic) him, sir.
money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, Q Referring to Exhibit A-2?
or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation A Yes, sir, and according to him he will take his obligation
involving the duty and I asked him where the items are and he promised me
_______________ that he will pay these amount, sir.
7 Rollo, p. 37. (Citations omitted) Q Up to this time that you were here, were you able to collect from
32 him partially or full?
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED A No, sir. 9
Corpuz vs. People
to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be No specific type of proof is required to show that there was
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender demand.10 Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.11 The
or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or specific word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has indeed
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a been made upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the
demand made by the offended party on the offender.8 whereabouts of the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to
Petitioner argues that the last element, which is, that there is a demand a demand.12 As expounded in Asejo v. People:13
by the offended party on the offender, was not proved. This Court With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA that
disagrees. In his testimony, private complainant narrated how he was able demand under this kind of estafa need not be formal or written. The
to locate petitioner after almost two (2) months from the time he gave the appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of
pieces of jewelry and asked petitioner about the same items with the latter demand in estafa under Art. 315, 1(b), thus:
promising to pay them. Thus: When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written
PROS. MARTINEZ demand be necessary, the law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word
Q Now, Mr. Witness, this was executed on 2 May 1991, and this “demand” should be inter-
transaction could have been finished on 5 July 1991, the _______________
question is what happens (sic) when the deadline came? 8 Diaz v. People, 585 Phil. 318, 332; 563 SCRA 322, 335 (2008),
A I went looking for him, sir. citing Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 670, 675; 321 SCRA 51, 57
Q For whom? (1999).
A Lito Corpuz, sir. 9 TSN, December 17, 1992, pp. 9-10. (Emphasis supplied)
Q Were you able to look (sic) for him? 10 Tan v. People, 542 Phil. 188, 201; 513 SCRA 194, 207 (2007).
A I looked for him for a week, sir. 11 Id., citing Lee v. People, 495 Phil. 239, 250; 455 SCRA 256, 267
Q Did you know his residence? (2005).
A Yes, sir. 12 Id.
Q Did you go there? 13 555 Phil. 106; 528 SCRA 114 (2007).
A Yes, sir. 34
Q Did you find him? 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A No, sir. Corpuz vs. People
Q Were you able to talk to him since 5 July 1991? preted in its general meaning as to include both written and oral demand.
A I talked to him, sir.33 Thus, the failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 33 evidence is not fatal.

14
 In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired the behest of the Court to give their academic opinions on the matter.
about the money entrusted to the accused, we held that the query was Among those that graciously complied were Dean Jose Manuel Diokno,
tantamount to a demand, thus: Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar, the Senate
x x x [T]he law does not require a demand as a condition precedent to President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The parties
the existence of the crime of embezzlement. It so happens only that failure were later heard on oral arguments before the Court en banc, with Atty.
to account, upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is Mario L. Bautista appearing as counsel de oficio of the petitioner.
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The same way, however, be After a thorough consideration of the arguments presented on the
established by other proof, such as that introduced in the case at bar.14 matter, this Court finds the following:
In view of the foregoing and based on the records, the prosecution was _______________
able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime. Private 15 Cosme, Jr. v. People, 538 Phil. 52, 66; 508 SCRA 190, 206 (2006),
complainant gave petitioner the pieces of jewelry in trust, or on commission citing People v. Garillo, 446 Phil. 163, 174-175; 398 SCRA 118, 126 (2003).
basis, as shown in the receipt dated May 2, 1991 with an obligation to sell 16 Id., citing Sullon v. People, 500 Phil. 39, 45; 461 SCRA 248, 253
or return the same within sixty (60) days, if unsold. There was (2005); People v. Bulan, 498 Phil. 586, 598; 459 SCRA 550, 562 (2005).
misappropriation when petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of those 17 Id., at p. 67; p. 207, citing People v. Gaspar, 376 Phil. 762, 779; 318
pieces of jewelry sold, or if no sale took place, failed to return the same SCRA 649, 665 (1999).
pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed period despite demand from the 36
private complainant, to the prejudice of the latter. 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anent the credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness, which is
Corpuz vs. People
questioned by petitioner, the same is unmeritorious. Settled is the rule that
There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of
in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to
penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property
the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe
committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value
the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an
of money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the
opportunity denied the appellate courts, which
said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial legislation.
_______________
What the legislature’s perceived failure in amending the penalties
14 Id., at p. 114; pp. 122-123. (Citations omitted)
provided for in the said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court’s
35
decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the power of another branch
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 35 of the government. This, however, does not render the whole situation
Corpuz vs. People without any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the framers of
merely rely on the records of the case.15 The assessment by the trial court the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including
is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight Article 5, which reads:
of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
finding is affirmed by the CA.16 Truth is established not by the number of repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive
witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
value and credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it
numbered.17 shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
As regards the penalty, while this Court’s Third Division was Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
deliberating on this case, the question of the continued validity of imposing induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject
on persons convicted of crimes involving property came up. The legislature of penal legislation.
apparently pegged these penalties to the value of the money and property In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
in 1930 when it enacted the Revised Penal Code. Since the members of the through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be
division reached no unanimity on this question and since the issues are of deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
first impression, they decided to refer the case to the Court en banc for when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
consideration and resolution. Thus, several amici curiae were invited at result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
15
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the of the provisions of this Code would cause excessive or harsh
offense.18 penalty. All that the Court could do in such eventuality is to report
_______________ the matter to the Chief Executive with a recommendation for an
18 Emphasis supplied. amendment or modification of the legal provisions which it
believes to be harsh.20
37 Anent the non-suspension of the execution of the sentence, retired Chief
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 37 Justice Ramon C. Aquino and retired Associate Justice Carolina C. Griño-
Aquino, in their book, The Revised Penal Code,21 echoed the above-cited
Corpuz vs. People
commentary, thus:
The first paragraph of the above provision clearly states that for acts
The second paragraph of Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian
bourne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it
principle that justice must be tempered with mercy. Generally, the
proper to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and
courts have nothing to do with the wisdom or justness of the
thereafter, report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
penalties fixed by law. “Whether or not the penalties prescribed by law
Justice, the reasons why the same act should be the subject of penal
upon conviction of violations of particular statutes are too severe or are not
legislation. The premise here is that a deplorable act is present but is not
severe enough, are questions as to which commentators on the law may
the subject of any penal legislation, thus, the court is tasked to inform the
fairly differ; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the will of the
Chief Executive of the need to make that act punishable by law through
legislator in all cases unless it clearly appears that a given penalty
legislation. The second paragraph is similar to the first except for the
falls within the prohibited class of excessive fines or cruel and
situation wherein the act is already punishable by law but the
unusual punishment.” A petition for clemency should be addressed to
corresponding penalty is deemed by the court as excessive. The remedy
the Chief Executive.22
therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to suspend the execution of the
sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive the reasons why the court
There is an opinion that the penalties provided for in crimes against
considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate with the act
property be based on the current inflation rate
committed. Again, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive, this
_______________
time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.
20 Id., at p. 16. (Emphasis supplied)
In his book, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code,19 Guillermo B.
21 1997 edition.
Guevara opined that in Article 5, the duty of the court is merely to report
22 Id., at p. 93, citing United States v. Valera Ang Y, 26 Phil. 598
to the Chief Executive, with a recommendation for an amendment or
(1914); People v. Salazar y Gabriel, 102 Phil. 1184 (1958); Tiu Ua, 51 O.G.
modification of the legal provisions which it believes to be harsh. Thus:
1863; People v. Limaco, 99 Phil. 35 (1956), and People v. Del Rosario y
Natividad, 62 Phil. 824 (1936). (Emphasis supplied)
This provision is based under the legal maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena
39
sige lege,” that is, that there can exist no punishable act except those
previously and specifically provided for by penal statute. VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 39
No matter how reprehensible an act is, if the law-making body does not Corpuz vs. People
deem it necessary to prohibit its perpetration with penal sanction, the or at the ratio of P1.00 is equal to P100.00. However, it would be
Court of justice will be entirely powerless to punish such act. dangerous as this would result in uncertainties, as opposed to the definite
_______________ imposition of the penalties. It must be remembered that the economy
19 Third edition, 1940. fluctuates and if the proposed imposition of the penalties in crimes against
38 property be adopted, the penalties will not cease to change, thus, making
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the RPC, a self-amending law. Had the framers of the RPC intended that
to be so, it should have provided the same, instead, it included the earlier
Corpuz vs. People
cited Article 5 as a remedy. It is also improper to presume why the present
Under the provisions of this Article the Court cannot suspend the
legislature has not made any moves to amend the subject penalties in order
execution of a sentence on the ground that the strict enforcement
to conform with the present times. For all we know, the legislature intends
16
to retain the same penalties in order to deter the further commission of If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding
those punishable acts which have increased tremendously through the subdivisions shall be made applicable.
years. In fact, in recent moves of the legislature, it is apparent that it aims 8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos,
to broaden the coverage of those who violate penal laws. In the crime of when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender
Plunder, from its original minimum amount of P100,000,000.00 plundered, shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
the legislature lowered it to P50,000,000.00. In the same way, the earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
legislature lowered the threshold amount upon which the Anti-Money 41
Laundering Act may apply, from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00. VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 41
It is also worth noting that in the crimes of Theft and Estafa, the
Corpuz vs. People
present penalties do not seem to be excessive compared to the proposed
In a case wherein the value of the thing stolen is P6,000.00, the above
imposition of their corresponding penalties. In Theft, the provisions state
provision states that the penalty is prisión correccional in its minimum
that:
and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
Art. 309. Penalties.—Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
Applying the proposal, if the value of the thing stolen is P6,000.00, the
1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if
penalty is imprisonment of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión
the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
correccional minimum period (2 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount
months). It would seem that under the present law, the penalty imposed is
the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this
almost the same as the penalty proposed. In fact, after the application of
paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the
the Indeterminate Sentence Law under the existing law, the minimum
total of the penalty which may be im-
penalty is still lowered by one degree; hence, the minimum penalty
40
is arresto mayor in its medium period to maximum period (2 months and 1
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED day to 6 months), making the offender qualified for pardon or parole after
Corpuz vs. People serving the said minimum period and may even apply for probation.
posed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with Moreover, under the proposal, the minimum penalty after applying the
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is arresto menor in its maximum period
other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión to arresto mayor in its minimum period (21 days to 2 months) is not too far
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. from the minimum period under the existing law. Thus, it would seem that
2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum the present penalty imposed under the law is not at all excessive. The same
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does is also true in the crime of Estafa.23
not exceed 12,000 pesos. 23 Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period
not exceed 6,000 pesos. to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds
minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in
does not exceed 200 pesos. its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
not exceed 50 pesos. such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does imposed under the provisions of this Code,
not exceed 5 pesos. 42
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next
Corpuz vs. People
preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos.

17
 Moreover, if we apply the ratio of 1:100, as suggested to the valueA of (c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without
the thing stolen in the crime of Theft and the prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem
_______________ proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
case may be. (d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient to cover the
periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
12,000 pesos; amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been
correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence
does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A.
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud B(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel,
be committed by any of the following means: inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of manager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, house, lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false pretense,
even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from
consideration. a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without
money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation 3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though (a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying (b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a
having received such money, goods, or other property. gambling game.
A(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party 44
in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.
Corpuz vs. People
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
determining the proper penalty to be imposed, would be too wide and the
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
penalty imposable would no longer be commensurate to the act committed
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
and the value of the thing stolen or the damage caused:
influence, qualifications, property,
I. Article 309, or the penalties for the crime of Theft, the value would
43
be modified but the penalties are not changed:
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 43 1. P12,000.00 to P22,000.00 will
Corpuz vs. People become P1,200,000.00 to P2,200,000.00, punished by prisión
damage caused in the crime of Estafa, the gap between the mayor minimum to prisión mayor medium (6 years and 1 day to 10 years).
minimumB and the maximum amounts, which is the basis of 2. P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 will become P600,000.00 to P1,200,000.00,
_______________ punished by prisión correccional medium and to prisión
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other correccional maximum (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years).24
similar deceits. 3. P200.00 to P6,000.00 will become P20,000.00 to P600,000.00,
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining punishable by prisión correccional minimum to prisión
to his art or business. correccional medium (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).

18
4. P50.00 to P200.00 will become P5,000.00 to P20,000.00, punishable 25 May be entitled to Probation if the maximum penalty imposed is 6
by arresto mayor medium to prisión correccional minimum (2 months and years.
1 day to 2 years and 4 months). 26 May be entitled to Probation.
5. P5.00 to P50.00 will become P500.00 to P5,000.00, punishable 27 Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, February 22,
by arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). 2010, 613 SCRA 385, 414.
6. P5.00 will become P500.00, punishable by arresto mayor minimum 28 People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1939).
to arresto mayor medium. 46
x x x x. 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
II. Article 315, or the penalties for the crime of Estafa, the value would
Corpuz vs. People
also be modified but the penalties are not changed, as follows:
According to Dean Diokno, the Incremental Penalty Rule (IPR) does not
_______________
rest on substantial distinctions as P10,000.00 may have been substantial
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any
in the past, but it is not so today, which violates the first requisite; the IPR
court record, office files, document or any other papers.
was devised so that those who commit estafa involving higher amounts
24 May be entitled to Probation.
would receive heavier penalties; however, this is no longer achieved,
45
because a person who steals P142,000.00 would receive the same penalty
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 45 as someone who steals hundreds of millions, which violates the second
Corpuz vs. People requisite; and, the IPR violates requisite no. 3, considering that the IPR is
1st. P12,000.00 to P22,000.00, will limited to existing conditions at the time the law was promulgated,
become P1,200,000.00 to P2,200,000.00, punishable by prisión conditions that no longer exist today.
correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum (4 years, 2 months and Assuming that the Court submits to the argument of Dean Diokno and
1 day to 8 years).25 declares the incremental penalty in Article 315 unconstitutional for
2nd. P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 will violating the equal protection clause, what then is the penalty that should
become P600,000.00 to P1,200,000.00, punishable by prisión be applied in case the amount of the thing subject matter of the crime
correccional minimum to prisión correccional medium (6 months and 1 day exceeds P22,000.00? It seems that the proposition poses more questions
to 4 years and 2 months).26 than answers, which leads us even more to conclude that the appropriate
3rd. P200.00 to P6,000.00 will become P20,000.00 to P600,000.00, remedy is to refer these matters to Congress for them to exercise their
punishable by arresto mayor maximum to prisión correccional minimum (4 inherent power to legislate laws.
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). Even Dean Diokno was of the opinion that if the Court declares the IPR
4th. P200.00 will become P20,000.00, punishable by arresto unconstitutional, the remedy is to go to Congress. Thus:
mayor maximum (4 months and 1 day to 6 months). xxxx
An argument raised by Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, one of our JUSTICE PERALTA:
esteemed amici curiae, is that the incremental penalty provided under Now, your position is to declare that the incremental penalty should
Article 315 of the RPC violates the Equal Protection Clause. be struck down as unconstitutional because it is absurd.
The equal protection clause requires equality among equals, which is DEAN DIOKNO:
determined according to a valid classification. The test developed by Absurd, it violates equal protection, Your Honor, and cruel and
jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness,27 which has four unusual punishment.
requisites: 47
(1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 47
(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
Corpuz vs. People
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
JUSTICE PERALTA:
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.28
Then what will be the penalty that we are going to impose if the
_______________
amount is more than Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
19
DEAN DIOKNO: DEAN DIOKNO:
Well, that would be for Congress to ... if this Court will declare the Yes, Your Honor.
incremental penalty rule unconstitutional, then that would ... the JUSTICE PERALTA:
void should be filled by Congress. ... and determine the value or the amount.
JUSTICE PERALTA: DEAN DIOKNO:
But in your presentation, you were fixing the amount at One Yes, Your Honor.
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos ... JUSTICE PERALTA:
DEAN DIOKNO: That will be equivalent to the incremental penalty of one (1) year in
Well, my presen ... (interrupted) excess of Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
JUSTICE PERALTA: DEAN DIOKNO:
For every One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos in excess of Yes, Your Honor.
Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos you were suggesting an JUSTICE PERALTA:
additional penalty of one (1) year, did I get you right? The amount in excess of Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
DEAN DIOKNO: Thank you, Dean.
Yes, Your Honor, that is, if the court will take the route of statutory DEAN DIOKNO:
interpretation. Thank you.
JUSTICE PERALTA: x x x x 29
Ah ... _______________
DEAN DIOKNO: 29 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, pp. 192-195.
If the Court will say that they can go beyond the literal wording of 49
the law... VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 49
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Corpuz vs. People
But if we de ... (interrupted)
Dean Diokno also contends that Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
DEAN DIOKNO:
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Citing,30 Dean Diokno avers
....then....
that the United States Federal Supreme Court has expanded the
JUSTICE PERALTA:
application of a similar Constitutional provision prohibiting cruel and
Ah, yeah. But if we declare the incremental penalty as
unusual punishment, to the duration of the penalty, and not just its form.
unconstitutional, the court cannot fix the amount ...48
The court therein ruled that three things must be done to decide whether
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED a sentence is proportional to a specific crime, viz.: (1) Compare the nature
Corpuz vs. People and gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the penalty; (2) Compare
DEAN DIOKNO: the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, i.e.,
No, Your Honor. whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less
JUSTICE PERALTA: serious penalties; and (3) Compare the sentences imposed for commission
... as the equivalent of one, as an incremental penalty in excess of of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos. However, the case of Solem v. Helm cannot be applied in the present
DEAN DIOKNO: case, because in Solem what respondent therein deemed cruel was the
No, Your Honor. penalty imposed by the state court of South Dakota after it took into
JUSTICE PERALTA: account the latter’s recidivist statute and not the original penalty for
The Court cannot do that. uttering a “no account” check. Normally, the maximum punishment for the
DEAN DIOKNO: crime would have been five years imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine.
Could not be. Nonetheless, respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment without the
JUSTICE PERALTA: possibility of parole under South Dakota’s recidivist statute because of his
The only remedy is to go to Congress...
20
six prior felony convictions. Surely, the factual antecedents of Solem are Corpuz vs. People
different from the present controversy. but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds
With respect to the crime of Qualified Theft, however, it is true that the the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum
imposable penalty for the offense is high. Nevertheless, the rationale for period to reclusion perpetua.
the imposition of a higher penalty against a domestic servant is the fact In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the
that in the commission of the crime, the helper will essentially gravely penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the
abuse the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. After amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the
accepting and allowing the helper to be a member of the property embezzled.
_______________ The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public
30 463 U.S. 277 (1983). funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any
50 duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED such missing funds or property to personal use.
Corpuz vs. People The above provisions contemplate a situation wherein the Government
household, thus entrusting upon such person the protection and loses money due to the unlawful acts of the offender. Thus, following the
safekeeping of the employer’s loved ones and properties, a subsequent proposal, if the amount malversed is P200.00 (under the existing law), the
betrayal of that trust is so repulsive as to warrant the necessity of imposing amount now becomes P20,000.00 and the penalty is prisión correccional in
a higher penalty to deter the commission of such wrongful acts. its medium and maximum periods (2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years).
There are other crimes where the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment The penalty may not be commensurate to the act of embezzlement
are dependent on the subject matter of the crime and which, by adopting of P20,000.00 compared to the acts committed by public officials
the proposal, may create serious implications. For example, in the crime of punishable by a special law, i.e., Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
Malversation, the penalty imposed depends on the amount of the money and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically Section 3,31 wherein the injury
malversed by the public official, thus: caused to the gov-
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of _______________
malversation.—Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, 31 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts
is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or hereby declared to be unlawful:
property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to
misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly
1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the
periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced,
malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
2. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium 52
periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
does not exceed six thousand pesos. Corpuz vs. People
3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusion ernment is not generally defined by any monetary amount, the penalty
temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than (6 years and 1 month to 15 years)32 under the
six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and
51 any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 51 intervene under the law.

21
 (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not
other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public
or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they
thirteen of this Act. belong.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment (j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or
in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination. license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and authorized release date.
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit
licenses or permits or other concessions. referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the
sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in
pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public
any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court,
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party. from transacting business in any form with the Government.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or 32 R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 9.
transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether 54
or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(h) Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in
Corpuz vs. People
any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he
entry are the bases of the penalty imposable, and also, in Malicious
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
Mischief, where the penalty of imprisonment or fine is dependent on the
53
cost of the damage caused.
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 53 In Robbery with force upon things (inhabited or uninhabited), if we
Corpuz vs. People increase the value of the thing unlawfully taken, as proposed in
Anti-Graft Law will now become higher. This should not be the case, the ponencia, the sole basis of the penalty will now be the value of the thing
because in the crime of malversation, the public official takes advantage of unlawfully taken and no longer the element of force employed in entering
his public position to embezzle the fund or property of the government the premises. It may likewise cause an inequity between the crime of
entrusted to him. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280, and this kind of robbery
The said inequity is also apparent in the crime of Robbery with force because the former is punishable by prisión correccional in its medium and
upon things (inhabited or uninhabited) where the value of the thing maximum periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine not
unlawfully taken and the act of unlawful exceeding P1,000.00 (P100,000.00 now if the ratio is 1:100) where
_______________ entrance to the premises is with violence or intimidation, which is the main
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. justification of the penalty. Whereas in the crime of Robbery with force
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or upon things, it is punished with a penalty of prisión mayor (6 years and 1
having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval day to 12 years) if the intruder is unarmed without the penalty of Fine
of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises
22
despite the fact that it is not merely the illegal entry that is the basis of the as amended.34 The law treats cutting, gathering, collecting and possessing
penalty but likewise the unlawful taking. timber
Furthermore, in the crime of Other Mischiefs under Article 329, the _______________
highest penalty that can be imposed is arresto mayor in its medium and 33 Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.—A fine,
maximum periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months) if the value of the whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be
damage caused exceeds P1,000.00, but under the proposal, the value of the considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional
damage will now become P100,000.00 (1:100), and still punishable penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and
by arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). And, if the value of the a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
damaged property does not exceed P200.00, the penalty is arresto menor or 34 REVISED FORESTRY CODE, AS AMENDED BY E.O. NO. 277, SERIES OF
a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than 1987.
P200.00, if the amount involved does not exceed P200.00 or cannot be 56
estimated. Under the proposal, P200.00 will now become P20,000.00, 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
which simply means that the fine of P200.00 under the existing law will
Corpuz vs. People
now become P20,000.00. The amount of Fine under this situation will now
or other forest products without license as an offense as grave as and
become excessive and afflictive in nature
equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.35 Under the law, the offender
55
shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 55 309 and 31036 of the Revised Penal Code, which means that the penalty
Corpuz vs. People imposable for the offense is, again, based on the value of the timber or
despite the fact that the offense is categorized as a light felony penalized forest products involved in the offense. Now, if we accept the said proposal
with a light penalty under Article 26 of the RPC.33 Unless we also amend in the crime of Theft, will this particular crime of Illegal Logging be
Article 26 of the RPC, there will be grave implications on the penalty of amended also in so far as the penalty is concerned because the penalty is
Fine, but changing the same through Court decision, either expressly or dependent on Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC? The answer is in the
impliedly, may not be legally and constitutionally feasible. negative because the soundness of this particular law is not in question.
There are other crimes against property and swindling in the RPC that With the numerous crimes defined and penalized under the Revised
may also be affected by the proposal, such as those that impose Penal Code and Special Laws, and other related provisions of these laws
imprisonment and/or Fine as a penalty based on the value of the damage affected by the proposal, a thorough study is needed to determine its
caused, to wit: Article 311 (Theft of the property of the National Library effectivity and necessity. There may be some provisions of the law that
and National Museum), Article 312 (Occupation of real property or should be amended; nevertheless, this Court is in no position to conclude
usurpation of real rights in property), Article 313 (Altering boundaries or as to the intentions of the framers of the Revised Penal Code by merely
landmarks), Article 316 (Other forms of swindling), Article making a study of the applicability of the penalties imposable in the
317 (Swindling a minor), Article 318 (Other deceits), Article 328 (Special present times. Such is not within the competence of the Court but of the
cases of malicious mischief) and Article 331 (Destroying or damaging Legislature which is empowered to conduct public hearings on the matter,
statues, public monuments or paintings). Other crimes that impose Fine as consult legal luminaries and who, after due proceedings, can decide
a penalty will also be affected, such as: Article 213 (Frauds against the whether or not to amend or to revise the questioned law or
public treasury and similar offenses), Article 215 (Prohibited _______________
Transactions), Article 216 (Possession of prohibited interest by a public 35 Taopa v. People, 592 Phil. 341, 345; 571 SCRA 610, 614 (2008).
officer), Article 218 (Failure of accountable officer to render 36 Art. 310. Qualified theft.—The crime of theft shall be punished by
accounts), Article 219 (Failure of a responsible public officer to render the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified
accounts before leaving the country). in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
In addition, the proposal will not only affect crimes under the RPC. It grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
will also affect crimes which are punishable by special penal laws, such as matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the
Illegal Logging or Violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken

23
on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
57 (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 57 provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may
Corpuz vs. People
demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not
other laws, or even create a new legislation which will adopt to the times.
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
Admittedly, Congress is aware that there is an urgent need to amend
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
the Revised Penal Code. During the oral arguments, counsel for the Senate
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental
informed the Court that at present, fifty-six (56) bills are now pending in
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
the Senate seeking to amend the Revised Penal Code,37 each one proposing
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as
much needed change and updates to archaic laws that were promulgated
a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the
decades ago when the political, socio-economic, and cultural settings were
damage or infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in
far different from today’s conditions.
a sense only covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus,
Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in
in a crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of imprisonment
such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial
imposed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a sum
legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it
of money as restitution. Clearly, this award of civil indemnity due to the
should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of
death of the victim could not be contemplated as akin to the value of a thing
interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law,
that is unlawfully taken which is the basis in the imposition of the proper
or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms.38 The Court
penalty in certain crimes. Thus, the reasoning in increasing the value of
should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and
civil indemnity awarded in some offense cannot be the same reasoning that
spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose.
would sustain the adoption of the suggested ratio. Also, it is apparent from
Succinctly put, the Court should shy away from encroaching upon the
Article 2206 that the law only imposes a minimum amount for awards of
primary function of a co-equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this
civil indemnity, which is P3,000.00. The law did not provide
would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers
59
by means of judicial legislation.
Moreover, it is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 59
penalty or a Fine; hence, it can be increased by the Court when Corpuz vs. People
appropriate. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides: for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount for the award cannot be
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly
quasi-delict shall be at least three modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.
_______________ Corollarily, moral damages under Article 222039 of the Civil Code also does
37 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, p. 167. not fix the amount of damages that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon
38 People v. Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 548; 259 SCRA 191, 227-228 (1996). the court, depending on the mental anguish or the suffering of the private
58 offended party. The amount of moral damages can, in relation to civil
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does not exceed the award of civil
indemnity.
Corpuz vs. People
In addition, some may view the penalty provided by law for the offense
thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
committed as tantamount to cruel punishment. However, all penalties are
circumstances. In addition:
generally harsh, being punitive in nature. Whether or not they are
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of
excessive or amount to cruel punishment is a matter that should be left to
the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
lawmakers. It is the prerogative of the courts to apply the law, especially
such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court,
when they are clear and not subject to any other interpretation than that
which is plainly written.
24
 Similar to the argument of Dean Diokno, one of Justice Antonio 41 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
Carpio’s opinions is that the incremental penalty provision should be PHILIPPINES.
declared unconstitutional and that the courts should only impose the 42 Section 19.
penalty corresponding to the amount of P22,000.00, regardless if the actual 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
amount involved exceeds P22,000.00. As suggested, however, from now inhuman punishment inflicted. x x x.
until the law is properly amended by Congress, all crimes of Estafa will no 43 Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management, G.R. Nos.
longer be punished by the appropriate penalty. A conundrum in the regular 153266, 159007, 159029, 170084, 172713, 173119, 176477, 177990, A.M.
course of criminal justice would occur when every accused convicted of the No. 06-4-02-SB, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 1, 25.
crime of estafa will be meted penalties different from the proper penalty 61
that should be imposed. Such drastic twist in the application of the law VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 61
_______________
Corpuz vs. People
39 Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
versy wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of any
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
Besides, it has long been held that the prohibition of cruel and unusual
breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
punishments is generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment
faith.
rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies to
60
punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED instance, those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at
Corpuz vs. People the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like. Fine and
has no legal basis and directly runs counter to what the law provides. imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition.44
It should be noted that the death penalty was reintroduced in the It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or
dispensation of criminal justice by the Ramos Administration by virtue of severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the
Republic Act No. 765940 in December 1993. The said law has been punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and
questioned before this Court. There is, arguably, no punishment more cruel unusual. Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the
than that of death. Yet still, from the time the death penalty was re- ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive,” “wholly
imposed until its lifting in June 2006 by Republic Act No. 9346,41 the Court disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of
did not impede the imposition of the death penalty on the ground that it is the community.”45
a “cruel punishment” within the purview of Section 19(1),42 Article III of Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to amend
the Constitution. Ultimately, it was through an act of Congress suspending the law and adapt it to our modern time.
the imposition of the death penalty that led to its non-imposition and not The solution to the present controversy could not be solved by merely
via the intervention of the Court. adjusting the questioned monetary values to the present value of money
Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court based only on the current inflation rate. There are other factors and
cannot declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty variables that need to be taken into consideration, researched, and
emanates unconstitutional in the present action. Not only is it violative of deliberated upon before the said values could be accurately and properly
due process, considering that the State and the concerned parties were not adjusted. The effects on the society, the injured party, the accused, its
given the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, it is settled that socio-economic impact, and the likes must be painstakingly evaluated and
the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because weighed upon in order to arrive at a wholistic change that all of us believe
constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not should be made to our
collaterally,43 more so in the present contro- _______________
_______________ 44 People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953); People v. Tongko, 353
40 AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS Phil. 37, 43; 290 SCRA 595, 601-602 (1998).
CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS 45 People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 (1953); People v. Dionisio, No. L-
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 15513, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1299, 1301-1302.
25
62 Yeah.
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED PROFESSOR TADIAR:
... One (P1.00.00) Peso in 1930.
Corpuz vs. People
JUSTICE PERALTA:
existing law. Dejectedly, the Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and
That is legislative in nature.
lacks sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
and surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal Code. This
That is my position that the Supreme Court ...
function clearly and appropriately belongs to Congress. Even Professor
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Tadiar concedes to this conclusion, to wit:
Yeah, okay.
xxxx
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
JUSTICE PERALTA:
... has no power to utilize the power of judicial review to in order to
Yeah, Just one question. You are suggesting that in order to
adjust, to make the adjustment that is a power that belongs to the
determine the value of Peso you have to take into consideration
legislature.
several factors.
JUSTICE PERALTA:
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Thank you, Professor.
Yes.
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Thank you.46
Per capita income.
Finally, the opinion advanced by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Sereno echoes the view that the role of the Court is not merely to dispense
Per capita income.
justice, but also the active duty to prevent injustice. Thus, in order to
JUSTICE PERALTA:
prevent injustice in the present controversy, the Court should not impose
Consumer price index.
an obsolete penalty pegged eighty three years ago, but consider the
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
proposed ratio of 1:100 as simply compensating for infla-
Yeah.
_______________
JUSTICE PERALTA:
46 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, pp. 183-185.
Inflation ...
64
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Yes. 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
JUSTICE PERALTA: Corpuz vs. People
... and so on. Is the Supreme Court equipped to determine those tion. Furthermore, the Court has in the past taken into consideration
factors? “changed conditions” or “significant changes in circumstances” in its
PROFESSOR TADIAR: decisions.
There are many ways by which the value of the Philippine Peso can Similarly, the Chief Justice is of the view that the Court is not delving
be determined utilizing all of those economic terms. into the validity of the substance of a statute. The issue is no different from
63 the Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons, which the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 63 Court had previously adjusted in light of current times, like in the case
of People v. Pantoja.47 Besides, Article 10 of the Civil Code mandates a
Corpuz vs. People
presumption that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to
JUSTICE PERALTA:
prevail.
Yeah, but ...
With due respect to the opinions and proposals advanced by the Chief
PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Justice and my Colleagues, all the proposals ultimately lead to prohibited
And I don’t think it is within the power of the Supreme Court to pass
judicial legislation. Short of being repetitious and as extensively discussed
upon and peg the value to One Hundred (P100.00) Pesos to ...
above, it is truly beyond the powers of the Court to legislate laws, such
JUSTICE PERALTA:
immense power belongs to Congress and the Court should refrain from
26
crossing this clear-cut divide. With regard to civil indemnity, as elucidated Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum
before, this refers to civil liability which is awarded to the offended party periods of the penalty prescribed are:
as a kind of monetary restitution. It is truly based on the value of money. _______________
The same cannot be said on penalties because, as earlier stated, penalties 48 Supra note 15.
are not only based on the value of money, but on several other factors. 66
Further, since the law is silent as to the maximum amount that can be 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
awarded and only pegged the minimum sum, increasing the amount
Corpuz vs. People
granted as civil indemnity is not proscribed. Thus, it can be adjusted in
Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years
light of current conditions.
Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days
Now, with regard to the penalty imposed in the present case, the CA
Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days49
modified the ruling of the RTC. The RTC imposed the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prisión correccional in its
To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión
medium period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum should be divided into
of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum. However, the
three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form
_______________
one period in accordance with Article 6550 of the RPC.51 In the present case,
47 No. L-18793, October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468.
the amount involved is P98,000.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, thus, the
65
maximum penalty imposable should be within the maximum period of 6
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 65 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prisión mayor. Article 315 also
Corpuz vs. People states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every
CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case
of prisión correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prisión mayor, as shall the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years.
maximum, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of Considering that the amount of P98,000.00 is P76,000.00 more than the
seven (7) years. P22,000.00 ceiling set by law, then, adding one year for each additional
In computing the penalty for this type of estafa, this Court’s ruling P10,000.00, the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
in Cosme, Jr. v. People48 is highly instructive, thus: years of prisión mayor minimum would be increased by 7 years. Taking the
With respect to the imposable penalty, Article 315 of the Revised Penal maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8 years, plus an additional 7
Code provides: years, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15 years.
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud _______________
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 49 Id., at pp. 71-72; p. 212.
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period 50 ART. 65. Rule in Cases in Which the Penalty is Not Composed of
to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Three Periods.—In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not
12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such portions.
case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed 51 People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574
and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall SCRA 258, 284.
be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 67
The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three, VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 67
periods, in which case, Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of
Corpuz vs. People
the time included in the penalty into three equal portions of time included
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty prescribed
in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions.
by law for the estafa charge against petitioner is prisión
27
correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum, the penalty next lower SERENO, CJ.:
would then be prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be The measure of a just society depends not only on how it apprehends
anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. and punishes the guilty. It also lies in the dignity and fairness it
One final note, the Court should give Congress a chance to perform its collectively accords convicted persons who, irrevocably, are still members
primordial duty of lawmaking. The Court should not preempt Congress of that society. The duty of the Court in this case is not only to dispense
and usurp its inherent powers of making and enacting laws. While it may justice, but to actively prevent injustice wrought by inaction on the
be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a dangerous question of the continued justness of the penalties under Article 315 of the
proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial legislation. Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November I concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but
5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the vote to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the
Decision dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September 5, 2007 of thing subject of the offense. Considering that the penalty has remained
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated untouched for eighty-three years, the Court cannot adhere to its literal
July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Fernando City, imposition without first revisiting the assigned values on which such
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime penalty
of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the 69
Revised Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 69
the penalty imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging
Corpuz vs. People
from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS
was based. The Legislature of 1930 pegged the penalties at the prevailing
of prisión correccional, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion
value of money at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal Code.
temporal as maximum.
Apart from its representation as a basket of goods or as a means of
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this
exchange, money has no independent value by itself, and that is how the
Decision be furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines,
law has always seen it. Even this outlook must then necessarily affect our
through the Department of Justice.
views regarding the liberty of persons and how money affects it.
Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Senate
My colleagues have presented differing approaches supported by
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
equally keen arguments. However, were we to take the convenient route of
68
mechanical application, we would be perpetuating an erroneous result
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED from lamentable inaction. Would this Court abdicate its duty at the risk of
Corpuz vs. People endangering the right to liberty of the accused? In the past, the Court has
SO ORDERED. never shirked from its role of interpreting the law, always with a careful
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, consideration of its minimum burden: to prevent a result that is manifestly
Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Reyes, JJ., concur. unjust. That the fundamental right to life and liberty is made to depend
Sereno, CJ., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. solely on Congress or the mere passage of time with respect to an omission
Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion. is a result the Court should not be prepared to accept.
Brion, J., See: Concurring Opinion. The legislative intent behind provisions of the Revised Penal Code is to
Bersamin, J., I take no part due to prior action in the CA. create prison terms dependent upon the value of the property subject of the
Del Castillo, J., I join the dissent of J. Abad. crime. A prison term is virtually monetized, while an individual’s life and
Abad, J., See Dissenting Opinion. well-being hang in the balance. It is incumbent upon the Court to preserve
Perlas-Bernabe, J., No part. the intent of Congress while crucially ensuring that the individual’s liberty
Leonen, J., I Dissent re penalties, see Separate Opinion. is not impinged upon any longer than necessary. This is distinct from the
situation contemplated under Article 5, par. 2 of the Penal Code,1 in which
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION the Court would need to delve into the wisdom of the law, i.e., the
appropriateness of
28
_______________
1 “In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition
of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.”
70
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Corpuz vs. People
the penalty taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.
Thus, the crux of the present case is simple judicial application of the
doctrines that in cases of doubt: 1) the law must be construed in favor of
the accused; 2) it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and
justice to prevail. This duty of judicial construction is understood to
permeate every corner where the Court exercises its adjudicative function,
specifically in how it expounds on criminal rules. To assume that the Court
would be changing the penalty imprudently leads to a misplaced
apprehension that it dabbles in judicial legislation, when it is merely
exercising its constitutional role of interpretation.
Adjusting the amounts to the pre-
sent value of money recognizes that
money is simply an assigned repre-
sentation, similar to the Court’s
ruling in People v. Pantoja.
Ruling in accordance with “felt necessities of the time”2 or in recognition
of considerably changed circumstances is not a novel judicial approach.
In Central Bank Employees v. BSP, the Court posed this question: Can a
provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently unconstitutional on
the ground that its continued operation would violate the equal protection
of the law? The Court thus considered the legal effect of the passage of
time, stating:
Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or
confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is
open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. x x x.
_______________

29