G.R. No. 180016. April 29, 2014.

* Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the
range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property committed today, based
LITO CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, on the amount of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court
respondent. cannot modify the said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial legislation.—There
Criminal Law; Estafa; The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to
subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the appropriation or conversion of money or impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the
property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material value of money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties
ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the because that would constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature’s perceived failure in amending
crime, as reflected in the Information, do not make the latter fatally defective.—The CA the penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court’s decisions, as that
_______________ would be encroaching upon the power of another branch of the government. This, however, does not
* EN BANC.
render the whole situation without any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the framers of
1
2
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including Article 5, which reads: ART.
5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED law, and in cases of excessive penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it
Corpuz vs. People may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
did not err in finding that the Information was substantially complete and in reiterating that decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the
objections as to the matters of form and substance in the Information cannot be made for the first time reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal
on appeal. It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the
prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime, hence, execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
the exclusion of the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
Information, do not make the latter fatally defective. 4penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
Same; Same; Estafa With Abuse of Confidence; Elements of.—The elements of estafa with abuse of offense.
confidence are as follows: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in Same; Penalties; For acts bourne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it
trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make proper to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive,
delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the reasons why the same act should be the subject of penal
property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or legislation.—For acts bourne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it proper
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive,
party on the offender. through the Department of Justice, the reasons why the same act should be the subject of penal
Same; Same; Demand; No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand. legislation. The premise here is that a deplorable act is present but is not the subject of any penal
Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.—No specific type of proof is required to show that legislation, thus, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive of the need to make that act
there was demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The specific word “demand” need punishable by law through legislation. The second paragraph is similar to the first except for the
not even be used to show that it has indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere situation wherein the act is already punishable by law but the corresponding penalty is deemed by the
query as to the whereabouts of the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a demand. court as excessive. The remedy therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to suspend the execution of the
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive the reasons why the court considers the said penalty to be
the Supreme Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique non-commensurate with the act committed. Again, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive,
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an this time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.
opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.—Anent the Same; Courts; The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it
credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness, which is questioned by petitioner, the same is shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or
unmeritorious. Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify,
respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to
3 its terms.—Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 3 not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or
construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify,
Corpuz vs. People revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to
demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied the its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and spirit,
appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case. The assessment by the trial court is even especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away
conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of from encroaching upon the primary function of a co-equal
weight and influence, especially when such finding is affirmed by the CA. Truth is established not by 5
the number of witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value and VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 5
credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.
 Corpuz vs. People community.” Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to amend the law and adapt it
branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of to our modern time.
separation of powers by means of judicial legislation. Same; Same; The Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks sufficient personnel to conduct
Same; Civil Indemnity; In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a public hearings and sponsor studies and surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal
kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to Code (RPC).—The solution to the present controversy could not be solved by merely adjusting the
the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil aspect.—In our jurisdiction, civil questioned monetary values to the present value of money based only on the current inflation rate.
indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the There are other factors and variables that need to be taken into consideration, researched, and
victim for the damage or infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only deliberated upon before the said values could be accurately and properly adjusted. The effects on the
covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a crime where a person dies, in addition society, the injured party, the accused, its socio-economic impact,
7
to the penalty of imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a
sum of money as restitution. Clearly, this award of civil indemnity due to the death of the victim could VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 7
not be contemplated as akin to the value of a thing that is unlawfully taken which is the basis in the Corpuz vs. People
imposition of the proper penalty in certain crimes. Thus, the reasoning in increasing the value of civil and the likes must be painstakingly evaluated and weighed upon in order to arrive at a wholistic
indemnity awarded in some offense cannot be the same reasoning that would sustain the adoption of change that all of us believe should be made to our existing law. Dejectedly, the Court is ill-equipped,
the suggested ratio. Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law only imposes a minimum amount has no resources, and lacks sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies and
for awards of civil indemnity, which is P3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal Code. This function clearly and
the minimum amount for the award cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil appropriately belongs to Congress.
indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it. Same; Same; It is truly beyond the powers of the Court to legislate laws, such immense power
Corollarily, moral damages under Article 2220 of the Civil Code also does not fix the amount of damages belongs to Congress and the Court should refrain from crossing this clear-cut divide.—With due respect
that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon the court, depending on the mental anguish or the to the opinions and proposals advanced by the Chief Justice and my Colleagues, all the proposals
suffering of the private offended party. The amount of moral damages can, in relation to civil indemnity, ultimately lead to prohibited judicial legislation. Short of being repetitious and as extensively discussed
be adjusted so long as it does not exceed the award of civil indemnity. above, it is truly beyond the powers of the Court to legislate laws, such immense power belongs to
Same; Penalties; Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court cannot Congress and the Court should refrain from crossing this clear-cut divide. With regard to civil
declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty emanates unconstitutional in the present indemnity, as elucidated before, this refers to civil liability which is awarded to the offended party as a
action.—Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court cannot declare the kind of monetary restitution. It is truly based on the value of money. The same cannot be said on
provision of the law from which the proper penalty emanates unconstitutional in the present action. Not penalties because, as earlier stated, penalties are not only based on the value of money, but on several
only is it violative of due process, considering that the other factors. Further, since the law is silent as to the maximum amount that can be awarded and only
6
pegged the minimum sum, increasing the amount granted as civil indemnity is not proscribed. Thus, it
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED can be adjusted in light of current conditions.
Corpuz vs. People Sereno, CJ., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
State and the concerned parties were not given the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that I concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction
it is settled that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because of petitioner but vote to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing subject of
constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally, more so in the present controversy the offense.—I concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but vote to apply the
wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of any of the provisions of the Revised penalty for estafaadjusted to the present value of the thing subject of the offense. Considering that the
Penal Code. penalty has remained untouched for eighty-three years, the Court cannot adhere to its literal imposition
Same; Same; Cruel and Unusual Punishment; It has long been held that the prohibition of cruel without first revisiting the assigned values on which such penalty was based. The Legislature of 1930
and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment rather than its pegged the penalties at the prevailing value of money at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal
severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies to punishments which public sentiment has Code. Apart from its representation as a basket of goods or as a means of exchange,
regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning 8
at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like.—It has long been held that the 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or character of the Corpuz vs. People
punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies to punishments
money has no independent value by itself, and that is how the law has always seen it. Even this
which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the whipping
outlook must then necessarily affect our views regarding the liberty of persons and how money affects
post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like. Fine
it.
and imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition. It takes more than merely being harsh,
Same; Same; Same; View that the legislative intent behind provisions of the Revised Penal Code
excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the
(RPC) is to create prison terms dependent upon the value of the property subject of the crime.—The
punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual. Expressed in other
legislative intent behind provisions of the Revised Penal Code is to create prison terms dependent upon
terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly
the value of the property subject of the crime. A prison term is virtually monetized, while an
oppressive,” “wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the
individual’s life and well-being hang in the balance. It is incumbent upon the Court to preserve the
intent of Congress while crucially ensuring that the individual’s liberty is not impinged upon any longer 1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
than necessary. This is distinct from the situation contemplated under Article 5, par. 2 of the Penal
Code, in which the Court would need to delve into the wisdom of the law, i.e., the appropriateness of the 0
penalty taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. Thus, the crux of Corpuz vs. People
the present case is simple judicial application of the doctrines that in cases of doubt: 1) the law must be view that penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is possible to the individual, with
construed in favor of the accused; 2) it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice due regard to the imperative necessity of protecting the social order.”
to prevail. This duty of judicial construction is understood to permeate every corner where the Court Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; Judicial Power; View that establishing a policy or a
exercises its adjudicative function, specifically in how it expounds on criminal rules. To assume that the rule of preference towards the unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness has
Court would be changing the penalty imprudently leads to a misplaced apprehension that it dabbles in always been within the scope of judicial power.—The imposition of a policy on penalties is not far
judicial legislation, when it is merely exercising its constitutional role of interpretation. removed from the judicial construction exercised in the present case. Establishing a policy or a rule of
Same; Same; Same; View that it is axiomatic that laws, customs, public policy and practice evolve preference towards the unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness has
with the passage of time; so too, does monetary valuation.—It is axiomatic that laws, customs, public always been within the scope of judicial power.
policy and practice evolve with the passage of time; so too, does monetary valuation. Money has no Statutory Construction; View that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
value in and of itself except that which we assign, making it susceptible to construction and presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.—Article 10 of the Civil Code
interpretation. Money is not real in the sense that it is capable of being indexed. Viewed in this way, states: “In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
human lives and liberty cannot be made dependent on a mere index of almost a century ago. I submit body intended right and justice to prevail.” The Code Commission found it necessary to include this
that in the present case, the Court is not even delving into questions of validity of the substance of the provision to “strengthen the determination of the Court to avoid an injustice which may apparently be
statute. This is no different from the Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons or the authorized in some way of interpreting the law.”
determination of valuation in expropriation cases. We have Constitutional Law; Due Process; View that fear of clogged dockets and the inconvenience of a
9 perceived distortion are operational concerns that are not sufficient justification to re-tilt the scales to the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 9 prejudice of the accused.—Fear of clogged dockets and the inconvenience of a perceived distortion are
Corpuz vs. People operational concerns that are not sufficient justification to re-tilt the scales to the prejudice of the
accused. It does not impact on the fact that by adjusting the questioned amounts to the present value of
continually checked penalties in criminal cases, adjusted the amounts of damages and
money, the Court would merely be following the mandate of Article 10 and fulfilling its proper
indemnities according to the appropriateness thereof in light of current times. We have done so with
constitutional role.
eyes open, knowing that the adjustments reflect a realization that the value of the peso has changed
over time. If the purchasing power of the peso was accepted as a “judicially manageable standard” in Carpio, J., Dissenting Opinion:
those cases, there is no reason for the Court not to apply it in favor of the accused herein, especially Constitutional Law; Cruel Punishment Clause; Penalties; View that the Filipino people who
because it is mandated to do so. ratified the present Constitution could not have intended to limit the reach of the Cruel Punishment
Same; Same; Same; View that I agree with the view of Justice Roberto A. Abad that while Article Clause to cover torture and other forms of odious punishments only because
2206 of the Civil Code sets only a minimum amount, the Court since then has regularly increased 11

amounts awarded by the lower courts; Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality — among other VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 1
instances when the Court has acknowledged “changed conditions” — only shows that criminal rules, 1
especially the implementation of penalties, must also evolve.—I agree with the view of Justice Roberto A.
Abad that while Article 2206 of the Civil Code sets only a minimum amount, the Court since then has Corpuz vs. People
regularly increased amounts awarded by the lower courts. Tellingly, these decisions and resolutions are nearly four decades before the present Constitution took effect, the Philippine government joined the
not mere suggestions or guidelines for the trial courts’ exercise of discretion, but are actual findings of community of nations in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which
error. Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality — among other instances when the Court has bans “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”—Indeed, the Filipino people
acknowledged “changed conditions” — only shows that criminal rules, especially the implementation of who ratified the present Constitution could not have intended to limit the reach of the Cruel
penalties, must also evolve. As societies develop, become more enlightened, new truths are disclosed. Punishment Clause to cover torture and other forms of odious punishments only because nearly four
The Court as an institution cannot ignore these truths to the detriment of basic rights. The reality is decades before the present Constitution took effect, the Philippine government joined the community of
that property-related crimes are affected by external economic forces, rendering the penalties nations in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which bans “torture
vulnerable to these forces. or x x x cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In 1986, shortly before the Constitution
Same; Same; Same; Pro Reo Rule; View that the rationale behind the pro reo rule and other rules took effect, the Philippines ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
that favor the accused is anchored on the rehabilitative philosophy of our penal system.—The rationale containing an identically worded prohibition. These international norms formed part of Philippine law
behind the pro reo rule and other rules that favor the accused is anchored on the rehabilitative as generally accepted principles of international law and binding treaty obligation, respectively.
philosophy of our penal system. In People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 (1933), the Court explained that it is Same; Same; Same; View that impermissible disproportionality is better gauged by testing
“necessary to consider the criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a member of society. This punishments against the following alternative parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes are equally or
opens up an almost limitless field of investigation and study which it is the duty of the court to explore less severely punished; or (2) whether the punishment reasonably advances the state interest behind the
in each case as far as is humanly possible, with the end in penalty.—Impermissible disproportionality is better gauged by testing punishments against the
10 following alternative parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes are equally or less severely punished;
or (2) whether the punishment reasonably advances the state interest behind the penalty. These Same; Same; Same; Syndicated Estafa (P.D. No. 1689); View that the penalty for the felony of
parameters strike the proper balance of providing practical tools of adjudication to weigh claims of cruel syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1689 is an altogether different matter. PD 1689
punishment while at the same time affording Congress discretionary leeway to craft penal statutes amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by adding a new mode of committing estafa and
addressing societal evils. imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment to death” or “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the
Same; Same; Same; View that by imposing a level of punishment for estafa equal to more serious amount of the fraud exceeds P100,000.”—The penalty for the felony of syndicated estafa under
crimes such as homicide and kidnapping, Article 315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty based Presidential Decree No. 1689 (PD 1689) is, however, an altogether different matter. PD 1689 amended
on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and disproportionate to the severity of the crime punished.— Article 315 of the Code by adding a new mode of committing estafa and imposing the penalty of “life
Article 315 of the Code calibrates the maximum penalty for estafa on an escalated basis once a imprisonment to death” or “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds
threshold amount of fraud is crossed (P22,000). The penalty escalates on a ratio of one year P100,000.” Unlike Article 315, PD 1689 does not calibrate the duration of the maximum range of
imprisonment for every P10,000 fraud, with 20 years as ceiling. Accordingly, for a fraud of P98,000, the imprisonment on a fixed time-to-peso ratio (1 year for every P10,000 in excess of P22,000), but rather
trial provides a straight maximum penalty of death or reclusion perpetua. This places PD 1689 outside of the
12 ambit of the proscription of the Cruel Punishment Clause on the imposition of prison terms calibrated
1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED based on the value of the money or property swindled, unadjusted to inflation.
2 Same; Same; Same; View that the Cruel Punishment Clause, on the other hand, is the
constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are measured using relevant standards unrelated
Corpuz vs. People to questions of criminal malice and injury.—Testing Article 315 against the Cruel Punishment Clause
court sentenced petitioner to a maximum term of 15 years. This punishment, however, is within under the standards espoused in this opinion does not make a dead letter law of the second paragraph
the range of the penalty imposable on petitioner under the Code had he “killed the [private of Article 5 of the Code. Such provision, mandating courts to recommend executive clemency — when a
complainant] jeweler in an angry confrontation.” The same penalty would also be within the range strict enforcement of the provisions of th[e] Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
prescribed by the Code had petitioner kidnapped the private complainant and kept him detained for penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. (Emphasis
three days. By any objective standard of comparison, crimes resulting in the deprivation of life or liberty supplied) operates within the realm of criminal law, requiring fact-based judicial evaluation on the
are unquestionably more serious than crimes resulting in the deprivation of property. By imposing a degree of malice of the accused and the injury sustained by the victim or his heirs. The Cruel
level of punishment for estafa equal to more serious crimes such as homicide and kidnapping, Article Punishment Clause, on the other hand, is the constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are
315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty based on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and meas-
disproportionate to the severity of the crime punished. 14
Same; Same; Same; View that the Cruel Punishment Clause ensures that the state interest is 1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
advanced without sacrificing proportionality between the crime and punishment. In short, the Clause
4
acts as constitutional brake whenever Congress enacts punishment whose severity is gratuitous, wholly
unconnected to the purpose of the law.—The penalties of imprisonment and/or fine attached to each Corpuz vs. People
crime are meant to deter and incapacitate criminals from infringing such right. The Cruel Punishment ured using relevant standards unrelated to questions of criminal malice and injury. Far from
Clause ensures that the state interest is advanced without sacrificing proportionality between the crime overlapping, the conclusions yielded by analyses under these two rules are distinct — a penal statute
and punishment. In short, the Clause acts as constitutional brake whenever Congress enacts may well avoid the taint of unconstitutionality under the Clause but, applying such statute under
punishment whose severity is gratuitous, wholly unconnected to the purpose of the law. peculiar set of facts, may justify a recommendation for the grant of clemency.
Same; Same; Same; View that the breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause by Article 315’s system of Same; Same; Same; View that the constitutional infirmity not only of Article 315 but also of related
calculating the maximum penalty for estafa in excess of P22,000 means that only the minimum term of provisions in the Code calls for a comprehensive review by Congress of such 82-year old legislation.—The
imprisonment provided under Article 315 for such crime can be imposed on petitioner, namely, prisión constitutional infirmity not only of Article 315 but also of related provisions in the Code calls for a
correccional in its maximum period.—The breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause by Article 315’s comprehensive review by Congress of such 82-year old legislation. Pending such congressional review,
system of calculating the maximum penalty for estafa in excess of P22,000 means that only the this Court should decline to enforce the incremental penalty in Article 315 because such continued
minimum term of imprisonment provided under Article 315 for such crime can be imposed on petitioner, enforcement of the incremental penalty violates the Cruel Punishment Clause.
namely, prisión correccional in its maximum period. This level of penalty is covered by the Brion, J., Concurring Opinion:
Indeterminate Sentence Law which renders the next lower penalty, namely, prisión correccional in its Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; View that what they propose to do involves an undue and
medium period, as the minimum of the sentence. The entirety of the sentence will be anywhere within unwarranted invocation of the Supreme Court’s judicial power — an act that cannot be done without
the range of these maximum and violating the due process rights of the Republic.—In my view, what they propose to do involves an undue
13
and unwarranted invocation of the Court’s judicial power — an act that cannot be done without
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 1 violating the due process rights of the Republic. Notably, the Republic focused solely and was heard
3 only on the matter of estafa. In fact, the present case is only about estafa, not any other crime. To touch
these other crimes in the present case likewise involves acts of policy determination on the substance of
Corpuz vs. People
the law by the Judiciary — a violation of the highest order of the limits imposed on us by the
minimum penalties. Hence, petitioner’s term of imprisonment should be modified to three (3) Constitution.
years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prisión correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; View that in reviewing criminal cases, we recognize
months and eleven (11) days of prisión correccional, as maximum. our duty to correct errors as may be found in the judgment appealed raised by the parties as errors,
regardless of whether they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not.—I am not unaware enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such
that an appeal in criminal cases throws the case wide open for review, and allows the reviewing rights.”
tribunal the power to correct errors or to reverse the trial court’s decisions on the grounds other than Same; Same; Same; View that no court can exercise judicial power unless real parties come before
those raised by the parties as it for the settlement of actual controversy and unless the controversy is of the nature that can be settled in
15 a manner that binds the parties through the application of existing laws.—No court can exercise judicial
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 1 power unless real parties come before it for the settlement of actual controversy and unless the
5 controversy is of the nature that can be settled in a manner that binds the parties through the
application of existing laws. This traditional concept of judicial power, as the application of law to
Corpuz vs. People actual controversies, reflects the constitutional imperative of upholding the principle of separation of
errors. In reviewing criminal cases, we recognize our duty to correct errors as may be found in the powers, such that the Judiciary has no power to entertain litigations involving the legality,
judgment appealed regardless of whether they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not. wisdom, or the propriety of the conduct of the Executive; neither has it the power to
This discretion, however, is limited to situations where the Court intends to correct the trial enlarge, alter or repeal laws or to question the wisdom, propriety, appropriateness,
court’s errors in applying the law and appreciating the facts. A quick survey of jurisprudence necessity, policy or expediency of the laws.
shows that this includes reevaluating factual questions presented before the trial court, weighing the Same; Same; Same; View that judicial interpretation of penal laws should be aligned with the
credibility of witnesses and other pieces of evidence presented before the trial court, or applying the evident legislative intent, as expressed primarily in the language of the law as it defines the crime.—On
proper penalty. the legislature’s exclusive domain, through lawmaking, lies the
Same; Same; Same; View that at most, the Supreme Court’s wide discretion in reviewing criminal 17
cases allows it to motu proprio provide a proper interpretation of the penal law being applied.—At most, VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 1
the Supreme Court’s wide discretion in reviewing criminal cases allows it to motu proprio provide a
7
proper interpretation of the penal law being applied. This discretion, however, does not extend to the
power to adjust the penalty defined in the law, based on the monetary value of the property involved in Corpuz vs. People
the crime of estafa. More than this, the Court’s discretion does not allow it to similarly adjust the authority to define what constitutes a particular crime in this jurisdiction. It is the legislature, as
penalties defined in other crimes, similarly based on the monetary values of the property involved representative of the sovereign people, that determines which acts or combination of acts is criminal
in these other crimes, as these other crimes are not involved in the present case. These crimes and what the ordained punishments shall be. Judicial interpretation of penal laws should be aligned
and their penalties have neither been adjudicated upon by the trial court nor by the CA; neither is the with the evident legislative intent, as expressed primarily in the language of the law as it defines the
“judicial interpretation” of their penalties necessary to determine whether Corpuz committed the crime crime.
of estafa in the present case. Statutory Construction; Verba Legis; View that the cardinal canon in statutory construction — the
Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; View that within their respective spheres of influence, plain meaning rule or verba legis — requires that “the meaning of a statute should, in the first instance,
each department is supreme and the exercise of its powers to the full extent cannot be questioned by be sought in the language in which the act is framed; if the language is plain, the sole function of the
another department.—Underlying the doctrine of separation of powers is the general proposition that courts is to enforce it according to its terms.”—The cardinal canon in statutory construction — the plain
the whole power of one department should not be exercised by the same hands that possess the whole meaning rule or verba legis — requires that “the meaning of a statute should, in the first instance, be
power of the other departments. Within their respective spheres of influence, each department is sought in the language in which the act is framed; if the language is plain, the sole function of the
supreme and the exercise of its powers to the full extent cannot be questioned by another department. courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” In interpreting any statute in the exercise of its judicial
Outside of their defined spheres of action, none of the great governmental departments has any power, power of applying the law, the Court should always turn to this cardinal canon before all others.
and nor may any of them validly exercise the powers conferred upon the others. “Courts should always presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a
16 statute what it says there,” and that the legislature knows “the meaning of the words, to have used
1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED them advisedly, and to have expressed the intent by use of such words as are found in the statute.”
6 Thus, when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, and does not yield absurd and
unworkable results, the duty of interpretation, more so of construction, does not arise; the Court should
Corpuz vs. People resort to the canons of statutory construction only when the statute is ambiguous.
Same; Same; Judicial Power; View that Section 1, paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Constitution Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that as the words of Article 315 are clear, the Court cannot
states that judicial power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving and should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the law
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,” as well as to “determine whether or not there has or from legislative history.—The language of the penalty clauses of Article 315 of the RPC is plain and
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or clear; no reservation, condition or qualification, particularly on the need for adjustment for inflation,
instrumentality of the Government.”—Section 1, paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Constitution states that can be read from the law, whether by express provision or by implication. The clear legislative intention
judicial power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights to penalize estafa according to the “amount of fraud” as enumerated in the law, therefore, should be
which are legally demandable and enforceable,” as well as to “determine whether or not there has been deemed complete — Article 315 embodies all that the legislature intended when the law was crafted. As
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or the words of Article 315 are
instrumentality of the Government.” Traditionally, judicial power has been defined as “the right to 18
determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper 1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
jurisdiction.” It is “the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
8 Solicitor General has adequately provided the reason for the penalties behind the estafa, i.e., to protect
and encourage the growth of commerce in the country and to protect the public from fraud. This reason,
Corpuz vs. People to my mind, is sufficient to justify the penalties for estafa. That the amount taken from the private
clear, the Court cannot and should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose injured party has grown negligible through inflation does not ipso facto make the penalty wholly
that does not appear on the face of the law or from legislative history, i.e., to remedy the disproportional. In determining whether a penalty is cruel or unusual, we have considered not just the
perceived grossly unfair practice of continuing to impose on persons found guilty of estafa the penalties amount taken from the private injured party, but also considered the crime’s impact on national policy
that the RPC Commission pegged on the value of money and property in 1930. and order. It cannot be gainsaid that the perpetuation of fraud adversely impacts on the public’s
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection Clause; View that the equal protection clause means that no confidence in our financial system and hinders as well the growth of commerce.20
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
other classes in the same place in like circumstances; The equal protection, however, does not demand
absolute equality under all circumstances.—Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently 0
provides: “nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The equal protection Corpuz vs. People
clausemeans that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same place in like circumstances. It demands that all persons or Abad, J., Dissenting Opinion:
things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to the rights conferred and responsibilities Criminal Law; Penalties; View that as a general principle, crimes found in the Revised Penal Code
imposed. The equal protection, however, does not demand absolute equality under all circumstances. (RPC) carry with them the same penalties whatever year the accused commits them.—As a general
The protection recognizes that persons are not born equal and have varying handicaps that society has principle, crimes found in the Revised Penal Code carry with them the same penalties whatever year
no power to abolish. Thus, the equal protection clause permits reasonable classifications provided that the accused commits them. For example, one who mutilates a Philippine coin in 1932, when the code
the classification: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) is not took effect, would go to jail for 2 years and 4 months maximum, exactly the same penalty that another
limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class. who mutilates a coin in 2014 would get. The correspondence between the gravity of the offense and the
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; View that that there has been no change in the way the Revised severity of the penalty does not change with the passage of time. But, unwittingly, the penalties for
Penal Code (RPC) defines fraud and, hence, there should be no reason for a change in the way a crimes involving property under the Revised Penal Code are in breach of that principle. Although these
fraudulent act is penalized; A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the same manner as a penalties are meant to be proportionate to the harm caused, they are not described in specific and
fraud committed in the present day.—The key element in estafa is the fraudulent act committed that constant terms like the number of days of incapacity for work of the offended party in physical injuries
has caused harm to others. Estafa penalizes the fraudulent act. I submit that there has been no cases.
change in the way the RPC defines fraud and, hence, there should be no reason for a change in Same; Same; Incremental Penalties; View that it is not only the incremental penalty that violates
the way a fraudulent act is penalized. A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the the accused’s right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow across
same manner as a fraud committed in the present day. That the consequences of the fraudulent act the board touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and inhumanity will go on as it has gone
constituted the basis for determining the gradation of penalties on for decades unless the Court acts to rein it in.—It is not only the incremental penalty that violates the
19 accused’s right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow across the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 1 board touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and inhumanity will go on as it has gone on
for decades unless the Court acts to rein it in.
9 Same; Same; Same; View that it may be assumed that those who enacted the Revised Penal Code
Corpuz vs. People (RPC) in 1930 did not foresee the onslaught of inflation in the second half of the century.—It may be
was a policy decision that Congress had the prerogative to make. This included the value behind assumed that those who enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930 did not foresee the onslaught of
each threshold and its corresponding penalty. What was true then is still true today. Thus, the disparity inflation in the second half of the century. They had an agricultural economy and, presumably, the
between the monetary values of things and property in the 1930s and the prevailing monetary values of purchasing power of the peso at that time had not changed perceptibly in the years that they had
like things and property do not amount to distinctions so substantial that they would require this Court known. It would be imprudent to believe that, if those legislators had an inkling of the shape and value
to treat and classify Corpuz differently from persons who committed estafa in 1930. of money and things would take down the years to 2014, they would have still pegged those penalties to
Statutory Construction; View that resorting to judicial legislation by construction encroaches into their 1930 economy. But they
21
the exclusive domain of the legislature — a course that clearly violated the constitutional separation of
powers principle.—Even granting arguendo that the penalty the CA imposed on Corpuz is “grossly VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 2
unfair” from the economic and pragmatic point of view (as Justice Abad has carefully crafted), the 1
solution to this “gross unfairness” is not for this Court, by itself, to provide. Article 315 of the RPC is
plain and unambiguous and Corpuz’s case falls clearly within its provisions. Hence, under the
Corpuz vs. People
circumstances and within the context of this case, the Court’s duty is simply to apply the law. Resorting did. Clearly, they were uninformed and, therefore, their intent must have been to match the
to judicial legislation by construction encroaches into the exclusive domain of the legislature — a course penalties written in the law to the values of money and property as they understood it at that time.
that clearly violated the constitutional separation of powers principle. Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court (SC) need not rewrite the penalties that the law
Criminal Law; Estafa; Penalties; Cruel and Unusual Punishment; View that in determining provides. Rather, the clear intent of the law can be given by “harmonizing” the law or “aligning the
whether a penalty is cruel or unusual, we have considered not just the amount taken from the private numerical figures” to the economic realities of the present.—The Court need not rewrite the penalties
injured party, but also considered the crime’s impact on national policy and order.—In this case, the that the law provides. Rather, the clear intent of the law can be given by, to borrow a phrase from Atty.
Mario L. Bautista, counsel for Corpuz, “harmonizing” the law or “aligning the numerical figures” to the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 2
economic realities of the present. To put it another way, ascertaining the facts of the case in order to
faithfully apply to it the law as the legislature intended it is a judicial function. Dean Candelaria of 3
Ateneo shares this position. Corpuz vs. People
Same; Same; Same; View that the Civil Code stands on the same footing as the Revised Penal Code required based on our new interpretations. It is also possible for the Department of Justice’s
(RPC) in terms of force and effect. One is not superior to the other.—Some would say that Article 2206 of Bureau of Corrections and Parole and Probation Administration to adopt its own guidelines on the
the Civil Code merely governs civil indemnity whereas Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on release of prisoners. This difficulty is not insurmountable.
penalties for estafa governs criminal liability, implying that the latter is quite different. But the Civil Same; Same; View that I am not convinced that a ruling that will affect penalties in other crimes
Code stands on the same footing as the Revised Penal Code in terms of force and effect. One is not where the gravity is measured in pesos will present difficulties too debilitating so as to amount to being
superior to the other. The point is that prudent judicial construction works equally on both codes. unimplementable.—Law has never been a discipline too autonomous from the other disciplines. The
Same; Same; Same; View that in any event, the rule is that in case of doubt the provisions of the points of view of those that inhabit the world of economics and finance are not strange to lawyers. The
Revised Penal Code (RPC) are to be construed in favor of the accused.—In any event, the rule is that in eyes through which the law views reality should not be too parochial and too narrow. Our
case of doubt the provisions of the Revised Penal Code are to be construed in favor of the accused. What understanding should instead be open enough to allow us to see more by borrowing from other
has happened, however, is that the Court has beginning in 1964 construed the minimum amount set in disciplines. Doing so enhances rather than weakens judicial rigor. I am not convinced that a ruling that
Article 2206 as subject to adjustment to cope with inflation although this worked against the accused in will affect penalties in other crimes where the gravity is measured in pesos will present difficulties too
murder and homicide cases. The Court has not come around to give the same construction to the debilitating so as to amount to being unimplementable. I do not see why courts of law cannot simply
inflation-affected penalty provisions of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which would be favorable adopt the universally acceptable formula for present value.
to him. Same; Same; View that an interpretative methodology for penalties is proposed because of the
22 extraordinary lapse of time from the date of promulgation of the law (1932) to the present.—An
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED interpretative methodology for penalties is proposed because of the extraordinary lapse of time from the
2 date of promulgation of the law (1932) to the present. Definitely, we will not be recomputing the
penalties for all statutes. I am of the view that the approach for computing the penalties in this case
Corpuz vs. People will only be applicable to statutes that have been promulgated and have not been amended for no less
Leonen, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: than the past eight decades. The world was very different then. A world war intervened. Four different
Statutory Construction; View that our duty is to interpret the law. It is a duty reposed on us by the Constitutions with their corresponding amendments were promulgated and took effect. There are now
Constitution. We provide meaning to law’s language and make laws written in a different historical more types of property than could have been imagined at that time.
context relevant to present reality.—I concur with the ponencia of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
affirming the conviction of Lito Corpuz. However, I dissent on the penalty imposed by the majority. I do
not agree that it is judicial legislation for us to reconsider the range of penalties created by Congress in
of Appeals.
1932. The range of penalties for the crime of estafashould be recomputed based on present value. Our The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
duty is to interpret the law. It is a duty reposed on us by the Constitution. We provide meaning to law’s Nini D. Cruz and Mario Luza Bautista for petitioner.
language and make laws written in a different historical context relevant to present reality. 24
Criminal Law; Penalties; View that the purchasing power of the peso has significantly changed
after eight decades, and it is time that we interpret the law the way it should be: to reflect the relative
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
range of values it had when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, just Corpuz vs. People
construing what it actually means.—Viewed in this way, I must dissent in the penalty imposed upon the The Solicitor General for respondent.
accused. The pecuniary values that provided the basis for the range of penalties for the crime
of estafa(swindling) were the values in 1932. It is clear that the gravity of a crime where someone was PERALTA, J.:
defrauded of fifty pesos (P50.00) of property in 1932 is not the same as the gravity of the same offense This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of
for property worth fifty pesos (P50.00) in 2014. The purchasing power of the peso has significantly the Rules of Court, dated November 5, 2007, of petitioner Lito Corpuz
changed after eight decades, and it is time that we interpret the law the way it should be: to reflect the
relative range of values it had when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, just (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated March 22,
construing what it actually means. 2007 and Resolution2 dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
Same; Same; View that an interpretation of a legal provision more beneficial to an accused or a which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated July 30, 2004 of the
person who is convicted will have a retroactive effect.—Definitely, an interpretation of a legal provision
more beneficial to an accused or a person who is convicted will have a retroactive effect. This should be Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding the
because such interpretation is corrective in nature. This should not present extremely debilitating petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article
difficulties, and we do not have to have special rules. The convicted prisoner could simply file habeas 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
corpus as a post-conviction remedy whenever he or she would have served more than what would be
23 The antecedent facts follow.
 Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy and petitioner met at the Admiral 26
Royale Casino in Olongapo City sometime in 1990. Private complainant was 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
then engaged in the business of lending money to casino players and, upon Corpuz vs. People
hearing that the former had some pieces of jewelry for sale, petitioner defense presented the lone testimony of petitioner, which can be summarized,
approached him on May 2, 1991 at the same casino and offered to sell the said as follows:
pieces of jewelry on commission basis. Private complainant agreed, and as a Petitioner and private complainant were collecting agents of Antonio
consequence, he turned over to petitioner the following items: an 18k diamond Balajadia, who is engaged in the financing business of extending loans to
ring for men; a woman’s bracelet; one (1) men’s necklace and another men’s Base employees. For every collection made, they earn a commission.
bracelet, with an aggregate value of P98,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt of Petitioner denied having transacted any business with private complainant.
even date. They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the However, he admitted obtaining a loan from Balajadia sometime in 1989 for
sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the same items, within a period of 60 days. which he was made to sign a blank receipt. He claimed that the same receipt
The period expired without petitioner remitting the proceeds of the sale was then dated May 2, 1991 and used as evidence against him for the
_______________ supposed agreement to sell the subject pieces of jewelry, which he did not
1 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of the Supreme Court), with Associate
Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of the Supreme Court), concurring; Rollo, pp. 31- even see.
41. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
2 Rollo, p. 43.
3 Id., at pp. 48-52. crime charged in the Information. The dispositive portion of the decision
25 states:
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 25 WHEREFORE, finding accused LITO CORPUZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the felony
of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph one (1), subparagraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code;
Corpuz vs. People there being no offsetting generic aggravating nor ordinary mitigating circumstance/s to vary the
or returning the pieces of jewelry. When private complainant was able to penalty imposable;
meet petitioner, the latter promised the former that he will pay the value of accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of deprivation of liberty consisting
of an imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law of FOUR (4) YEARS AND TWO (2)
the said items entrusted to him, but to no avail. MONTHS of Prisión Correccional in its medium period AS MINIMUM, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
Thus, an Information was filed against petitioner for the crime of estafa, AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period AS MAXIMUM; to indemnify
which reads as follows: private complainant Danilo Tangcoy the amount of P98,000.00 as actual damages, and to pay the costs
That on or about the fifth (5th) day of July 1991, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within of suit.
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, after having received from one SO ORDERED.
27
Danilo Tangcoy, one (1) men’s diamond ring, 18k, worth P45,000.00; one (1) three-baht men’s bracelet,
22k, worth P25,000.00; one (1) two-baht ladies’ bracelet, 22k, worth P12,000.00, or in the total amount VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 27
of Ninety-Eight Thousand Pesos (P98,000.00), Philippine currency, under expressed obligation on the Corpuz vs. People
part of said accused to remit the proceeds of the sale of the said items or to return the same, if not sold,
said accused, once in possession of the said items, with intent to defraud, and with unfaithfulness and
abuse of confidence, and far from complying with his aforestated obligation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit The case was elevated to the CA, however, the latter denied the appeal of
the aforesaid jewelries (sic) or the proceeds of the sale thereof, and despite repeated demands, the petitioner and affirmed the decision of the RTC, thus:
accused failed and refused to return the said items or to remit the amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated July 30, 2004 of the
Pesos (P98,000.00), Philippine currency, to the damage and prejudice of said Danilo Tangcoy in the
RTC of San Fernando City (P), Branch 46, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the
aforementioned amount.
imposable prison term, such that accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years
CONTRARY TO LAW.
and 2 months ofprisión correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prisión mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year
On January 28, 1992, petitioner, with the assistance of his counsel, entered for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of 7 years. The rest of the decision stands.
a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. SO ORDERED.
The prosecution, to prove the above-stated facts, presented the lone Petitioner, after the CA denied his motion for reconsideration, filed with
testimony of Danilo Tangcoy. On the other hand, the this Court the present petition stating the following grounds:
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADMISSION AND According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial
APPRECIATION BY THE LOWER COURT OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ITS
EXHIBITS, WHICH ARE MERE MACHINE COPIES, AS THIS VIOLATES THE BEST EVIDENCE court, admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit
RULE; “A” and its submarkings, although the same was merely a photocopy, thus,
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT’S violating the best evidence rule. However, the records show that petitioner
FINDING THAT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA WAS NOT FATALLY DEFECTIVE
ALTHOUGH THE SAME DID NOT CHARGE THE OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 315 (1) (B) OF THE never objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was
REVISED PENAL CODE IN THAT — identified, marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. The CA
1. THE INFORMATION DID NOT FIX A PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE SUBJECT [PIECES also correctly pointed out that petitioner also failed to raise an objection in his
OF] JEWELRY SHOULD BE RETURNED, IF UNSOLD, OR THE MONEY TO BE REMITTED, IF
SOLD;28 Comment to the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence and even admitted
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED having signed the said receipt. The established doctrine is that when a party
Corpuz vs. People failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered
2. THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION AS in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.5
OF 05 JULY 1991 WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TESTIFIED TO BY THE Another procedural issue raised is, as claimed by petitioner, the formally
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHICH WAS 02 MAY 1991;
C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT’S
defective Information filed against him. He contends that the Information
FINDING THAT DEMAND TO RETURN THE SUBJECT [PIECES OF] JEWELRY, IF UNSOLD, OR does not contain the period when the pieces of jewelry were supposed to be
REMIT THE PROCEEDS, IF SOLD — AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE — WAS PROVED; returned and
D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT’S _______________
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION’S CASE WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT 4 Libuit v. People, 506 Phil. 591, 599; 469 SCRA 610, 618 (2005).
ALTHOUGH — 5 Blas v. Angeles-Hutalla, 482 Phil. 485, 501; 439 SCRA 273, 286 (2004).
1. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED ON TWO (2) VERSIONS OF THE INCIDENT; 30
2. THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER — ACCUSED IS MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
LOGICAL, CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE;
3. THE EQUIPOISE RULE WAS NOT APPRECIATED IN AND APPLIED TO THIS CASE; Corpuz vs. People
4. PENAL STATUTES ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE STATE. that the date when the crime occurred was different from the one testified
to by private complainant. This argument is untenable. The CA did not err in
In its Comment dated May 5, 2008, the Office of the Solicitor General finding that the Information was substantially complete and in reiterating
(OSG) stated the following counter-arguments: that objections as to the matters of form and substance in the Information
The exhibits were properly admitted inasmuch as petitioner failed to object to their admissibility. cannot be made for the first time on appeal. It is true that the gravamen of
The information was not defective inasmuch as it sufficiently established the designation of the
offense and the acts complained of.29 the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 29 RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the
Corpuz vs. People prejudice of the owner6 and that the time of occurrence is not a material
The prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged. ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of the period and the wrong date
This Court finds the present petition devoid of any merit. of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the Information, do not make
The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and the latter fatally defective. The CA ruled:
carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, x x x An information is legally viable as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the
offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. Then Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the provides that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
discretion.4 Petitioner is of the opinion that the CA erred in affirming the the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed. In the case at bar, a reading of the subject Information shows
factual findings of the trial court. He now comes to this Court raising both compliance with the foregoing rule. That the time of the commission of the offense was stated as “on or
procedural and substantive issues. about the fifth (5th) day of July, 1991” is not likewise fatal to the prosecution’s cause considering that
Section 11 of the same Rule requires a statement of the precise time only when the same is a material
ingredient of the offense. The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the jewelry and asked petitioner about the same items with the latter promising
prejudice of the offender. Thus, aside from the fact that the date of the commission thereof is not an
essen- to pay them. Thus:
_______________ PROS. MARTINEZ
6 Quinto v. People, 365 Phil. 259, 270; 305 SCRA 708, 718 (1999). Q Now, Mr. Witness, this was executed on 2 May 1991, and this transaction could have been
31 finished on 5 July 1991, the question is what happens (sic) when the deadline came?
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 31 A I went looking for him, sir.
Corpuz vs. People Q For whom?
A Lito Corpuz, sir.
tial element of the crime herein charged, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact date does not
Q Were you able to look (sic) for him?
render the Information ipso facto defective. Moreover, the said date is also near the due date within
A I looked for him for a week, sir.
which accused-appellant should have delivered the proceeds or returned the said [pieces of jewelry] as
Q Did you know his residence?
testified upon by Tangkoy, hence, there was sufficient compliance with the rules. Accused-appellant,
A Yes, sir.
therefore, cannot now be allowed to claim that he was not properly apprised of the charges proferred
Q Did you go there?
against him.7
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you find him?
It must be remembered that petitioner was convicted of the crime A No, sir.
Q Were you able to talk to him since 5 July 1991?
of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, which reads:
A I talked to him, sir.33
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow. VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 33
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: Corpuz vs. People
xxxx Q How many times?
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other A Two times, sir.
personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under Q What did you talk (sic) to him?
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such A About the items I gave to (sic) him, sir.
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, Q Referring to Exhibit A-2?
goods, or other property; x x x A Yes, sir, and according to him he will take his obligation and I asked him where the
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that items are and he promised me that he will pay these amount, sir.
money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, Q Up to this time that you were here, were you able to collect from him partially or full?
A No, sir. 9
or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty
_______________ No specific type of proof is required to show that there was
7 Rollo, p. 37. (Citations omitted) demand.10 Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.11 The specific
32 word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has indeed been made
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED upon the person charged, since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of
Corpuz vs. People the money [in this case, property], would be tantamount to a demand.12 As
to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation expounded in Asejo v. People:13
or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA that demand under this kind
of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the of estafa need not be formal or written. The appellate court observed that the law is silent with regard
to the form of demand in estafa under Art. 315, 1(b), thus:
prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written demand be necessary, the
party on the offender.8 law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word “demand” should be inter-
Petitioner argues that the last element, which is, that there is a demand by _______________
8 Diaz v. People, 585 Phil. 318, 332; 563 SCRA 322, 335 (2008), citingPangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 670, 675; 321
the offended party on the offender, was not proved. This Court disagrees. In SCRA 51, 57 (1999).
9 TSN, December 17, 1992, pp. 9-10. (Emphasis supplied)
his testimony, private complainant narrated how he was able to locate 10 Tan v. People, 542 Phil. 188, 201; 513 SCRA 194, 207 (2007).
11 Id., citing Lee v. People, 495 Phil. 239, 250; 455 SCRA 256, 267 (2005).
petitioner after almost two (2) months from the time he gave the pieces of 12 Id.
13 555 Phil. 106; 528 SCRA 114 (2007).
34
enacted the Revised Penal Code. Since the members of the division reached
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
no unanimity on this question and since the issues are of first impression,
Corpuz vs. People they decided to refer the case to the Court en banc for consideration and
preted in its general meaning as to include both written and oral demand. Thus, the failure of the
prosecution to present a written demand as evidence is not fatal. resolution. Thus, several amici curiaewere invited at the behest of the Court
In Tubb v. People, where the complainant merely verbally inquired about the money entrusted to to give their academic opinions on the matter. Among those that graciously
the accused, we held that the query was tantamount to a demand, thus: complied were Dean Jose Manuel Diokno, Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria,
x x x [T]he law does not require a demand as a condition precedent to the existence of the crime of
embezzlement. It so happens only that failure to account, upon demand for funds or property held in Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar, the Senate President, and the Speaker of the
trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The same way, however, be established by other House of Representatives. The parties were later heard on oral arguments
proof, such as that introduced in the case at bar.14
before the Court en banc, with Atty. Mario L. Bautista appearing as
In view of the foregoing and based on the records, the prosecution was able counsel de oficio of the petitioner.
to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime. Private complainant After a thorough consideration of the arguments presented on the matter,
gave petitioner the pieces of jewelry in trust, or on commission basis, as this Court finds the following:
shown in the receipt dated May 2, 1991 with an obligation to sell or return _______________
the same within sixty (60) days, if unsold. There was misappropriation when 175;15 Cosme, Jr. v. People, 538 Phil. 52, 66; 508 SCRA 190, 206 (2006), citing People v. Garillo, 446 Phil. 163, 174-
398 SCRA 118, 126 (2003).
petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold, or if no 16 Id., citing Sullon v. People, 500 Phil. 39, 45; 461 SCRA 248, 253 (2005); People v. Bulan, 498 Phil. 586, 598;
459 SCRA 550, 562 (2005).
sale took place, failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the 17 Id., at p. 67; p. 207, citing People v. Gaspar, 376 Phil. 762, 779; 318 SCRA 649, 665 (1999).
agreed period despite demand from the private complainant, to the prejudice 36
of the latter. 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anent the credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness, which is questioned Corpuz vs. People
by petitioner, the same is unmeritorious. Settled is the rule that in assessing There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of
the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property
the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of
witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said
the appellate courts, which range of penalties because that would constitute judicial legislation. What the
_______________
14 Id., at p. 114; pp. 122-123. (Citations omitted) legislature’s perceived failure in amending the penalties provided for in the
35 said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court’s decisions, as that would
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 35 be encroaching upon the power of another branch of the government. This,
Corpuz vs. People however, does not render the whole situation without any remedy. It can be
merely rely on the records of the case.15 The assessment by the trial court is appropriately presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of had anticipated this matter by including Article 5, which reads:
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, especially when such ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.—Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
finding is affirmed by the CA.16 Truth is established not by the number of which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the
witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in determining the value proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
and credibility of evidence, the witnesses are to be weighed not numbered.17 the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
penal legislation.
As regards the penalty, while this Court’s Third Division was deliberating In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department
on this case, the question of the continued validity of imposing on persons of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of
convicted of crimes involving property came up. The legislature apparently 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
pegged these penalties to the value of the money and property in 1930 when it the injury caused by the offense. 18
_______________
18 Emphasis supplied.
Anent the non-suspension of the execution of the sentence, retired Chief
Justice Ramon C. Aquino and retired Associate Justice Carolina C. Griño-
37 Aquino, in their book, The Revised Penal Code,21 echoed the above-cited
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 37 commentary, thus:
The second paragraph of Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian principle that justice must be
Corpuz vs. People tempered with mercy. Generally, the courts have nothing to do with the wisdom or justness of
The first paragraph of the above provision clearly states that for acts the penalties fixed by law. “Whether or not the penalties prescribed by law upon conviction of
bourne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it violations of particular statutes are too severe or are not severe enough, are questions as to which
commentators on the law may fairly differ; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the will of
proper to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and thereafter, the legislator in all cases unless it clearly appears that a given penalty falls within the
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons prohibited class of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.” A petition for clemency
why the same act should be the subject of penal legislation. The premise here should be addressed to the Chief Executive.22
is that a deplorable act is present but is not the subject of any penal
legislation, thus, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive of the need There is an opinion that the penalties provided for in crimes against
to make that act punishable by law through legislation. The second property be based on the current inflation rate
_______________
paragraph is similar to the first except for the situation wherein the act is 20 Id., at p. 16. (Emphasis supplied)
already punishable by law but the corresponding penalty is deemed by the 21 1997 edition.
22 Id., at p. 93, citing United States v. Valera Ang Y, 26 Phil. 598 (1914); People v. Salazar y Gabriel, 102 Phil.
court as excessive. The remedy therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to 1184 (1958); Tiu Ua, 51 O.G. 1863; People v. Limaco, 99 Phil. 35 (1956), and People v. Del Rosario y Natividad, 62
suspend the execution of the sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive Phil. 824 (1936). (Emphasis supplied)
39
the reasons why the court considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 39
with the act committed. Again, the court is tasked to inform the Chief
Corpuz vs. People
Executive, this time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper
penalty. or at the ratio of P1.00 is equal to P100.00. However, it would be
In his book, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code,19Guillermo B. dangerous as this would result in uncertainties, as opposed to the definite
Guevara opined that in Article 5, the duty of the court is merely to report to imposition of the penalties. It must be remembered that the economy
the Chief Executive, with a recommendation for an amendment or fluctuates and if the proposed imposition of the penalties in crimes against
modification of the legal provisions which it believes to be harsh. Thus: property be adopted, the penalties will not cease to change, thus, making the
RPC, a self-amending law. Had the framers of the RPC intended that to be so,
This provision is based under the legal maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena sige lege,” that is, that there it should have provided the same, instead, it included the earlier cited Article
can exist no punishable act except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute. 5 as a remedy. It is also improper to presume why the present legislature has
No matter how reprehensible an act is, if the law-making body does not deem it necessary to prohibit its
perpetration with penal sanction, the Court of justice will be entirely powerless to punish such act.
not made any moves to amend the subject penalties in order to conform with
_______________ the present times. For all we know, the legislature intends to retain the same
19 Third edition, 1940.
38 penalties in order to deter the further commission of those punishable acts
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED which have increased tremendously through the years. In fact, in recent
Corpuz vs. People moves of the legislature, it is apparent that it aims to broaden the coverage of
Under the provisions of this Article the Court cannot suspend the execution of a sentence on those who violate penal laws. In the crime of Plunder, from its original
the ground that the strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would cause excessive minimum amount of P100,000,000.00 plundered, the legislature lowered it to
or harsh penalty. All that the Court could do in such eventuality is to report the matter to
the Chief Executive with a recommendation for an amendment or modification of the legal P50,000,000.00. In the same way, the legislature lowered the threshold
provisions which it believes to be harsh.20 amount upon which the Anti-Money Laundering Act may apply, from
P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00.
 It is also worth noting that in the crimes of Theft and Estafa, the present minimum period and may even apply for probation. Moreover, under the
penalties do not seem to be excessive compared to the proposed imposition of proposal, the minimum penalty after applying the Indeterminate Sentence
their corresponding penalties. In Theft, the provisions state that: Law is arresto menor in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its minimum
Art. 309. Penalties.—Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: period (21 days to 2 months) is not too far from the minimum period under
1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the the existing law. Thus, it would seem that the present penalty imposed under
latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one the law is not at all excessive. The same is also true in the crime of Estafa.23
year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be im- 23 Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
40 hereinbelow shall be punished by:
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter
Corpuz vs. People sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
posed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases,
may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the provisions of this Code,
termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 42
2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos. Corpuz vs. People
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property
stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. Moreover, if we apply the ratio of 1:100, as suggested to the valueA of the
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the thing stolen in the crime of Theft and the
property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos. _______________
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos. the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos. 2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period if such
enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not
amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding 4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the
subdivisions shall be made applicable. four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the (a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall deliver by
difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family. virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
41 (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 41 duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
Corpuz vs. People bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
A(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document
In a case wherein the value of the thing stolen is P6,000.00, the above above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third person.
provision states that the penalty is prisión correccional in its minimum and 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud:
medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Applying the (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
proposal, if the value of the thing stolen is P6,000.00, the penalty is 43
imprisonment of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 43
correccional minimum period (2 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). Corpuz vs. People
It would seem that under the present law, the penalty imposed is almost the damage caused in the crime of Estafa, the gap between the minimumB and
same as the penalty proposed. In fact, after the application of the the maximum amounts, which is the basis of
Indeterminate Sentence Law under the existing law, the minimum penalty is _______________
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
still lowered by one degree; hence, the minimum penalty is arresto mayor in (b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which
its medium period to maximum period (2 months and 1 day to 6 months), the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the
making the offender qualified for pardon or parole after serving the said maximum period of the penalty.
 (d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to
An argument raised by Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, one of our
cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check esteemed amici curiae, is that the incremental penalty provided under Article
has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
315 of the RPC violates the Equal Protection Clause.
B(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging The equal protection clause requires equality among equals, which is
house, or apartment house and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager
thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the
determined according to a valid classification. The test developed by
use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from a hotel, inn, jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness,27 which has four
restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.
requisites:
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document. (2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game. (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
44 (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.28
_______________
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 25 May be entitled to Probation if the maximum penalty imposed is 6 years.
Corpuz vs. People 26 May be entitled to Probation.
27 Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, 613 SCRA 385, 414.
determining the proper penalty to be imposed, would be too wide and the 28 People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1939).
penalty imposable would no longer be commensurate to the act committed 46
and the value of the thing stolen or the damage caused: 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
I. Article 309, or the penalties for the crime of Theft, the value would be modified but the penalties Corpuz vs. People
are not changed:
1. P12,000.00 to P22,000.00 will become P1,200,000.00 to P2,200,000.00, punished by prisión According to Dean Diokno, the Incremental Penalty Rule (IPR) does not
mayor minimum to prisión mayor medium (6 years and 1 day to 10 years). rest on substantial distinctions as P10,000.00 may have been substantial in
2. P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 will become P600,000.00 to P1,200,000.00, punished by prisión the past, but it is not so today, which violates the first requisite; the IPR was
correccional medium and to prisión correccional maximum (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years).24
3. P200.00 to P6,000.00 will become P20,000.00 to P600,000.00, punishable by prisión devised so that those who commit estafa involving higher amounts would
correccional minimum to prisión correccional medium (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). receive heavier penalties; however, this is no longer achieved, because a
4. P50.00 to P200.00 will become P5,000.00 to P20,000.00, punishable by arresto mayor medium to person who steals P142,000.00 would receive the same penalty as someone
prisión correccional minimum (2 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months).
5. P5.00 to P50.00 will become P500.00 to P5,000.00, punishable by arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day who steals hundreds of millions, which violates the second requisite; and, the
to 6 months). IPR violates requisite no. 3, considering that the IPR is limited to existing
6. P5.00 will become P500.00, punishable by arresto mayor minimum to arresto mayor medium. conditions at the time the law was promulgated, conditions that no longer
x x x x.
II. Article 315, or the penalties for the crime of Estafa, the value would also be modified but the exist today.
penalties are not changed, as follows: Assuming that the Court submits to the argument of Dean Diokno and
_______________
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers.
declares the incremental penalty in Article 315 unconstitutional for violating
24 May be entitled to Probation.
45
the equal protection clause, what then is the penalty that should be applied in
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 45 case the amount of the thing subject matter of the crime exceeds P22,000.00?
Corpuz vs. People
It seems that the proposition poses more questions than answers, which leads
1st. P12,000.00 to P22,000.00, will become P1,200,000.00 to P2,200,000.00, punishable by prisión us even more to conclude that the appropriate remedy is to refer these
correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years).25 matters to Congress for them to exercise their inherent power to legislate
2nd. P6,000.00 to P12,000.00 will become P600,000.00 to P1,200,000.00, punishable by prisión laws.
correccional minimum to prisión correccional medium (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).26
3rd. P200.00 to P6,000.00 will become P20,000.00 to P600,000.00, punishable by arresto Even Dean Diokno was of the opinion that if the Court declares the IPR
mayor maximum to prisión correccional minimum (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months). unconstitutional, the remedy is to go to Congress. Thus:
4th. P200.00 will become P20,000.00, punishable by arresto mayor maximum (4 months and 1 day xxxx
to 6 months). JUSTICE PERALTA:
 Now, your position is to declare that the incremental penalty should be struck down as DEAN DIOKNO:
unconstitutional because it is absurd. Yes, Your Honor.
DEAN DIOKNO: JUSTICE PERALTA:
Absurd, it violates equal protection, Your Honor, and cruel and unusual punishment. ... and determine the value or the amount.
47 DEAN DIOKNO:
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 47 Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Corpuz vs. People
That will be equivalent to the incremental penalty of one (1) year in excess of Twenty-Two
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
Then what will be the penalty that we are going to impose if the amount is more than Twenty-
DEAN DIOKNO:
Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
Yes, Your Honor.
DEAN DIOKNO:
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Well, that would be for Congress to ... if this Court will declare the incremental penalty rule
The amount in excess of Twenty-Two Thousand (P22,000.00) Pesos.
unconstitutional, then that would ... the void should be filled by Congress. Thank you, Dean.
JUSTICE PERALTA: DEAN DIOKNO:
But in your presentation, you were fixing the amount at One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Thank you.
Pesos ... x x x x 29
DEAN DIOKNO: _______________
Well, my presen ... (interrupted) 29 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, pp. 192-195.
JUSTICE PERALTA: 49
For every One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos in excess of Twenty-Two Thousand
(P22,000.00) Pesos you were suggesting an additional penalty of one (1) year, did I get you right?
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 49
DEAN DIOKNO: Corpuz vs. People
Yes, Your Honor, that is, if the court will take the route of statutory interpretation. Dean Diokno also contends that Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Ah ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Citing,30 Dean Diokno avers that
DEAN DIOKNO: the United States Federal Supreme Court has expanded the application of a
If the Court will say that they can go beyond the literal wording of the law... similar Constitutional provision prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment,
JUSTICE PERALTA:
But if we de ... (interrupted) to the duration of the penalty, and not just its form. The court therein ruled
DEAN DIOKNO: that three things must be done to decide whether a sentence is proportional to
....then.... a specific crime, viz.: (1) Compare the nature and gravity of the offense, and
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Ah, yeah. But if we declare the incremental penalty as unconstitutional, the court cannot fix the the harshness of the penalty; (2) Compare the sentences imposed on other
amount ...48 criminals in the same jurisdiction, i.e., whether more serious crimes are
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties; and (3) Compare the
Corpuz vs. People sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
DEAN DIOKNO: However, the case of Solem v. Helm cannot be applied in the present case,
No, Your Honor.
JUSTICE PERALTA:
because in Solem what respondent therein deemed cruel was the penalty
... as the equivalent of one, as an incremental penalty in excess of Twenty-Two Thousand imposed by the state court of South Dakota after it took into account the
(P22,000.00) Pesos. latter’s recidivist statute and not the original penalty for uttering a “no
DEAN DIOKNO:
No, Your Honor.
account” check. Normally, the maximum punishment for the crime would
JUSTICE PERALTA: have been five years imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine. Nonetheless,
The Court cannot do that. respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
DEAN DIOKNO:
Could not be.
parole under South Dakota’s recidivist statute because of his six prior felony
JUSTICE PERALTA: convictions. Surely, the factual antecedents of Solem are different from the
The only remedy is to go to Congress... present controversy.
 With respect to the crime of Qualified Theft, however, it is true that the The above provisions contemplate a situation wherein the Government
imposable penalty for the offense is high. Nevertheless, the rationale for the loses money due to the unlawful acts of the offender. Thus, following the
imposition of a higher penalty against a domestic servant is the fact that in proposal, if the amount malversed is P200.00 (under the existing law), the
the commission of the crime, the helper will essentially gravely abuse the amount now becomes P20,000.00 and the penalty is prisión correccional in its
trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. After accepting and medium and maximum periods (2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years). The
allowing the helper to be a member of the penalty may not be commensurate to the act of embezzlement
_______________
30 463 U.S. 277 (1983).
of P20,000.00compared to the acts committed by public officials punishable
50 by a special law, i.e., Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Practices Act, specifically Section 3,31 wherein the injury caused to the gov-
_______________
Corpuz vs. People 31 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
household, thus entrusting upon such person the protection and safekeeping penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
of the employer’s loved ones and properties, a subsequent betrayal of that (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
trust is so repulsive as to warrant the necessity of imposing a higher penalty and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
to deter the commission of such wrongful acts. 52
There are other crimes where the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment are 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dependent on the subject matter of the crime and which, by adopting the Corpuz vs. People
proposal, may create serious implications. For example, in the crime of ernment is not generally defined by any monetary amount, the penalty (6
Malversation, the penalty imposed depends on the amount of the money years and 1 month to 15 years)32under the
malversed by the public official, thus: (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation.—Any public himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which
2. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. termination.
3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
pesos. judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the
involved is more than twelve thousand pesos grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
51 (f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 51 within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
Corpuz vs. People indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or
for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating
but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall
against any other interested party.
be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value
(h) Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
of the property embezzled.
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which
is
he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facieevidence that
he has put such missing funds or property to personal use.
53
 VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 53 penalty of prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) if the intruder is
Corpuz vs. People unarmed without the penalty of Fine despite the fact that it is not merely the
Anti-Graft Law will now become higher. This should not be the case, because illegal entry that is the basis of the penalty but likewise the unlawful taking.
in the crime of malversation, the public official takes advantage of his public Furthermore, in the crime of Other Mischiefs under Article 329, the
position to embezzle the fund or property of the government entrusted to him. highest penalty that can be imposed is arresto mayor in its medium and
The said inequity is also apparent in the crime of Robbery with force upon maximum periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months) if the value of the
things (inhabited or uninhabited) where the value of the thing unlawfully damage caused exceeds P1,000.00, but under the proposal, the value of the
taken and the act of unlawful damage will now become P100,000.00 (1:100), and still punishable by arresto
_______________ mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). And, if the value of the damaged
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction property does not exceed P200.00, the penalty is arresto menor or a fine of not
or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in less than the value of the damage caused and not more than P200.00, if the
such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel
or group. amount involved does not exceed P200.00 or cannot be estimated. Under the
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of proposal, P200.00 will now become P20,000.00, which simply means that the
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified fine of P200.00 under the existing law will now become P20,000.00. The
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one amount of Fine under this situation will now become excessive and afflictive
who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his in nature
official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date. 55
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or
offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 55
untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with Corpuz vs. People
the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily
disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government. despite the fact that the offense is categorized as a light felony penalized with
32 R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 9. a light penalty under Article 26 of the RPC.33 Unless we also amend Article 26
54 of the RPC, there will be grave implications on the penalty of Fine, but
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED changing the same through Court decision, either expressly or impliedly, may
Corpuz vs. People not be legally and constitutionally feasible.
entry are the bases of the penalty imposable, and also, in Malicious Mischief, There are other crimes against property and swindling in the RPC that
where the penalty of imprisonment or fine is dependent on the cost of the may also be affected by the proposal, such as those that impose imprisonment
damage caused. and/or Fine as a penalty based on the value of the damage caused, to
In Robbery with force upon things (inhabited or uninhabited), if we wit: Article 311 (Theft of the property of the National Library and National
increase the value of the thing unlawfully taken, as proposed in the ponencia, Museum), Article 312 (Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
the sole basis of the penalty will now be the value of the thing unlawfully rights in property), Article 313 (Altering boundaries or landmarks), Article
taken and no longer the element of force employed in entering the premises. It 316(Other forms of swindling), Article 317 (Swindling a minor), Article
may likewise cause an inequity between the crime of Qualified Trespass to 318 (Other deceits), Article 328 (Special cases of malicious mischief)
Dwelling under Article 280, and this kind of robbery because the former is and Article 331 (Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments or
punishable by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 paintings). Other crimes that impose Fine as a penalty will also be affected,
years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 such as: Article 213 (Frauds against the public treasury and similar
(P100,000.00 now if the ratio is 1:100) where entrance to the premises is offenses), Article 215 (Prohibited Transactions), Article 216 (Possession of
with violence or intimidation, which is the main justification of the penalty. prohibited interest by a public officer), Article 218 (Failure of accountable
Whereas in the crime of Robbery with force upon things, it is punished with a
officer to render accounts), Article 219(Failure of a responsible public officer 57
to render accounts before leaving the country). VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 57
In addition, the proposal will not only affect crimes under the RPC. It will Corpuz vs. People
also affect crimes which are punishable by special penal laws, such as Illegal other laws, or even create a new legislation which will adopt to the times.
Logging or Violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as Admittedly, Congress is aware that there is an urgent need to amend the
amended. The law treats cutting, gathering, collecting and possessing timber
34 Revised Penal Code. During the oral arguments, counsel for the Senate
_______________ informed the Court that at present, fifty-six (56) bills are now pending in the
33 Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.—A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an
alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it Senate seeking to amend the Revised Penal Code, each one proposing much
37

does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos. needed change and updates to archaic laws that were promulgated decades
34 REVISED FORESTRY CODE, AS AMENDED BY E.O. NO. 277, SERIES OF 1987.
56 ago when the political, socio-economic, and cultural settings were far different
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED from today’s conditions.
Corpuz vs. People Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such
or other forest products without license as an offense as grave as and a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and
equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.35Under the law, the offender shall that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or
be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 31036 of the supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise,
Revised Penal Code, which means that the penalty imposable for the offense amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction
is, again, based on the value of the timber or forest products involved in the which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner
38

offense. Now, if we accept the said proposal in the crime of Theft, will this that would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is
particular crime of Illegal Logging be amended also in so far as the penalty is clear as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away
concerned because the penalty is dependent on Articles 309 and 310 of the from encroaching upon the primary function of a co-equal branch of the
RPC? The answer is in the negative because the soundness of this particular Government; otherwise, this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the
law is not in question. doctrine of separation of powers by means of judicial legislation.
With the numerous crimes defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Moreover, it is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty
Code and Special Laws, and other related provisions of these laws affected by or a Fine; hence, it can be increased by the Court when appropriate. Article
the proposal, a thorough study is needed to determine its effectivity and 2206 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least
necessity. There may be some provisions of the law that should be amended; three
nevertheless, this Court is in no position to conclude as to the intentions of _______________
37 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, p. 167.
the framers of the Revised Penal Code by merely making a study of the 38 People v. Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 548; 259 SCRA 191, 227-228 (1996).

applicability of the penalties imposable in the present times. Such is not 58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
within the competence of the Court but of the Legislature which is
Corpuz vs. People
empowered to conduct public hearings on the matter, consult legal luminaries thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
and who, after due proceedings, can decide whether or not to amend or to (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
revise the questioned law or indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and
_______________ awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by
35 Taopa v. People, 592 Phil. 341, 345; 571 SCRA 610, 614 (2008). the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
36 Art. 310. Qualified theft.—The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291, the
than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by the law of testate or intestate
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken succession, may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five
from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of
years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
 (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may involved exceeds P22,000.00. As suggested, however, from now until the law
demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
is properly amended by Congress, all crimes of Estafa will no longer be
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a
punished by the appropriate penalty. A conundrum in the regular course of
kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or
criminal justice would occur when every accused convicted of the crime
infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only
of estafa will be meted penalties different from the proper penalty that should
covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a crime where
be imposed. Such drastic twist in the application of the law
a person dies, in addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed to the _______________
offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as 39 Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should
find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where
restitution. Clearly, this award of civil indemnity due to the death of the the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
victim could not be contemplated as akin to the value of a thing that is 60
unlawfully taken which is the basis in the imposition of the proper penalty in 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
certain crimes. Thus, the reasoning in increasing the value of civil indemnity Corpuz vs. People
awarded in some offense cannot be the same reasoning that would sustain the has no legal basis and directly runs counter to what the law provides.
adoption of the suggested ratio. Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the It should be noted that the death penalty was reintroduced in the
law only imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity, which is dispensation of criminal justice by the Ramos Administration by virtue of
P3,000.00. The law did not provide Republic Act No. 765940in December 1993. The said law has been questioned
59 before this Court. There is, arguably, no punishment more cruel than that of
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 59 death. Yet still, from the time the death penalty was re-imposed until its
Corpuz vs. People lifting in June 2006 by Republic Act No. 9346,41 the Court did not impede the
for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount for the award cannot be imposition of the death penalty on the ground that it is a “cruel punishment”
changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly within the purview of Section 19(1),42Article III of the Constitution.
modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it. Ultimately, it was through an act of Congress suspending the imposition of
Corollarily, moral damages under Article 222039 of the Civil Code also does the death penalty that led to its non-imposition and not via the intervention
not fix the amount of damages that can be awarded. It is discretionary upon of the Court.
the court, depending on the mental anguish or the suffering of the private Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court
offended party. The amount of moral damages can, in relation to civil cannot declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty
indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does not exceed the award of civil emanates unconstitutional in the present action. Not only is it violative of due
indemnity. process, considering that the State and the concerned parties were not given
In addition, some may view the penalty provided by law for the offense the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, it is settled that the
committed as tantamount to cruel punishment. However, all penalties are constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because
generally harsh, being punitive in nature. Whether or not they are excessive constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally,43 more
or amount to cruel punishment is a matter that should be left to lawmakers. so in the present contro-
It is the prerogative of the courts to apply the law, especially when they are _______________
40 AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE
clear and not subject to any other interpretation than that which is plainly REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
written. 41 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
42 Section 19.
Similar to the argument of Dean Diokno, one of Justice Antonio Carpio’s 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. x x x.
opinions is that the incremental penalty provision should be declared 43 Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management, G.R. Nos. 153266, 159007, 159029, 170084, 172713,
173119, 176477, 177990, A.M. No. 06-4-02-SB, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 1, 25.
unconstitutional and that the courts should only impose the penalty 61
corresponding to the amount of P22,000.00, regardless if the actual amount
 VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 61 function clearly and appropriately belongs to Congress. Even Professor Tadiar
Corpuz vs. People concedes to this conclusion, to wit:
versy wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of any of xxxx
JUSTICE PERALTA:
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Yeah, Just one question. You are suggesting that in order to determine the value of Peso you
Besides, it has long been held that the prohibition of cruel and unusual have to take into consideration several factors.
punishments is generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Yes.
rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies to JUSTICE PERALTA:
punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for Per capita income.
instance, those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Per capita income.
stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like. Fine and JUSTICE PERALTA:
imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition.44 Consumer price index.
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Yeah.
severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the JUSTICE PERALTA:
punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and Inflation ...
unusual. Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Yes.
ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive,” “wholly JUSTICE PERALTA:
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of ... and so on. Is the Supreme Court equipped to determine those factors?
the community.”45 PROFESSOR TADIAR:
There are many ways by which the value of the Philippine Peso can be determined utilizing all of
Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to amend the those economic terms.
law and adapt it to our modern time. 63

The solution to the present controversy could not be solved by merely VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 63
adjusting the questioned monetary values to the present value of money Corpuz vs. People
JUSTICE PERALTA:
based only on the current inflation rate. There are other factors and variables Yeah, but ...
that need to be taken into consideration, researched, and deliberated upon PROFESSOR TADIAR:
before the said values could be accurately and properly adjusted. The effects And I don’t think it is within the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon and peg the value to
One Hundred (P100.00) Pesos to ...
on the society, the injured party, the accused, its socio-economic impact, and JUSTICE PERALTA:
the likes must be painstakingly evaluated and weighed upon in order to Yeah.
arrive at a wholistic change that all of us believe should be made to our PROFESSOR TADIAR:
_______________ ... One (P1.00.00) Peso in 1930.
44 People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953); People v. Tongko, 353 Phil. 37, 43; 290 SCRA 595, 601-602 JUSTICE PERALTA:
(1998). That is legislative in nature.
45 People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 (1953); People v. Dionisio, No. L-15513, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1299, PROFESSOR TADIAR:
1301-1302. That is my position that the Supreme Court ...
62 JUSTICE PERALTA:
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Yeah, okay.
Corpuz vs. People PROFESSOR TADIAR:
... has no power to utilize the power of judicial review to in order to adjust, to make the
existing law. Dejectedly, the Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks adjustment that is a power that belongs to the legislature.
sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies and JUSTICE PERALTA:
Thank you, Professor.
surveys to validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal Code. This PROFESSOR TADIAR:
Thank you.46
 Finally, the opinion advanced by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno 47 No. L-18793, October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468.
65
echoes the view that the role of the Court is not merely to dispense justice,
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 65
but also the active duty to prevent injustice. Thus, in order to prevent
Corpuz vs. People
injustice in the present controversy, the Court should not impose an obsolete
CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
penalty pegged eighty three years ago, but consider the proposed ratio of
of prisión correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prisión mayor, as
1:100 as simply compensating for infla-
_______________ maximum, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of seven
46 TSN, Oral Arguments, February 25, 2014, pp. 183-185. (7) years.
64
In computing the penalty for this type of estafa, this Court’s ruling
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
in Cosme, Jr. v. People48 is highly instructive, thus:
Corpuz vs. People With respect to the imposable penalty, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
tion. Furthermore, the Court has in the past taken into consideration ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
“changed conditions” or “significant changes in circumstances” in its 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum
decisions. period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount
Similarly, the Chief Justice is of the view that the Court is not delving into exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
the validity of the substance of a statute. The issue is no different from the exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons, which the Court imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión
had previously adjusted in light of current times, like in the case of People v. mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three, periods, in which case,
Pantoja.47 Besides, Article 10 of the Civil Code mandates a presumption that Article 65 of the same Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal
the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, forming one period of each of the three portions.
With due respect to the opinions and proposals advanced by the Chief Applying the latter provisions, the maximum, medium and minimum periods of the penalty prescribed
are:
Justice and my Colleagues, all the proposals ultimately lead to prohibited _______________
judicial legislation. Short of being repetitious and as extensively discussed 48 Supra note 15.
66
above, it is truly beyond the powers of the Court to legislate laws, such 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
immense power belongs to Congress and the Court should refrain from Corpuz vs. People
crossing this clear-cut divide. With regard to civil indemnity, as elucidated Maximum - 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years
before, this refers to civil liability which is awarded to the offended party as a Medium - 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days
kind of monetary restitution. It is truly based on the value of money. The Minimum - 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days49

same cannot be said on penalties because, as earlier stated, penalties are not
only based on the value of money, but on several other factors. Further, since To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión
the law is silent as to the maximum amount that can be awarded and only correccional maximum to prisión mayorminimum should be divided into three
pegged the minimum sum, increasing the amount granted as civil indemnity equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one
is not proscribed. Thus, it can be adjusted in light of current conditions. period in accordance with Article 6550 of the RPC.51 In the present case, the
Now, with regard to the penalty imposed in the present case, the CA amount involved is P98,000.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, thus, the
modified the ruling of the RTC. The RTC imposed the indeterminate penalty maximum penalty imposable should be within the maximum period of 6
of four (4) years and two (2) months of prisión correccional in its medium years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prisión mayor. Article 315 also
period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months ofreclusion states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every
temporal in its minimum period, as maximum. However, the additional P10,000.00 defrauded in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case shall
_______________ the total penalty which may be imposed exceed 20 years.
 Considering that the amount of P98,000.00 is P76,000.00 more than the Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this Decision
P22,000.00 ceiling set by law, then, adding one year for each additional be furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the
P10,000.00, the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years Department of Justice.
of prisión mayor minimum would be increased by 7 years. Taking the Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Senate
maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8 years, plus an additional 7 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
years, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15 years. 68
_______________ 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
49 Id., at pp. 71-72; p. 212.
50 ART. 65. Rule in Cases in Which the Penalty is Not Composed of Three Periods.—In cases in which the Corpuz vs. People
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing SO ORDERED.
articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of
each of the three portions. Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama,
51 People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 284. Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Reyes, JJ., concur.
67
Sereno, CJ., See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 67
Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
Corpuz vs. People
Brion, J., See: Concurring Opinion.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty prescribed by Bersamin, J., I take no part due to prior action in the CA.
law for the estafa charge against petitioner is prisión correccional maximum Del Castillo, J., I join the dissent of J. Abad.
to prisión mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prisión Abad, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Thus, the minimum term of Perlas-Bernabe, J., No part.
the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 Leonen, J., I Dissent re penalties, see Separate Opinion.
years and 2 months.
One final note, the Court should give Congress a chance to perform its CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
primordial duty of lawmaking. The Court should not preempt Congress and
usurp its inherent powers of making and enacting laws. While it may be the SERENO, CJ.:
most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a dangerous
proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial legislation. The measure of a just society depends not only on how it apprehends and
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certioraridated November 5, punishes the guilty. It also lies in the dignity and fairness it collectively
2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the accords convicted persons who, irrevocably, are still members of that society.
Decision dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September 5, 2007 of the The duty of the Court in this case is not only to dispense justice, but to
Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated July actively prevent injustice wrought by inaction on the question of the
30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding continued justness of the penalties under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article Code.
315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, are I concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but vote
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed is the to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, subject of the offense. Considering that the penalty has remained untouched
TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS of prisión correccional, as minimum, for eighty-three years, the Court cannot adhere to its literal imposition
to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporalas maximum. without first revisiting the assigned values on which such penalty
69
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 69
Corpuz vs. People
was based. The Legislature of 1930 pegged the penalties at the prevailing it expounds on criminal rules. To assume that the Court would be changing
value of money at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal Code. Apart the penalty imprudently leads to a misplaced apprehension that it dabbles in
from its representation as a basket of goods or as a means of exchange, money judicial legislation, when it is merely exercising its constitutional role of
has no independent value by itself, and that is how the law has always seen interpretation.
it. Even this outlook must then necessarily affect our views regarding the Adjusting the amounts to the pre-
liberty of persons and how money affects it. sent value of money recognizes that
My colleagues have presented differing approaches supported by equally money is simply an assigned repre-
keen arguments. However, were we to take the convenient route of sentation, similar to the Court’s
mechanical application, we would be perpetuating an erroneous result from ruling in People v. Pantoja.
lamentable inaction. Would this Court abdicate its duty at the risk of Ruling in accordance with “felt necessities of the time”2or in recognition of
endangering the right to liberty of the accused? In the past, the Court has considerably changed circumstances is not a novel judicial approach.
never shirked from its role of interpreting the law, always with a careful In Central Bank Employees v. BSP, the Court posed this question: Can a
consideration of its minimum burden: to prevent a result that is manifestly provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently unconstitutional on the
unjust. That the fundamental right to life and liberty is made to depend solely ground that its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the
on Congress or the mere passage of time with respect to an omission is a law? The Court thus considered the legal effect of the passage of time, stating:
result the Court should not be prepared to accept. 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
The legislative intent behind provisions of the Revised Penal Code is to conditions. x x x.
create prison terms dependent upon the value of the property subject of the _______________
2 From the first of 12 Lowell Lectures delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes on November 23, 1880.
crime. A prison term is virtually monetized, while an individual’s life and 71
well-being hang in the balance. It is incumbent upon the Court to preserve VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 71
the intent of Congress while crucially ensuring that the individual’s liberty is Corpuz vs. People
not impinged upon any longer than necessary. This is distinct from the In the Philippine setting, this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid law as
unconstitutional as a “consequence of significant changes in circumstances.” In Rutter v. Esteban, We
situation contemplated under Article 5, par. 2 of the Penal Code,1 in which the upheld the constitutionality of the moratorium law — despite its enactment and operation being a valid
Court would need to delve into the wisdom of the law, i.e., the exercise by the State of its police power — but also ruled that the continued enforcement of the
appropriateness of otherwise valid law would be unreasonable and oppressive. The Court noted the subsequent changes in
_______________ the country’s business, industry and agriculture. Thus, the law was set aside because its continued
1 “In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such operation would be grossly discriminatory and lead to the oppression of the creditors.”3
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
It is axiomatic that laws, customs, public policy and practice evolve with
degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.” the passage of time; so too, does monetary valuation. Money has no value in
70 and of itself except that which we assign, making it susceptible to
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED construction and interpretation. Money is not real in the sense that it is
Corpuz vs. People capable of being indexed. Viewed in this way, human lives and liberty cannot
the penalty taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused by be made dependent on a mere index of almost a century ago.
the offense. I submit that in the present case, the Court is not even delving into
Thus, the crux of the present case is simple judicial application of the questions of validity of the substance of the statute. This is no different from
doctrines that in cases of doubt: 1) the law must be construed in favor of the the Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons or the
accused; 2) it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice determination of valuation in expropriation cases. We have continually
to prevail. This duty of judicial construction is understood to permeate every checked penalties in criminal cases, adjusted the amounts of damages and
corner where the Court exercises its adjudicative function, specifically in how indemnities according to the appropriateness thereof in light of current times.
We have done so with eyes open, knowing that the adjustments reflect a It is a basic constitutional doc-
realization that the value of the peso has changed over time. If the purchasing trine that the slightest doubt must
power of the peso was accepted as a “judicially manageable standard” in those be resolved in favor of the accused.
cases, there is no reason for the Court not to apply it in favor of the accused The constitutional mandate is that the Court must construe criminal rules
herein, especially because it is mandated to do so. in favor of the accused. In fact, the slightest doubt must be resolved in favour
_______________
3 487 Phil. 531, 564; 446 SCRA 299, 348-349 (2004).
of the accused.7This directive is moored on the equally vital doctrine of
72 presumption of innocence.8 These principles call for the adoption of an
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED interpretation which is more lenient.9 Time and again, courts harken back to
Corpuz vs. People the pro reo rule when observing leniency, explaining: “The scales of justice
In People v. Pantoja, concerning compensatory damages for death, the must hang equal and, in fact should be tipped in favor of the accused because
Court explained this adjustment in uncomplicated terms: of the constitutional presumption of innocence.”10
In 1948, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso was one-third of its pre-war purchasing power. This rule underpins the prospectivity of our penal laws (laws shall have no
In 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, the minimum amount of compensatory damages for death retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided) and its exception
caused by a crime or quasi-delict was fixed in Article 2206 of the Code at P3,000. The article repealed by
implication Commonwealth Act No. 284. Hence, from the time the New Civil Code took effect, the (laws have prospective application, unless they are favorable to the
Courts could properly have awarded P9,000 as compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or accused).11 The pro reo rule has been applied in the imposition of penalties,
quasi-delict. It is common knowledge that from 1948 to the present (1968), due to economic specifically the death penalty12 and more recently, the proper
circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso has declined _______________
further such that the rate of exchange now in the free market is U.S. $1.00 to almost 4.00 Philippine 6 Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, 30 September 2013.
pesos. This means that the present purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war 7 People v. Milan, 370 Phil. 493, 506; 311 SCRA 461, 474 (1999).
purchasing power. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the amount of award of 8 1987 CONSTITUTION, Sec. 14(2) states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should now be P12,000.”4 until the contrary is proved.”
9 Mediatrix Carungcong as Administratrix v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 181409, 11 February
I agree with the view of Justice Roberto A. Abad that while Article 2206 of 2010, 612 SCRA 272.
the Civil Code sets only a minimum amount, the Court since then has 10 People v. Opida, 226 Phil. 218, 226; 142 SCRA 295, 303 (1986).
11 Boado, Leonor, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, p. 7 (2008).
regularly increased amounts awarded by the lower courts. Tellingly, these 12 For a crime committed in 1987, the Court refused to reimpose the death penalty under Republic Act 7659.
decisions and resolutions are not mere suggestions or guidelines for the trial (People v. Bracamonte, 327 Phil. 160; 257 SCRA 380 [1996]).
courts’ exercise of discretion, but are actual findings of error.5 74
Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality — among other instances 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
when the Court has acknowledged “changed conditions” — only shows that Corpuz vs. People
criminal rules, especially the implementation of penalties, must also evolve. construction and application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
As societies develop, become more enlightened, new truths are disclosed. The rationale behind the pro reo rule and other rules that favor the
_______________ accused is anchored on the rehabilitative philosophy of our penal system.
4 134 Phil. 453; 25 SCRA 468 (1968).
5 Decision, p. 137.
In People v. Ducosin, the Court explained that it is “necessary to consider the
73 criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a member of society. This
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 73 opens up an almost limitless field of investigation and study which it is the
Corpuz vs. People duty of the court to explore in each case as far as is humanly possible, with
The Court as an institution cannot ignore these truths to the detriment of the end in view that penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is
basic rights. The reality is that property-related crimes are affected by possible to the individual, with due regard to the imperative necessity of
external economic forces,6rendering the penalties vulnerable to these forces. protecting the social order.”13
Thus, with the same legislative intent to shorten a defendant’s term of
imprisonment embodied in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, I believe the
adjustment of penalties considered in the present case forwards the State’s 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
concern “not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social Corpuz vs. People
organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in This Administrative Circular, referred to and approved by the Supreme Court En Banc, shall take
effect upon its issuance.17
redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.”14This
approach would be more in accord with the pro reorule and the overarching Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 further clarifies that: “The clear tenor
paradigm of our penal system. and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
In past instances, the Court has imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference
not only laid down guidelines but in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22 x x x such that
made actual policy determinations where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate
for the imposition of penalties. good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law imposes of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.
the penalty of imprisonment of thirty days to one year OR a fine double the Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the
amount of the check, or both, at the court’s discretion. In Vaca v. Court of imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge.”18
Appeals, the Supreme Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment meted Hence, the imposition of a policy on penalties is not far removed from the
_______________ judicial construction exercised in the present case. Establishing a policy or a
64 59 Phil. 109 (1933). rule of preference towards the unnecessary deprivation of personal
65 Id., at p. 117.
75 liberty and economic usefulness has always been within the scope of
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 75 judicial power.
Corpuz vs. People Article 10 of the Civil Code
out by the trial court and imposed only the penalty of fine, reasoning: mandates a presumption that
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the lawmaking body intended
the national economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although right and justice to prevail.
mistakenly that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have
accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade a prison term. It would best
Article 10 of the Civil Code states: “In case of doubt in the interpretation or
serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right
Section 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, and justice to prevail.” The Code Commission found it necessary to include
that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty
and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. In this case, we believe
this provision to “strengthen the determination of the Court to avoid an
_______________
that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate penalty to 17 Issued on 21 November 2000.
impose on each of the petitioners.15 18 The issuance of this Administrative Circular was authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC
The Court did not expressly make a finding that the trial court erred in at its session on 13 February 2001.
exercising its discretion, but stated that correcting the penalty would best 77
serve the ends of criminal justice. This policy was applied in Lim v. VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 77
People,16 which imposed only the fine under B.P. Blg. 22. The Court then Corpuz vs. People
issued Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which states: injustice which may apparently be authorized in some way of interpreting
All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the foregoing policy of the Supreme the law.”19
Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court In Salvacion v. Central Bank, the Court warned: “In our predisposition to
Administrator shall cause the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular to all courts and
judges concerned. discover the “original intent” of a statute, courts become the unfeeling pillars
_______________ of the status quo. Little do we realize that statutes or even constitutions are
15 359 Phil. 187; 298 SCRA 656 (1998).
16 394 Phil. 844; 340 SCRA 497 (2000).
bundles of compromises thrown our way by their framers. Unless we exercise
76 vigilance, the statute may already be out of tune and irrelevant to our
day.” Salvacion involved the rape of a minor by a foreign tourist and the I vote to grant the petition in part by declaring unconstitutional that
execution of the final judgment in the case for damages on the tourist’s dollar portion of the first paragraph of Article 315 of Act No. 3815, as amended
deposit accounts. The Court refused to apply Section 113 of Central Bank (Code), mandating the imposition of maximum penalty based on the amount
Circular No. 960 which exempts foreign currency deposits from attachment, of the fraud exceeding P22,000. I do so on the ground that imposing the
garnishment or any other order or process of any court, because “the law maximum period of the penalty prescribed in Article 3151 of the Code in such
failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice a manner, unadjusted to inflation, amounts to cruel punishment within the
and inequality such as the case before us.”20 Applying Article 10, the purview of Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution.2
Court held: “In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its _______________
1“Swindling (estafa)—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall
justice. x x x Simply stated, when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is be punished by:
one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum,
of conscience.”21 the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
The majority view states that to embark on this formulation is dangerous, 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
2 “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. x x x.”
uncertain, or too taxing. Yet even counsel for the House of Representatives 79
admits that inflation can be taken into consideration, and that the values to VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 79
be used in the conversion are easily available. There is sufficient basis — Corpuz vs. People
through the efforts of the authorized statistical organizations22 and Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, who collect data year to year — that viably establish the Cruel Punishment Clause Bans
purchasing power of the peso. Odious and Disproportionate Punishments
_______________
19 Report of the Code Commission, p. 78.
20 343 Phil. 539; 278 SCRA 27 (1997). The Cruel Punishment Clause first appeared in the English Bill of Rights
21 Id., citing Padilla v. Padilla, 74 Phil. 377 (1943). of 16893 which mandated that “excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
22 Pursuant to Republic Act 10625, the National Statistics Office (NSO) is now incorporated into the Philippine
Statistical Authority, along with the National Statistical Coordination Board and other agencies. excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The
78 prohibition restrained the King from punishing convicts in ways inconsistent
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED with human dignity.4 Over a century later, the Americans adopted the Clause
Corpuz vs. People as the Eighth Amendment5 to their Bill of Rights of 1791. When the United
More importantly, fear of clogged dockets and the inconvenience of a States acquired these Islands in 1898 under the Treaty of Paris (following the
perceived distortion are operational concerns that are not sufficient defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War), the Eighth Amendment was
justification to re-tilt the scales to the prejudice of the accused. It does not extended to this jurisdiction, first under President McKinley’s Instructions to
impact on the fact that by adjusting the questioned amounts to the present the Second Philippine Commission and later under the Organic Acts passed
value of money, the Court would merely be following the mandate of Article by the US Congress.6 The Clause was retained as part of the Bill of Rights of
10 and fulfilling its proper constitutional role. succeeding Philippine Constitutions during the Commonwealth and post-
I therefore vote to affirm the conviction of petitioner, but to impose the independence eras.
penalty adjusted to present value, as proposed by Justice Abad. Early on, the question arose whether the Clause serves only to limit the
legislature’s power to inflict certain formsof punishment (e.g., torture) or
DISSENTING OPINION whether it also prohibits the legislature from imposing punishments
whose extent is excessive or disproportionate to the crime.7 It did not take long
CARPIO, J.: for the US Supreme Court to settle the debate. In reviewing a 1902 ruling of
this Court sentencing an accused to 15 years of
_______________
3 Enacted on 16 December 1689.
During the Commonwealth period, the text of the Eighth Amendment was
4 Thus, it is thought that “the principle it represents can be traced back to the Magna Carta.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 substantially adopted as Section 1(19), Article III of the 1935
U.S. 86, 100 (1958).
5 “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
Constitution.14 Owing in no small measure to the dearth of discussion on the
inflicted.” meaning of the Clause during the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional
6 The Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Autonomy Act of 1916.
7 For an exhaustive historical treatment of the subject, see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 258-269 (1972)
Convention, the Court saw no reason to deviate from its colonial-era
(Brennan, J., concurring). jurisprudence.15
80 _______________
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 13 U.S. v. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 279 (1923); People v. Constantino, No. L-19290, 11 January 1923
(Unrep.); U.S. v. Pico, 18 Phil. 386 (1911). Pico and Constantino dwelt on the question of extent
Corpuz vs. People (severity) of the punishment as criterion for breaching the Clause. After reviewing extant relevant
cadena temporal with fine and accessory penalties8 for falsification of a public authorities we observed in Borromeo:
In view of these authorities, and the fact that the legislature invariably endeavors to apportion a
document, the US Supreme Court set aside the judgment, holding that the penalty commensurate with the offense, and that course, in the exercise of such discretion as is
punishment was “cruel in its excess of imprisonment and that which conferred upon them in fixing penalties within minimum and maximum degrees, adhere to the same
accompanies and follows the imprisonment.”9 In refusing to give a narrow rule, it seems to us that to assert, when the question assumes the dignity of a constitutional inquiry, that
courts should not concern themselves with the relative magnitude of the crime and the penalty, is wrong,
interpretation to the Clause, that court observed that the “meaning and both in logic and in fact. A contrary view leads to the astounding result that it is impossible to impose a
vitality of the Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive cruel and unusual punishment so long as none of the old and discarded modes of punishment are used;
construction.”10 Proportionality is now a staple analytical tool in the US and that there is no restriction upon the power of the legislative department, for example, to prescribe
the death penalty by hanging for misdemeanor, and that the courts would be compelled to impose the
jurisdiction to test claims of cruel punishment under penal statutes imposing penalty. Yet such a punishment for such crime would be considered extremely cruel and unusual by all
the death penalty.11 right-minded people. (U.S. v. Borromeo, supra at p. 289 [emphasis supplied]).
Our own jurisprudence subscribe to such construction of the Cruel 14 “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
15 People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953); People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 (1953); People v.
Punishment Clause. During the US colonial occupation, this Court was Dionisio, 131 Phil. 409; 22 SCRA
expectedly bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth 82
Amendment as “the exact language of the Constitution of the United States 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
[in the Eighth Amendment] is used in the Philippine Bill [of 1902]”12 and Corpuz vs. People
later, in the Autonomy Act of 1916. Hence, in its rulings interpreting the The 1973 Constitution, replacing the 1935 Charter, retained the Clause as
Clause, the Court read the provision as a part of the Bill of Rights.16 The Court, however, had no occasion to pass upon
_______________
8 Deprivation of civil rights during service of sentence and post-service perpetual deprivation of political rights. any matter calling for the interpretation of the Clause until after the new
9 Weems v. U.S., 217 U.S. 349, 377 (1910). Constitution, which carried over the Clause as Section 19(1) of Article III,
10 Id., at p. 373.
11 In the sense that aggravating circumstances (qualifying a class of criminals for the death penalty) and took effect in February 1987. In its post-1987 jurisprudence, the Court
mitigating circumstances (tempering sentences) must be legislated and carefully weighed. See Furman v. Georgia, continued to rely on its rulings rendered under the 1935 Constitution.17
408 U.S. 238 (1972) (Douglas, J., concurring) and progeny, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (plurality
opinion); Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998). Clearly then, the proposition that the Cruel Punishment Clause limits the
12 U.S. v. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 279, 286 (1923). In Weems, the US Supreme Court was more direct to the point: legislature’s power to inflict certain formsof punishments only, allowing it to
“[T]he provision of the Philippine Bill of Rights, prohibiting the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, was
taken from the Constitution of the United States and must have the same meaning.” Weems v. U.S., supra note 9 at impose penalties disproportionate to the offense committed, runs counter to
p. 367. the grain of decades-old jurisprudence here and abroad. Such interpretation,
81
which rests on a strict originalist reading of the Eighth Amendment of the US
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 81
Constitution,18never gained traction in the United States19 and it makes no
Corpuz vs. People
sense to insist that such view applies in this jurisdiction.
limitation on the power of the colonial legislature not only on the form but _______________
also on the extent of punishments it can enact.13 1299 (1968). In his commentary on the 1935 Constitution, Dean Sinco considered the Clause as “fobid[ding]
punishments greatly disproportionate to the offense.” V. SINCO, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, p. 674 (1954).
 16 Under Section 21, Article III (“Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
inflicted.”)
17 Baylosis v. Chavez, 279 Phil. 448; 202 SCRA 405 (1991); People v. Tongko, 353 Phil. 37; 290 SCRA 595 (1998); Corpuz vs. People
and Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 744; 390 SCRA 194 (2002) all citing People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 (1953) and People v.
De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953) (for Lim and Tongko). Although these cases emphasize the “form only” school of
worded prohibition.22 These international norms formed part of Philippine
thought, all relied on pre-1973 jurisprudence recognizing disproportionality as ground for breaching the Clause. law as generally accepted principles of international law23 and binding treaty
18 Adherents of this school of thought insist that the Eighth Amendment forbids only “those modes or acts of
punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted” in
obligation, respectively.24
1791. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 339 (2002) (Scalia, J., dissenting). See also D. STRAUSS, THE LIVING Standards to Determine Impermissible
CONSTITUTION (2010).
19 Consistent with its interpretative approach in Weems, the US Supreme Court considers the Eighth
Disproportionality
Amendment to “draw its mean- This Court has had occasion to devise standards of disproportionality to set
83 the threshold for the breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause. Punishments
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 83 whose extent “shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable
Corpuz vs. People people”25 or
In the first place, the US Constitution, unlike our present Constitution, _______________
22 Article 7 of the ICCPR, ratified by the Philippines on 23 October 1986.
has essentially remained unchanged since its adoption in 1787 (save for the 23 Although the UDHR is a nonbinding instrument, this Court treated the UDHR as embodying generally
inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and other later piecemeal amendments). accepted principles of international law, hence, forming part of the law of the land under the 1935 Constitution’s
Incorporation Clause (Section 3, Article II of the 1935 Constitution, reiterated in Section 3, Article II of the 1973
The 1987 Constitution is already the third in the 20th century, following the Constitution). Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Borovsky v. Commissioner of Immigration, 90 Phil. 107
1935 Commonwealth Constitution and the 1973 Martial Law (1951); Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration, 90 Phil. 256 (1951). The provision was retained in the 1987
Constitution (Section 2, Article II).
Constitution.20 When the present Constitution was ratified in 1987, nearly 24 These norms are buttressed by the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading
two millennia after the US adopted the Eighth Amendment, the Filipino Treatment or Punishment which entered into force on 26 June 1987 and to which the Philippines acceded on 18 June
1986. The Convention binds states parties to “take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to
people who voted for its approval could not have intended Section 19(1) of prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction” (Article 2) and “prevent in any territory under its
Article III to embody the US originalists’ interpretation of the Eighth jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture” as
defined in the Convention (Article 16).
Amendment. It is more consistent with reason and common sense to say that 25 Supra note 12 at p. 286. A variation sets the standard at disproportionality which “shock[s] the moral sense of
the Filipino people understood the Clause to embrace “cruel, degrading and all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances.” (People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908
[1953], citing Am. Jur. 178) or which “shock[s] the moral sense of the community” (People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647,
inhuman” punishments in its 20th century, Filipino conception, grounded on 655 [1953] [Res.] citing 24 C.J.S. 1187-1188).
their collective experiences and sense of humanity. 85
Indeed, the Filipino people who ratified the present Constitution could not VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 85
have intended to limit the reach of the Cruel Punishment Clause to cover Corpuz vs. People
torture and other forms of odious punishments only because nearly four “[are] flagrantly and plainly oppressive”26 are considered violative of the
decades before the present Constitution took effect, the Philippine Clause.27 Other than the cursory mention of these standards, however, we
government joined the community of nations in approving the Universal have made no attempt to explore their parameters to turn them into workable
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which bans “torture or x x x judicial tools to adjudicate claims of cruel punishment. Even if we did, it
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”21 In 1986, shortly would have been well-nigh impossible to draw the line separating “cruel” from
before the Constitution took effect, the Philippines ratified the International legitimate punishments simply because these standards are overly broad and
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) containing an identically highly subjective.28 As a result, they ratchet the bar for the breach of the
_______________
ing from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v.
Clause to unreasonably high levels. Unsurprisingly, no litigant has
Dulles, supra note 4 at p. 101. successfully mounted a challenge against statutes for violation of the Clause.29
20 At the close of the 19th century, the Philippine revolutionary government adopted the Malolos Constitution in _______________
1899 which, however, was short-lived and largely symbolic.
21 Article 5 of the UDHR, approved by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. 26 People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 (1953) (Res.) citing 24 C.J.S. 1187-1188, cited in People v. Dionisio, 131
84 Phil. 409; 22 SCRA 1299 (1968); Baylosis v. Chavez, 279 Phil. 448; 202 SCRA 405 (1991); People v. Tongko, 353 Phil.
37; 290 SCRA 595 (1998) and Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 749; 390 SCRA 194 (2002).
 27 The following passage from Estoista, relying on the American legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum, has Corpuz vs. People
become the template for rejecting claims of cruel punishment using these standards:
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be This punishment, however, is within the range of the penalty imposable on
obnoxious to the Constitution. “The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not
make it cruel and unusual.” (24 C.J.S. 1187-1188.) Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come
petitioner under the Code had he “killed the [private complainant] jeweler in
under the ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive,” “wholly disproportionate to the an angry confrontation.”32 The same penalty would also be within the range
nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.” (Idem.) Id.
28 The standard of public outrage (“shock[ing to the] public sentiment” or “shock[ing to the] moral sense of the
prescribed by the Code had petitioner kidnapped the private complainant and
community”) is no different from that which “shocks the most fundamental instincts of civilized man.”Louisiana ex kept him detained for three days.33 By any objective standard of comparison,
rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 473 [1947]) (Burton, J., dissenting) which “[invites] the danger of subjective
judgment x x x acute[ly],” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 279 (1972), (Brennan, J., concurring).
crimes resulting in the deprivation of life or liberty are unquestionably more
29 The following typifies the analysis for rejecting claims of cruel punishment using the standards laid down serious than crimes resulting in the deprivation of property.34 By imposing a
in Estoista and related cases:
level of punishment for estafa equal to more serious crimes such as homicide
86
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and kidnapping, Article 315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty
based on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and disproportionate to the
Corpuz vs. People
severity of the crime punished.
Impermissible disproportionality is better gauged by testing punishments
Maximum Penalty for Estafa
against the following alternative parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes
Unrelated to its Purpose
are equally or less severely punished; or (2) whether the punishment
The felonies defined and penalized under Title 10, Book Two of the Code,
reasonably advances the state interest behind the penalty.30 These
as amended, as crimes against property, including estafa under Article 315,
parameters strike the proper balance of providing practical tools of
are legislative measures safeguarding the right to property of private
adjudication to weigh claims of cruel punishment while at the same time
individuals and the state.35 The penalties of imprisonment and/or fine at-
affording Congress discretionary leeway to craft penal statutes addressing _______________
societal evils. 32 Decision, pp. 39-40. Under Article 249 of the Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal which ranges
from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, with the medium term ranging from fourteen (14) years,
Value-based, Maximum Penalty Calibration Under Article 315 eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
Disproportionate to the Crime of Estafa 33 Under Article 268 of the Code, Slight Illegal Detention is also punishable by reclusion temporal.
34 This merely reflects the ordering of rights under our constitutional system with the right to life and liberty
More Serious Crimes Equally occupying a higher tier of protection than the right to property (thus claims of infringement of each right are
Punished as Estafa subjected to different levels of scrutiny). See Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operations, Ass’n., Inc. v. Hon. City Mayor
of Manila, 127 Phil. 306, 324; 20 SCRA 849, 860 (1967).
Article 315 of the Code calibrates the maximum penalty for estafa on an 35 Save for the crime of estafa by issuing underfunded or unfunded checks which has been recognized as serving
escalated basis once a threshold amount of fraud is crossed (P22,000). The to ensure the
penalty escalates on a ratio of one year imprisonment for every P10,000 88
fraud, with 20 years as ceiling.31 Accordingly, for a fraud of P98,000, the trial 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
court sentenced petitioner to a maximum term of 15 years. Corpuz vs. People
_______________ tached to each crime are meant to deter and incapacitate criminals from
Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute is not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the
nature of the offense unless it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the
infringing such right. The Cruel Punishment Clause ensures that the state
offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of interest is advanced without sacrificing proportionality between the crime
proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. Based on this principle, the Court has
consistently overruled contentions of the defense that the penalty of fine or imprisonment authorized by the statute
and punishment. In short, the Clause acts as constitutional brake whenever
involved is cruel and degrading. Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 749, 754; 390 SCRA 194, 198 (2002) (internal citation Congress enacts punishment whose severity is gratuitous, wholly
omitted; emphasis supplied).
30 Save for some modification, these are drawn from the “principles” crafted by Mr. Justice William J. Brennan,
unconnected to the purpose of the law.
Jr. in his Concurring Opinion in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 274-277, 279-282 (1972), to aid in the Of the more than two dozen crimes originally defined by Congress in Title
interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.
31 See note 1.
10, Book Two of the Code,36 only two crimes, estafa and theft, consider the
87 amount of the property involved to calibrate the maximum range of the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 87 penalty. All the rest either impose penalties irrespective of the amount of the
property involved37 or provide a threshold amount based on the property interest behind the law, that is, ensuring the stability of commercial and
involved for the imposition of a straight (as opposed to calibrated) banking transactions.44 Such state interest is not
penalty.38 Crucially, the calibration does not take into account the real value _______________ 30 P142,000÷40=P3,550.
of the peso. 40 Article 315, paragraph 3.
Admittedly, Congress has ample discretion to fix penalties in the Code 41 353 Phil. 37; 290 SCRA 595 (1998).
42 438 Phil. 744; 390 SCRA 794 (2002).
according to its best light. At the time the Code took effect in 1932, when 43 Increasing the maximum penalty for such estafa to 30 years.
US$1.00 was equivalent to P1.00, the system of calibrated penalty under 44 From Tongko:
The legislature was not thoughtless in imposing severe penalties for violation of par. 2(d) of Article 315 of the
Article 315 based on the amount appropriated arguably stayed clear of the Revised Penal Code. The history of the law will show that the severe penalties were intended to stop the upsurge of
Cruel Punishment Clause. After 82 years, however, when the real value of the swindling by issuance of bouncing checks. It was felt that unless aborted, this kind of estafa “. . . would erode the
people’s confidence in the use of negotiable in-
peso has depreciated substantially with the current rate of US$1.00 to 90
P40.00, an estafa of P142,000 in 1932, meriting a 20-year penalty, should 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
today require P5.6 million Corpuz vs. People
36 The provisions relating to the crime of arson were superseded by Presidential Decree (PD) Nos. 1613 and
1744. implicated here. The clause in Article 315 petitioner violated, penalizing the
37 E.g., robbery and related crimes (Articles 294, 295 and 297); brigandage (Article 306) and arson and related failure to return property delivered in trust for disposition, secures the
crimes (Articles 320-323, as amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744).
38 E.g., occupation of real property (Article 312); swindling of a minor (Article 317); removal, sale, or pledge of entirely different government interest of protecting private property. To
mortgaged property (Article 319) and special cases of malicious mischief (Article 328). consider Tongko and Lim as binding precedents, precluding a different
89
conclusion, is to expand their ratio decidendibeyond the facts presented in
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 89
those cases.
Corpuz vs. People
Penalty Imposable under Article 315
to merit a 20-year penalty. Put differently, P142,000 in 1932 is worth only The breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause by Article 315’s system of
P3,55039 today, which should merit only a maximum penalty of six months calculating the maximum penalty for estafain excess of P22,000 means that
and one day to two years and four months imprisonment.40 The enormous only the minimum term of imprisonment provided under Article 315 for such
disparity in the values of fraud between these points in time (exceeding 100%) crime can be imposed on petitioner, namely, prisión correccionalin its
and the imposition of the same level of maximum punishment in both maximum period. This level of penalty is covered by the Inde-
instances remove any semblance of reasonability in the manner by which the _______________
punishment is derived and its connection to the purpose of the law. The struments as a medium of commercial transaction and consequently result in the retardation of trade and commerce
and the undermining of the banking system of the country.” [Citing the “Whereas” Clauses of PD 818]. People v.
arbitrary differential treatment of estafa (and theft) crosses the line Tongko, supra note 41 at p. 44; p. 602 (emphasis supplied).
separating the exercise of valid legislative discretion and the Cruel From Lim:
Clearly, the increase in the penalty, far from being cruel and degrading, was motivated by a laudable purpose,
Punishment Clause. namely, to effectuate the repression of an evil that undermines the country’s commercial and economic growth, and to
This conclusion stands notwithstanding our holding in People v. serve as a necessary precaution to deter people from issuing bouncing checks. The fact that PD 818 did not increase
the amounts corresponding to the new penalties only proves that the amount is immaterial and
Tongko41 and Lim v. People42 that the system of calculating the maximum inconsequential. What the law sought to avert was the proliferation of estafa cases committed by means of bouncing
penalty under Article 315 does not offend the Cruel Punishment Clause. checks. Taking into account the salutary purpose for which said law was decreed, we conclude that PD 818 does not
violate Section 19 of Article III of the Constitution. Lim v. People, supra note 42 at p. 755; p. 199 (emphasis supplied).
Those cases involved paragraph 2(d) of Article 315, as amended by 91
Presidential Decree No. 818 (PD 818),43 penalizing as estafa the issuance of VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 91
unfunded or underfunded checks (not paragraph 1(b), the provision violated Corpuz vs. People
by petitioner). Our conclusion in those cases was grounded on the fact that terminate Sentence Law45 which renders the next lower penalty,
criminalizing the issuance of bouncing checks reasonably advances the state namely, prisión correccional in its medium period, as the minimum of the
sentence.46 The entirety of the sentence will be anywhere within the range of
these maximum and minimum penalties. Hence, petitioner’s term of time for rebellion complexed with other crimes.49 Hernandez and today’s
imprisonment should be modified to three (3) years, one (1) month and eleven ruling amount to laws favoring convicts, which, under Article 22 of the Code,
(11) days of prisión correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) have retroactive effect.50Convicts benefitting from such ruling and falling
months and eleven (11) days of prisión correccional, as maximum. within the terms of Article 22 may invoke it in their favor and, if proper, avail
The same range of penalty applies to all other persons found guilty of of remedies to secure their release from detention.
violating Article 315. Thus, whether an estafa involves money or property Conclusion not Precluded by Article 5 of the Code
worth P22,000 or P1 million, the minimum term of imprisonment under Testing Article 315 against the Cruel Punishment Clause under the
Article 315 — prisión correccional in its maximum period — will be imposed standards espoused in this opinion does not make a dead letter law of the
on the accused. second paragraph of Article 5 of the
The penalty for the felony of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree _______________
48 People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956); People v. Lava, 138 Phil. 77; 28 SCRA 72 (1969).
No. 1689 (PD 1689) is, however, an altogether different matter. PD 1689 49 Gumabon v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362; 37 SCRA 420 (1971).
amended Article 315 of the Code by adding a new mode of 50 “Retroactive effect of penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although
committing estafa47and imposing the penalty of “life imprisonment to death” at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.”
or “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 93
P100,000.” Unlike Article 315, PD 1689 does not calibrate the duration of the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 93
maximum range of imprisonment on a fixed time-to-peso ratio (1 year for Corpuz vs. People
every P10,000 in excess of P22,000), but rather provides a straight maximum Code. Such provision, mandating courts to recommend executive clemency
penalty of death or reclusion perpetua. This places PD 1689 outside of the —
ambit of the proscription of the Cruel Punishment Clause on the imposition of when a strict enforcement of the provisions of th[e] 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.
prison terms calibrated based on the (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
45 Republic Act No. 4103, as amended. operates within the realm of criminal law, requiring fact-based judicial
46 Article 61(2), Code. evaluation on the degree of malice of the accused and the injury sustained by
47 “[B]y a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out” estafa involving
“money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, ‘samahang nayon(s),’ or farmers the victim or his heirs. The Cruel Punishment Clause, on the other hand, is
association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.” (Section 1) the constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are measured using
92 relevant standards unrelated to questions of criminal malice and injury. Far
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED from overlapping, the conclusions yielded by analyses under these two rules
Corpuz vs. People are distinct — a penal statute may well avoid the taint of unconstitutionality
value of the money or property swindled, unadjusted to inflation. under the Clause but, applying such statute under peculiar set of facts, may
justify a recommendation for the grant of clemency.51
Effect of Ruling on Convicts
Serving Time under Article 315 Legislative Review of Article 315
and Related Provisions Overdue
This opinion relieves petitioner of the harsh effect of the penalty for estafa
under Article 315 by lowering the entire range of imprisonment and monetary The constitutional infirmity not only of Article 315 but also of related
liability of petitioner or imposing only the minimum range of imprisonment, provisions in the Code calls for a comprehensive
respectively. It is akin to our 1956 ruling in People v. _______________
51 The Court made such recommendation in People v. Monleon, 165 Phil. 863; 74 SCRA 263 (1976), where the
Hernandez decriminalizing rebellion complexed with ordinary crimes to the accused,
48
while inebriated, unintentionally killed his wife in the course of disciplining their child. We explained:
benefit not only of the accused in that case but also of those already serving “[C]onsidering that Monleon had no intent to kill his wife and that her death might have been hastened by lack of
appropriate medical attendance or her weak constitution, the penalty of reclusion perpetuaappears to be excessive. A
strict enforcement of the provisions of the Penal Code means the imposition of a draconian penalty on Monleon.” Id.,
at p. 870; p. 270. Under Article 246 of the Code, parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
First, the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of imposing
94 the penalties prescribed under the other crimes in the RPC.
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Second, modifying the penalties, as several of my esteemed colleagues
Corpuz vs. People have proposed, is not judicial interpretation that simply looks at the letter
review by Congress of such 82-year old legislation.52Pending such and spirit of the law; it is judicial legislation that unconstitutionally (and
congressional review, this Court should decline to enforce the incremental thus, illegally) breached the doctrine of separation of powers.
penalty in Article 315 because such continued enforcement of the incremental Third, the present day application of the 1930 values will not result in the
penalty violates the Cruel Punishment Clause. denial of Corpuz’s right to equal protection of the law.
Accordingly, I vote to (1) GRANT the petition in part by modifying the Fourth, the constitutionally and legally permissible solution to the
sentence imposed on petitioner Lito Corpuz to three (3) years, one (1) month perceived disparity between the prescribed penalty and the crime in light of
and eleven (11) days of prisión correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, the present values of money and property is the grant, by the President of the
nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prisión correccional, as maximum; Philippines, of executive clemency through pardon or parole.
and (2) DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONALthat portion of the first Fifth, the minority’s position can, in effect, lead to repercussions
paragraph of Article 315 of Act No. 3815, as amended, mandating the that could potentially destabilize the application of our penal laws and
imposition of maximum penalty based on the amount of the fraud exceeding jurisprudence, as well as further clog the Court’s already congested dockets.
P22,000, for being violative of Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Lastly, I cannot agree with the expressed opinion that the incremental
Constitution. penalty imposed on estafa is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual
punishment; like the rest of the majority, I believe that no such effect occurs
CONCURRING OPINION under the present law and its application.
I. The Court has no jurisdiction to de-
BRION, J.: termine the propriety of imposing the
penalties prescribed under other crimes
I agree with the ponencia’s conclusion that Lito Corpuz is guilty of the in the RPC
crime of Estafa as the facts and the evidence sufficiently established his guilt The dissenting opinion of Justice Abad, as supported by several other
beyond reasonable doubt. justices, sought to adjust for inflation the amounts involved in estafa; by so
I also support the majority’s decision not to “judicially interpret” the doing, he also sought to “judicially interpret” the subject matter of the crimes
penalties imposed under Article 217 (Malversation of Public Funds or of malversation, theft, qualified theft, arson and mischiefs.
Property), Articles 299-303 (Robbery), Articles 308-309 (Simple Theft), Article 96
310 (Qualified Theft), Articles 315-318 (Estafa and other forms of Swindling), 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Articles 320-325 (Arson), and Articles 327-329 (Mischiefs) of the Revised Corpuz vs. People
Penal Code (RPC), by adjusting, for inflation, the value of the money or In my view, what they propose to do involves an undue and unwarranted
property (subject of the crime) to its 1930 value. invocation of the Court’s judicial power — an act that cannot be done without
My reasons for supporting the ponencia are as follows: violating the due process rights of the Republic. Notably, the Republic focused
_______________
52 The Code was approved on 8 December 1930 but took effect on 1 January 1932. solely and was heard only on the matter of estafa. In fact, the present case is
95 only about estafa, not any other crime. To touch these other crimes in the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 95 present case likewise involves acts of policy determination on the substance of
Corpuz vs. People the law by the Judiciary — a violation of the highest order of the limits
imposed on us by the Constitution.
 I am not unaware that an appeal in criminal cases throws the case wide Let me point out that there are considerations in determining whether a
open for review, and allows the reviewing tribunal the power to correct errors penalty is proportional to crimes other than the monetary value of the
or to reverse the trial court’s decisions on the grounds other than those raised property involved. The perpetration of fraud, the key element in estafa, is not
by the parties as errors.1 In reviewing criminal cases, we recognize our duty to present in theft or arson, while the abuse of public office is a unique key
correct errors as may be found in the judgment appealed regardless element in malversation. We cannot make a uniform ruling adjusting the
of whether they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not. amounts involved in these crimes simply based on inflation and without
This discretion, however, is limited to situations where the Court considering the other factors that Congress considered in imposing the values
intends to correct the trial court’s errors in applying the law and of the property involved in these crimes. This conundrum again shows that
appreciating the facts. A quick survey of jurisprudence shows that this the judicial interpretation espoused by the minority is actually a judicial
includes re-evaluating factual questions presented before the trial usurpation of Congress’ prerogative to define crimes and to determine their
court,2 weighing the credibility of witnesses and other pieces of evidence penalties.
presented before the trial court,3 or applying the proper penalty.4 98
_______________ 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
1 People of the Philippines v. Salva, 424 Phil. 63, 75; 373 SCRA 55, 64-65 (2002).
2 Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 253, 272; 266 SCRA 281, 301 (1997). Corpuz vs. People
3 Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650, 663; 419 SCRA 514, 522 (2004). II. The enduring constitutional and
4 Quemuel v. Court of Appeals, et al., 130 Phil. 33, 35-36; 22 SCRA 44, 46 (1968).
97 jurisprudential imperative upholding the
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 97 separation of powers completely abhors
Corpuz vs. People any unwarranted intrusion and imper-
Thus, at most, the Supreme Court’s wide discretion in reviewing criminal missible usurpation of the authority and
cases allows it to motu proprio provide a proper interpretation of the penal functions of a co-equal branch
law being applied. This discretion, however, does not extend to the power to A characteristic and cardinal principle that governs our constitutional
adjust the penalty defined in the law, based on the monetary value of the system is the separation of powers.5 The Constitution does not expressly
property involved in the crime of estafa. provide for the principle of separation of powers. Instead, it divides the
More than this, the Court’s discretion does not allow it to similarly adjust governmental powers among the three branches — the legislative, the
the penalties defined in other crimes, similarly based on the monetary values executive and the judiciary. Under this framework, the Constitution confers
of the property involved in these other crimes, as these other crimes are on the Legislature the duty to make the law (and/or alter and repeal it), on
not involved in the present case. These crimes and their penalties have the Executive the duty to execute the law, and on the Judiciary the duty to
neither been adjudicated upon by the trial court nor by the CA; neither is the construe and apply the law.6
“judicial interpretation” of their penalties necessary to determine whether Underlying the doctrine of separation of powers is the general proposition
Corpuz committed the crime of estafa in the present case. that the whole power of one department should not be exercised by the same
Assuming, for the sake of argument, the validity of Justice Abad’s hands that possess the whole power of the other departments.7 Within their
arguments regarding the disproportionality of the penalties defined in these respective spheres of influence, each department is supreme and the exercise
crimes (as the intrinsic value of the money in properties involved have of its powers to the full extent cannot be questioned by another department.
significantly dropped), we still cannot ipso facto apply the adjustments he Outside of their defined spheres of action, none of the great governmental
seeks in the present estafa case, to the other crimes. The proportionality issue departments has any power, and nor may any of them validly exercise the
in estafa is different from the proportionality issue in these other crimes, as powers conferred upon the others.8
each crime is different from another.
 Section 1, paragraph 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that ‘‘judicial sies, reflects the constitutional imperative of upholding the principle of
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be separation of powers, such that the Judiciary has no power to entertain
established by law.” litigations involving the legality, wisdom, or the propriety of the
_______________
5 See Defensor-Santiago, M., Constitutional Law, Text and Cases, Vol. I, p. 163 (2000).
conduct of the Executive; neither has it the power to enlarge, alter or
6 Id., at pp. 169-170, citing U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1 (1922). repeal laws or to question the wisdom, propriety, appropriateness,
7 Id., at p. 164.
8 Id., at p. 194, citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).
necessity, policy or expediency of the laws.13
99 While the Constitution has now extended the scope of judicial power
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 99 beyond the mere application of law and the settling of disputes (as it now
Corpuz vs. People includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
Simply stated, what the Constitution confers on the Court is only “judicial discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
power” and it is this judicial power that serves as the measure of the or instrumentality of the Government), this expanded scope does not still
permissible reach of the Court’s action.9 In short, the Judiciary can neither permit any inquiry into the conduct or act of either of the executive or the
make the law nor execute it, as its power is strictly confined to the law’s legislative branch other than to determine whether either branch violated the
interpretation and application, i.e., to what is aptly termed “judicial” power. Constitution or gravely abused its discretion in a manner amounting to lack
II.A. Judicial power; its scope and limitations or excess of jurisdiction.
Section 1, paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Constitution states that judicial II.B. The power to define crimes and
power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies their penalties lies in the legisla-
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,” as well as to ture as an imperative of the prin-
“determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion ciple of separation of powers
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or On the legislature’s exclusive domain, through lawmaking, lies the
instrumentality of the Government.” authority to define what constitutes a particular crime in this jurisdiction. It
Traditionally, judicial power has been defined as “the right to determine is the legislature, as representative of the sovereign people, that determines
actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in which acts or combination of acts is criminal and what the ordained
courts of proper jurisdiction.”10 It is “the authority to settle justiciable punishments shall be.14 Judicial interpretation of penal laws
_______________
controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and 13 See Defensor-Santiago, M., Constitutional Law, Text and Cases, Vol. I, pp. 586-587 (2000).
demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation 14 See Valenzuela v. People, 552 Phil. 381, 414; 525 SCRA 306, 342 (2007); and Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, 518
Phil. 409, 432-433; 483 SCRA 243, 266 (2006).
of such rights.”11 101
In this light, no court can exercise judicial power unless real parties come VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 101
before it for the settlement of actual controversy and unless the controversy is Corpuz vs. People
of the nature that can be settled in a manner that binds the parties through should be aligned with the evident legislative intent, as expressed primarily
the application of existing laws.12 This traditional concept of judicial power, in the language of the law as it defines the crime.15
as the application of law to actual controver- As the Constitution vests the power to enact laws on the legislature, the
_______________
9 Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p. 946 (2009). courts cannot arrogate the power to enlarge the scope of the crime, introduce
10 Id., at p. 946, quoting Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).
11 Id., quoting Lopez v. Roxas, 17 SCRA 756, 761 (1966).
matters that the legislature clearly did not intend, redefine a crime in a
12 Id., at pp. 946-947. manner that does not hew to the statutory language,16 or modify the penalty
100 to conform to the courts’ notion (out of the innumerable number of notions) of
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED justice and fairness. A becoming regard for the prerogative of Congress in
Corpuz vs. People
defining crimes/felonies should prevent the Court from making any broad 21 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction, Incorporated
(PEJI), G.R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 658, 665.
interpretation of penal laws where a “narrow interpretation” is 22 Cebu Portland Cement Company v. Municipality of Naga, Cebu, et al., 133 Phil. 695, 699; 24 SCRA 708, 712
appropriate.17 “The Court must take heed to language, legislative history and (1968).
23 Funa, Dennis B., Canons of Statutory Construction, p. 215 (2011), citing CONN. GEN. STAT. Par. 1-2z, 2007.
purpose, in order to strictly determine the wrath and breath of the conduct 24 See Catiis v. Court of Appeals (17th Division), 517 Phil. 294, 303-304; 482 SCRA 71, 82 (2006).
the law forbids.”18 25 Funa, Dennis B., Canons of Statutory Construction pp. 214-215 (2011), citing CONN. GEN. STAT. Par. 1-2z,
2007.
II.C. “Plain meaning rule” in statutory 26 Id., at pp. 4-5, citing Henry Campbell Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws
construction should be applied in (1896). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth edition), p. 734.
103
reading Article 315 of the RPC
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 103
The cardinal canon in statutory construction — the plain meaning rule
Corpuz vs. People
or verba legis — requires that “the meaning of a statute should, in the first
or conclusions that are in spirit, but not within the text,27 where the
instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed; if the
intention is rendered doubtful, among others, because the given case is not
language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to
explicitly provided for in the law28 or because the words used are obscure or
its terms.”19 In interpreting any statute in the exercise of its judicial power of
susceptible to numerous interpretations. Both these two terms, however,
applying the law, the Court should always turn to this cardinal canon before
have no place in the present case as the meaning of the penalties
all others. “Courts should always pre-
_______________ imposed is clear and needs neither construction nor interpretation.
15 Valenzuela v. People, supra at p. 414; p. 342.
16 Id., at pp. 414-415; id.
17 Id., at p. 415; id. II.D. The ‘‘plain meaning rule” and
18 Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, supra note 14 at p. 433; p. 267, citing Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985); the principle of separation of
and Valenzuela v. People, supra note 14 at p. 415; p. 342.
19 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). powers prevent this Court from
102 modifying, by adjusting for in-
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED flation, the penalties under Arti-
Corpuz vs. People cle 315 of the RPC
sume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a The language of the penalty clauses of Article 315 of the RPC is plain and
statute what it says there,”20 and that the legislature knows “the meaning of clear; no reservation, condition or qualification, particularly on the need for
the words, to have used them advisedly, and to have expressed the intent by adjustment for inflation, can be read from the law, whether by express
use of such words as are found in the statute.”21 provision or by implication. The clear legislative intention to
Thus, when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,22 and penalize estafa according to the “amount of fraud” as enumerated in the law,
does not yield absurd and unworkable results,23 the duty of interpretation, therefore, should be deemed complete — Article 315 embodies all that the
more so of construction, does not arise;24 the Court should resort to the canons legislature intended when the law was crafted.
of statutory construction only when the statute is ambiguous.25 As the words of Article 315 are clear, the Court cannot and should not
Interpretation, as understood in the rules of statutory construction, refers add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on
to the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words, or the sense the face of the law or from legislative history,29 i.e., to remedy the
which their author intended to convey.26 Construction, on the other hand, perceived grossly unfair practice of continuing to impose on persons
refers to the art of drawing conclusions from matters beyond the direct _______________
27 Id., citing Henry Campbell Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws
expressions of text, from elements known from and given in the text, (1896). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth edition), p. 283.
_______________ 28 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Palomar, No. L-19650, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 247, 256.
20 Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, (1992); and Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ 29 See Burden v. Snowden, 2 Cal. 4th 556 (1992).
Union (IBAAEU) v. Hon. Inciong, etc., et al., 217 Phil. 629, 642-643; 132 SCRA 663, 673 (1984). 104
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED deceased (victim) as the force that impelled the legislature to increase the
Corpuz vs. People civil indemnity by statute;32 the Court simply took judicial notice of this
found guilty of estafa the penalties that the RPC Commission pegged on the concern in interpreting the monetary values in the cited cases.
value of money and property in 1930. Moreover, Justice Abad’s presumption patently deviates from the rule
Notably, in his approach in the present case, Justice Abad labors under the of progressive interpretation that “extends by construction the application of a
presumption that the RPC Commission intended that the penalties under statute to all subjects or conditions within its general purpose or scope that
Article 315 of the RPC should adopt and reflect the values of money and come into
_______________
property prevailing at the time of the commission of the crime; hence, his 30 Justice Abad cited the following cases to support its position: People v. Amanses, 80 Phil. 424, 435 (1948); M.
position that the “amount of fraud” should be adjusted for inflation. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 120 Phil. 102, 106; 11 SCRA 98, 100 (1964); People v. Pantoja, 134
Phil. 453, 458; 25 SCRA 468, 473 (1968); People v. De la Fuente, 211 Phil. 650, 656; 126 SCRA 518, 524 (1983); People
I find this approach and the resulting position manifestly flawed; Justice v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 213; and People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434, 454; 500
Abad effectively posits that the “amount of fraud” as the basis of the penalty SCRA 727, 743 (2006).
Note that all of these cases involve the award of civil indemnity and moral damages for crimes and quasi-
will significantly vary at each instance as this will depend on such factors as delicts resulting in death. In these cases, what the Court increased, through interpretation of the monetary values,
the kind or type of the thing or property subject of the crime, and its was the civil indemnity awarded to the victim of the crime and not the penalty imposed on the offender.
31 See Pineda, Ernesto L., Torts and Damages, p. 139 (2004). As quoted:
corresponding monetary value at the time of the commission of the crime. The “Human life has heretofore been very cheap, in law and the practice thereunder. Before the passage of
monetary value, in turn, will depend on several variables affecting the Commonwealth Act No. 284 in June 1938 the practice was to allow P1,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased in case of
death caused by crime. Later, by virtue of that special law, a minimum of P2,000.00 was fixed, but the court usually
economy. To my mind, these are clearly matters of fact and policy awarded only the minimum, without taking the trouble to inquire into the earning capacity of the victim, and
determination that are far beyond the scope of judicial power. regardless of aggravating circumstances.”
32 Referring to Commonwealth Act No. 284.
In fact, a review of several amendatory statutes of Article 315 of the RPC 106
reveals a legislative intent contrary to Justice Abad’s proposition that the 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
RPC Commission intended that the “amount of fraud” as basis for the Corpuz vs. People
penalties should account for the inflation.
existence subsequent to its passage[.]”33 The rule requires that “a word of
In point are the following: (1) Presidential Decree No. 818 (enacted in
general signification employed in a statute should be construed, in the
October 22, 1975) increased the penalties in cases of estafa resulting from
absence of legislative intent to the contrary, to comprehend not only peculiar
bouncing checks under Article 315(2)(d); and (2) Presidential Decree No. 1689
conditions obtaining at the time of its enactment but those that may normally
(enacted on April 6, 1980) increased the penalty for certain forms
arise after its approval as well.”34
of estafa under Articles 315 and 316. These statutes increased the penalties
Thus, Article 315 of the RPC should be understood as embracing all things
for estafa under certain conditions despite the then already declining
and property that may be subject of the crime of estafa regardless of the
monetary value on account of inflation.
changes in their monetary value, and that the “amount of fraud” as basis for
Arguably, the Court had in the past (as in the cases cited by Justice Abad)
the penalty (and as enumerated under Article 315) should be applied without
resorted to interpretation of monetary values to cope with inflation. These
reference to these changes.
instances, however, con-
105
Then, too, Justice Abad’s position departs from the theory
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 105 of originalism that he used as supporting argument.
Corpuz vs. People
Originalism is generally employed in relation with the Constitution and
has its roots in the “original” intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is a
cerned awards of civil liability and moral damages for death.30 These cases
theory or a framework of principles used in interpreting and understanding
involved civil damages awards that are in stark contrast with the penalty
the texts of the Constitution. It is premised on the idea that the original
issue that faces this Court in the present petition. In fact, the Historical
meaning of the Constitution is relatively fixed, and the originalist enterprise
Notes of the RPC Commission31 shows the law’s concern for the heirs of the
is fundamentally committed to discerning the fixed meaning the framers gave 108
to the Constitution.35 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Corpuz vs. People
33 Orceo v. Commission on Elections, Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Brion, G.R. No. 190779, March 26,
2010, 616 SCRA 684, 703, citing Agpalo, Ruben E., Statutory Construction, pp. 177-178 (2003). under the theory of originalism, the “amount of fraud” as basis for the penalty
34 Ibid. (as enumerated under Article 315), should likewise be applied without
35 See Keith E. Whittington, Originalism 2.0: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student
Symposium On Law And Public Policy — 2010: I. Originalism: A Rationalization For Conservativism or A Principled reference to the changes in the monetary values.
Theory Of Interpretation?: Is Originalism Too Conservative? Copyright (c) 2011 Harvard Society for Law & Public Accordingly, I find Justice Abad’s proposition in this case to be improper
Policy, Inc., 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 29. (www.lexisnexis.com)
See also Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 2009 Duke Law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239. and inappropriate because: (1) the modification of the penalty transgressed the
(www.lexisnexis.com) clear intent of the legislature as the adjustment for inflation is not supported
107
by the letter of Article 315 of the RPC nor by its intent; (2) in adjusting for
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 107
inflation the monetary values to modify the penalties under Article 315, the
Corpuz vs. People
Court resorted to construction that the law and the circumstances clearly did
Originalism, as a theory of constitutional interpretation, has so far evolved not require; and (3) in modifying the penalty by construction, the Court
into numerous versions, the more common of which are original manifestly usurped, by judicial legislation, the power that rightfully
understanding and original intent.36 belongs to the legislature.
Originalism as original understanding seeks the meaning of the words III. The application of the penalties
themselves as understood at the time,37 or the meaning of the words to the prescribed under Article 315 of the RPC,
society that adopted it — regardless of what the framers might secretly have as written, would not violate Corpuz’s
intended.38 In contrast, originalism as original intentseeks the meaning of the right to equal protection of the law
words according to what the framers had in mind39 or the meaning that the Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently provides: “nor
framers attached to the words that they employed in the Constitution.40 shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The equal
As a theory of constitutional interpretation, I submit that originalism protection clausemeans that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of
cannot properly be applied to interpret and modify Article 315 of the RPC the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the
because this is a statute, not a constitutional provision to which the theory same place in like circumstances.41 It demands that all persons or things
of originalism generally applies. similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to the rights conferred and
Granting that originalism can be permissibly adopted to interpret statutes, responsibilities imposed.42
the theory — whether viewed as original understanding or original intent — _______________
commands that Article 315 be read and interpreted according to its fixed and 41 City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., 495 Phil. 289, 326-327; 455 SCRA 308, 347 (2005).
42 Ibid. See also Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 330 Phil. 678, 719; 262 SCRA 122, 156-157 (1996), citing Gumabon
original meaning. Thus, in the same manner that the rule of progressive v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971).
interpretation bars reference to the changes in the monetary values of the 109
things and property subject of the crime, VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 109
_______________ Corpuz vs. People
36 See Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239.
(www.lexisnexis.com) The equal protection, however, does not demand absolute equality under
37 See Keith E. Whittington, Originalism 2.0: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student all circumstances. The protection recognizes that persons are not born equal
Symposium On Law And Public Policy — 2010: I. Originalism: A Rationalization For Conservativism Or A Principled
Theory Of Interpretation?: Is Originalism Too Conservative? Copyright (c) 2011 Harvard Society for Law & Public and have varying handicaps that society has no power to abolish.43Thus, the
Policy, Inc., 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 29. (www.lexisnexis.com) equal protection clause permits reasonable classifications provided that the
38 See Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239.
(www.lexisnexis.com) classification: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane to the
39 Ibid. purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4)
40 Id.
applies equally to all members of the same class.44
 The application of the penalties under Article 315 of the RPC, as written, and discourage dishonesty and unfaithfulness in the administration or care of
to the present situation does not violate Corpuz’s right to the equal protection money, goods or other personal property received for the purpose;170 and
of the law. The circumstances prevailing when the RPC Commission fixed the applies only to those who commit the crime subsequent to the decision.
penalties for estafa in 1930, vis-à-vis the circumstances presently obtaining, IV. The grant, by the President of the
hardly differ, and the considerations that impelled the RPC Commission in Philippines, of executive clemency
fixing the mode and duration of these penalties persist and continue to justify through pardon or parole, when war-
their application to the present conditions. ranted, would sufficiently address the
The key element in estafa is the fraudulent act committed that has caused perceived disparity, in the context of the
harm to others. Estafa penalizes the fraudulent act. I submit that there present values of money and property,
has been no change in the way the RPC defines fraudand, hence, there between the prescribed penalty and the
should be no reason for a change in the way a fraudulent act is crime committed
penalized. _______________
45 Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, p. 953 (2008).
A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the same manner as 111
a fraud committed in the present day. That the consequences of the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 111
fraudulent act constituted the basis for determining the gradation of penalties Corpuz vs. People
was a policy decision that Congress had the prerogative to make. This in- I further submit that the law, in its wisdom, already provides a
_______________
43 People v. Ching Kuan, 74 Phil. 23, 24 (1942). constitutionally and legally permissible solution to what Justice Abad
44 Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 560-561; 446 SCRA 299, perceived as the “grossly unfair practice of continuing to impose on persons
344 (2004); and Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, 606 SCRA 258, 291.
110 found guilty of certain crimes the penalties [that had been] pegged on the
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED value of money and property more than 80 years ago in 1930.”
Corpuz vs. People These solutions are the exercise, by the President of the Philippines of his
cluded the value behind each threshold and its corresponding penalty. What clemency powers under Section 19, Article VIII of the Constitution,46 and the
was true then is still true today. exercise by this Court of its recommending power under Article 5, paragraph
Thus, the disparity between the monetary values of things and property in 2, of the RPC.
the 1930s and the prevailing monetary values of like things and property do Article 5, paragraph 2, of the RPC states that when the strict enforcement
not amount to distinctions so substantial that they would require this Court of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
to treat and classify Corpuz differently from persons who committed estafa in excessive penalty, considering the degree of malice and the injury caused by
1930. the offense, “the [C]ourt shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
In fact, the converse proposition, i.e., to treat Corpuz and others who will, Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper[.]”
from here on, commit the crime of estafa differently from those who The factual and legal conditions that some members of this Court feel
committed the same crime in the 1930s up to and prior to the decision in this badly about can be addressed through the exercise of this recommendatory
case, by modifying the penalty according to what it perceived as the correct power. This course of action may adequately address whatever perceived
inflation rate, will inevitably violate the constitutional right of the latter disparity there might be, created by inflation, between the crime and the
group of persons to the equal protection of the law. penalty while preserving and upholding, at the same time, the cardinal
This modification of the penalty effectively dictates a principle of the separation of powers. The Court is not likewise barred from
classification that does not rest on substantial distinctions; is calling the attention of Congress to the perceived disparity so that any
irrelevant to the purpose of the law punishing estafa, i.e., to punish problem there can be addressed through legislation.
_______________
 46 Section 19, Article VIII of the Constitution pertinently reads: _______________
Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may 47 Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties.—Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
112 persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
Corpuz vs. People person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
In sum, even granting arguendo that the penalty the CA imposed on attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered
Corpuz is “grossly unfair” from the economic and pragmatic point of view (as by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the
Justice Abad has carefully crafted), the solution to this “gross unfairness” is State.
not for this Court, by itself, to provide. Article 315 of the RPC is plain and 48 Section 3. Definitions.—x x x
(b) “Covered transaction” is a single, series, or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of
unambiguous and Corpuz’s case falls clearly within its provisions. Hence, Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in foreign currency based on the prevailing
under the circumstances and within the context of this case, the Court’s duty exchange rate within five (5) consecutive banking days except those between a covered institution and a person who,
at the time of the transaction was a properly identified client and the amount is commensurate with the business or
is simply to apply the law. Resorting to judicial legislation by construction financial capacity of the client; or those with an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or economic
encroaches into the exclusive domain of the legislature — a course that justification.
It likewise refers to a single, series or combination or pattern of unusually large and complex transactions in
clearly violated the constitutional separation of powers principle. excess of Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits and investments having no
V. The effect of Justice Abad’s “judicial credible purpose or origin, underlying trade obligation or contract.
SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping—
interpretation” could have destabilizing
repercussions on the application of our 114
penal laws and jurisprudence. It will as 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
well further clog the Court’s already con- Corpuz vs. People
gested dockets Should the amounts involved in these crimes be automatically adjusted
I believe that Justice Abad’s proposition, while grounded on noble now, to keep them within their value at the time the crimes were defined and
intentions, could destabilize the application of our penal laws. I submit the penalized? Both the crimes of plunder and money laundering, for instance,
following practical considerations against it: are of relatively recent enactment. The Act Defining the Crime of Plunder
First, Justice Abad’s proposal, in effect, postulates that the monetary was passed in 1991 and the Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2001.
value of the money and property subject of the crime should be kept at its When do we adjust the value of these amounts so that they would remain
value at the time the crime was legislated. This prompted his demand to in keeping with the intent of Congress at the time of its enactment? Do we
adjust the present day values of the amounts involved in distinguishing the adjust these for inflation every year, from the time of enactment, or after ten,
penalties for estafa, qualified theft, malversation, among others, to keep their
or twenty years when the value of the peso has significantly changed?
values at the 1930’s level. This argument applies not just to the crimes it has The lack of any specific answer to these questions reaffirms that the
enumerated, but to other crimes which use the value of the property involved prerogative to value the money or property involved in a crime lies with
in the criminal act as an element of the crime, or as a standard for Congress and is not for the courts to make through “judicial interpretation.”
determining the penalty of the crime.113 Second, the proposition would open the floodgates for habeas
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 113 corpus petitions for the adjustment of the penalties imposed on convicts now
Corpuz vs. People in prison for estafa. These petitions would be based on equal protection
Examples of these offenses include plunder47 (which includes as an element grounds, swamping the courts with pleas for the reduction of sentences.
of the crime the acquisition of at least P50 million in ill-gotten wealth) and Significantly, in undertaking adjustments, it would be inaccurate to apply
the failure by a covered institution to report covered transactions as defined _______________
xxx
in the Anti-Money Laundering Act.48
 (c) Reporting of Covered Transactions.—Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority concerned prescribes a longer
period not exceeding ten (10) working days. Corpuz vs. People
SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense.—Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by
the Court En Banc reiterated a prior ruling by the Court’s Second Division
the following: in People v. Tongko,50 which ruled that the increase in the penalty for estafa,
xxx
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed
committed through bouncing checks under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 818,
and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so. does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or
115 inhuman punishment.
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 115 The petitioners in Lim argued that PD No. 818 is a cruel, degrading, or
Corpuz vs. People inhuman punishment for the following reasons: first, the penalty of reclusion
the 1:100 adjustment ratio that Justice Abad uses as base because these perpetua under PD No. 818 for estafa involving the amount of P365,750.00 is
convicts committed their respective crimes in different years. Effectively, all too disproportionate to the crime it punishes; and second, the penalties
these petitions would be resolved on a case-to-case basis as proper for estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts (committed through
proportionality would have to be determined based on inflation in these bouncing checks) increased without a corresponding increase in the original
different years. amounts for estafa defined in the RPC, when these amounts have become
VI. The penalties in estafa do not violate negligible and insignificant compared to the present value of the peso.
the constitutional prohibition against The Court in Lim held that the increase in penalties provided by PD No.
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment 818 is neither the cruel nor degrading punishment that the Constitution
I cannot agree that the disproportionality in terms of the length of contemplates. Affirming this ruling in Tongko, the Court held that “the
imprisonment and the amount involved in the estafa is within the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is generally aimed at the form
contemplation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or or character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration
inhuman punishments. or amount[.]”51
First, I submit that the issue of a statute’s constitutionality, including According to Lim v. People,52 “it takes more than merely being harsh,
those of criminal statutes, should be raised at the earliest possible excessive, out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
opportunity. The ponencia’s summation of the case’s antecedents does not Constitution.” The impugned penalty must be “flagrantly and plainly
show that the constitutionality of the estafa’s penalty had been raised in the oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
trial court, or in the CA, and even in the present petition in the Supreme shock the moral sense of the community.”53
Court. The Court also noted that while PD No. 818 makes the penalties
As I earlier discussed, we have a wide latitude of discretion in reviewing for estafa more severe, this severity alone does not
criminal cases, especially in comparison to our approach in reviewing the civil _______________
50 353 Phil. 37, 43-44; 290 SCRA 595, 601 (1998).
and labor cases appealed before us. But this wide latitude, to my mind, does 51 Id., at p. 43; p. 601.
not authorize us to disregard the requirements of constitutional litigation. 52 Supra note 49 at p. 754.
Even assuming that the Court may, on its own, raise the issue of 11753 Ibid.
constitutionality of the penalty of estafa, the principle of stare decisis bars VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 117
us from relitigating an issue that has already been decided. Corpuz vs. People
The Court has had, on two occasions, upheld the constitutionality of the
make it the cruel or degrading punishment that the Constitution prohibits.
penalty imposed on estafa. In Lim v. People,49
_______________
The Court observed that the increase of the penalties is not without
49 438 Phil. 749; 390 SCRA 194 (2002). justification: the increase in penalty was intended to repress the crime of
116 swindling through bouncing checks, as it erodes the people’s confidence in
using negotiable instruments and results in the “retardation of trade and heavier penalty under PD No. 1866 is excessive, disproportionate, or cruel or
commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the country.”54 unusual. The Court noted that it could be argued the other way around —
The present case involves arguments similar to those the Lim petitioners that the penalty of the crime of rebellion is too light; and that the remedy for
presented, and I find that no basis exists for the Court to deviate from its this situation is through law, and not judicial interpretation.
earlier ruling. Notably, the Court En Banc arrived at this ruling without any Thus, Baylosis established that in determining the severity and
reservations or dissenting opinions. disproportionality of a penalty, the Court should look only at the crime and
I submit that the Court should respect and recognize the principle of stare penalty in question and avoid its comparison with other crimes. And in
decisis in this case, as Lim stands as precedent against the arguments raised determining whether a penalty is wholly disproportional to the crime it
in the current case. They both involve the same issues and arguments; the punishes (so that it shocks the community’s moral standards), we must
penalty imposed by PD No. 818, which was contested in Lim and Tongko, was examine whether the penalty imposed is justified by the evil sought to be
even higher than the penalties contested in the current case (which prevented by Congress in penalizing the crime.
involves estafa without the qualifying circumstance of having been committed In this case, the Solicitor General has adequately provided the reason for
through bouncing checks). the penalties behind the estafa, i.e., to protect and encourage the growth of
These considerations, to my mind, effectively refute the arguments commerce in the country and to protect the public from fraud. This reason, to
regarding the severity and disproportionality of the penalties my mind, is sufficient to justify the penalties for estafa. That the amount
under estafa presented in the current case. If we have twice respected and taken from the private injured party has grown negligible through inflation
recognized the legislative’s prerogative to increase the penalty does not ipso facto make the penalty wholly disproportional. In determining
of estafa committed through PD No. 818, why should we now deny them this whether a penalty is cruel or
prerogative and assert for ourselves the authority to determine the penalty _______________
55 279 Phil. 448, 455; 202 SCRA 405, 408-409 (1991).
of estafa itself? 119
Neither is a perceived disproportionality in the penalties and its VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 119
comparison with the penalties of other crimes sufficient to establish the Corpuz vs. People
questioned penalty as cruel or degrading. unusual, we have considered not just the amount taken from the private
_______________
54 Supra note 49 at p. 755. injured party, but also considered the crime’s impact on national policy and
118 order.56 It cannot be gainsaid that the perpetuation of fraud adversely impacts
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED on the public’s confidence in our financial system and hinders as well the
Corpuz vs. People growth of commerce.
In Baylosis v. Hon. Chavez, Jr.,55 the Court En Banc upheld the As a final point, I note that the 1987 Constitution has changed the
constitutionality of Section 1 of PD No. 1866, which penalizes with reclusion language of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments under the
perpetua “any person who shall unlawfully manufacturer, deal in, acquire, 1935 and 1973 Constitutions to “cruel, degrading or inhuman.” This change of
dispose, or possess any firearm,” “in furtherance of, or incident to, or in wording is not without reason — it was designed to give Congress more
connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion.” The leeway in formulating the penalties it deems fit to the crimes that it may
petitioners in Baylosis questioned the constitutionality of the penalty, decide to penalize in the future.
pointing out, among other arguments, that the crime of possessing a firearm As explained by Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.,
in furtherance of rebellion is even more severe than the crime of rebellion who sponsored the draft Bill of Rights, the word unusual was replaced with
itself. the words “degrading or inhuman” because Congress, in the future, may
The Court in Baylosis interestingly ruled that the difference in the penalty create a penalty not yet known or imposed; and the fact of its novelty should
between PD No. 1866 and the RPC does not necessarily establish that the not be a ground to question its constitutionality.57
_______________
56 See Lim v. People, supra note 49 at p. 755; People v. Tongko, supranote 50 at p. 44; and Baylosis v. Hon.
The Facts and the Case
Chavez, Jr., supra note 55 at pp. 458, 465-466; p. 418.
57 During the Constitutional Commission’s deliberations on the Bill of Rights, Commissioner Maambong noted On May 2, 1991 Danilo Tangcoy entrusted P98,000 worth of jewelry items
the change in language of the draft Constitution from “cruel, degrading or inhuman” to “cruel and unusual,” thus:
MR. MAAMBONG: I will just ask one more question, Mr. Presiding Officer. On Section 22, the original phrase to petitioner Lito Corpuz for the latter to sell on commission. If sold, Corpuz
used in the 1935 Constitution was “cruel and unusual punishment.” was to turn over the proceeds to Tangcoy and, if not, he was to return the
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the configuration of the 1973 Constitution, the phrase became “cruel or unusual items after 60 days. But Corpuz neither remitted the stated proceeds nor
punishment.” returned what he got. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor of Olongapo
120 charged him with estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that city.1
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED On July 30, 2004 the RTC found Corpuz guilty as charged and sentenced
Corpuz vs. People him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 4 years and 2
I submit that we, as interpreters and enforcers of the Constitution, should months of prisión correccional in its medium period, as minimum, to 14 years
not go against the general spirit and intent of the Constitution to recognize and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum.2
the prerogative of Congress to create penalties. Immediately equating On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed3 Corpuz’s conviction but
disproportionality and severity to a cruel, degrading punishment unduly modified the penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional, as
limits this prerogative, as it would open the floodgates for the review of minimum, to 8 years of prisión mayor, as maximum, plus incremental penalty
penalties on the mere contention or belief that the imprisonment imposed is of one year for each additional P10,000 for a total maximum of 15
too long or that the fines assessed are too high. These, to me, are policy years.4 Corpuz filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s
questions that should be best addressed by the political branches of Decision but the CA denied the same, thus, the present petition for review.
government, not by the Supreme Court. While the Court’s Third Division was deliberating on the case, the question
In these lights, I fully concur with and join the ponencia of Justice Peralta. of the continued validity of imposing on persons convicted of crimes involving
property came up. The
DISSENTING OPINION _______________
1 Docketed as Criminal Case 665-91.
2 Rollo, p. 52.
ABAD, J.: 3 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of the Court) and concurred in by
The Court is apparently not prepared at this time to reexamine and change Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of the Court) and Rodrigo V. Cosico.
4 Rollo, p. 40.
the existing practice of imposing the pen-
_______________
122
FR. BERNAS: That is correct. 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MR. MAAMBONG: In the United States Constitution as it stands now, it is still “cruel and unusual
punishment.” But now in the present submission that we are going over, it is “cruel or inhuman.”
Corpuz vs. People
FR. BERNAS: “Cruel, degrading or inhuman.” legislature apparently pegged these penalties to the value of money and
MR. MAAMBONG: I just want to find out, Mr. Presiding Officer, why the Committee changed the word
“unusual” to “inhuman.” property in 1930 when it enacted the Revised Penal Code.5 Since the members
of the Division reached no unanimity on this question and since the issues are
FR. BERNAS: The reason for the change, Mr. Presiding Officer, is this: We avoided the use of the word
“unusual” because it tended to give the interpretation that one cannot innovate therefore as far as penology is
of first impression, they decided to refer the case to the Court En Banc for
concerned — that, if a penalty is something that was never used before, then it would be invalid. So, in order to allow
consideration and resolution.
for the development of penology we decided that we should not prohibit unusual punishments in the sense that they
are new or novel. Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, Jul. 17, 1986, R.C.C. No. 32.
121
In view of the far reaching effects of any ruling in the case and the great
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 121 number of accused who may be affected by it,6 the Court required the Office of
Corpuz vs. People the Solicitor General (OSG) and counsel for Corpuz to file their comments on
alty for estafa based on the amount of the fraud committed in terms of the the issues that the Court raised. Further, it invited a number of amici
1930 values of money and properties. curiae for their views.
 The following amici graciously submitted their papers: a) De La Salle the amount of the present fraud to its 1932 equivalent and impose the proper
University College of Law Dean and head of the Free Legal Assistance Group, penalty.
Jose Manuel L. Diokno; b) Ateneo de Manila School of Law Dean, Sedfrey M. _______________
of the Philippine Judges Association to submit their views but they opted not to.
Candelaria; c) University of the Philippines Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar; d) 8 Corpuz v. People of the Philippines (Minute Resolution), G.R. No. 180016, February 25, 2014, p. 382.
the Senate President; and e) the Speaker of the House of 124
Representatives. The Court heard the parties and
7 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Corpuz vs. People
5 AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS [REVISED PENAL CODE], ACt 3815 (1932).
6 As of 2014, 6509 people have been convicted of and are serving sentence for estafa, qualified theft, theft, Discussion
robbery, arson, and malicious mischief. Out of this population, 4480 are slated to spend half a decade or more in 1. Issues Raised Motu Proprio
prison. (Nora Corazon T. Padiernos, Chief of Planning and Management Division, Bureau of Corrections, Statistics
on Crimes Against Property, February 14, 2014) These people are just some of those who would have been affected The OSG points out that it is not right for the Court to decide the issue of
by this decision. There is an overwhelming number of detainees around the country with similar fates. Manila City the correctness of the penalty imposed on Corpuz since he did not raise such
Jail alone has 630 men in detention for robbery and 249 for theft. (Manila City Jail, February 2014) To say that they
are living in cramped quarters is a great understatement. See Maria Luisa Isabel L. Rosales, Cruel Detentions: issue.9
Subhuman Prison Conditions — A Form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 54 Ateneo L.J. 568 (2009). But the Court, like the CA, has always regarded it as a duty to the accused
7 The Court also invited the Dean and some professors of the University of the Philippines School of Economics
and the President in every criminal case that comes before it to review as a matter of course the
123 correctness of the penalty imposed and rectify any error even when no
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 123 question has been raised regarding the same.10 That the error may have a
Corpuz vs. People constitutional dimension cannot thwart the Court from performing such duty.
the amici on oral arguments on February 19, 2014, with Atty. Mario L. Besides, as Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, one of the amici, noted in his
Bautista, entering his appearance as counsel de officio for Corpuz, and comment, the Court has in previous cases, when fundamental issues are
arguing the case on the latter’s behalf.8 involved, taken cognizance of the same despite lack of jurisprudential
The Issues Presented requirements for judicial review.11 Indeed, the Court said in People v. Hon.
The issues may be summarized as follows: Judge Vera,12 that “courts in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine
1. Whether or not, procedurally, the Court may determine the the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be
constitutionality of the penalty that the CA imposed on Corpuz even when he presented x x x [t]hus, in criminal cases, although there is a very sharp
did not raise such question in his petition for review; conflict of authorities, it is said that the question may be raised for the first
2. Whether or not the penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 15 years that time at any stage of the proceedings, either in the trial court or on appeal.”13
the CA imposed on Corpuz for a P98,000 fraud based on the penalty that the _______________
9 Office of the Solicitor General, Oral Arguments, TSN.
legislature pegged on the value of money or property in 1930 violates his 10 See Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010, 626 SCRA 48, 49; People v. Laguerta, 398 Phil. 370, 375;
constitutional right to equal protection of the law; 344 SCRA 453, 458 (2000), citing People v. Balacano, 391 Phil. 509, 525-526; 336 SCRA 615, 629-630 (2000).
11 Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, p. 3 (September 30, 2013).
3. Whether or not that portion of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code 12 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
that imposes on Corpuz in addition to the basic penalty of 8 years and 1 day 13 Id., at p. 88.
125
of imprisonment an additional incremental penalty of 1 year for each
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 125
additional P10,000 of the amount of fraud in excess of P22,000 violates his
Corpuz vs. People
constitutional right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment; and
In Government Service Insurance System, Cebu City Branch v.
4. If the answers to the second or third issues are in the affirmative,
Montesclaros,14 while the respondent manifested loss of interest in pursuing
whether or not, applying the rules of statutory construction, the Court may,
the case, the Court through Justice Antonio T. Carpio, said, that “social
rather than declare the relevant statutory penalties unconstitutional,
justice and public interest demand that [x x x] the constitutionality of
determine the legislative intent with respect to them and, accordingly, adjust
the proviso [be resolved]” since “the issue involves not only the claim of
[respondent] but also that of other surviving spouses who are similarly For instance, in 1932 when the Revised Penal Code took effect, rice was
situated and whose claims GSIS would also deny based on the proviso.”15 To priced at an average of P4.50 per cavan.21 If one steals a sack of rice in 1932,
the same effect is the Court’s ruling in Central Bank Employees Association, he would be imprisoned for 4 months maximum corresponding to the value of
Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.16 Here in Corpuz, the ruling of the Court what he stole. At present, that sack of rice is priced at about P1,800.00
will affect thousands of persons who are presently charged or in the future per cavan.22 If one steals a sack of rice today, he would be imprisoned for 4
may be charged with crimes the penalties for which are pegged to the value of years and 2 months maximum. In other words, in a
the money or property involved. _______________
17 The term used in the REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 315.
Moreover, the Court has itself raised these issues because of their 18 Id., Arts. 299 and 302.
importance and has heard the parties both on written comments and on oral 19 Id., Arts. 309 and 310.
20 Id., Art. 328.
argument. The due process requirement for hearing and adjudicating the 21 1 cavan is equivalent to 25 gantas (See Barreto v. Reyes, 10 Phil. 489, 491 [1908]). A ganta of rice is
issues now before the Court has been met. approximately 2.5 kilos when computed at 3 quarts to a ganta. (See United Nations. Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, World Weights and Measures, Handbook for Statisticians,
Now to address the substantive issues: Statistical Papers, Series M No. 21 Revision 1 [ST/STAT/SER.M/21/rev.1] New York: United Nations [1966]);
2. Criminal Penalties and Inflation Wordnik, Ganta available at http://www.wordnik.com/words/ganta (last accessed April 23, 2012).
22 Updates on Palay, Rice, and Corn Prices, Vol. IV, No. 34 (August 2012), available
As a general principle, crimes found in the Revised Penal Code carry with at http://www.bas.gov.ph/?ids=amsad_prices.
them the same penalties whatever year the accused commits them. For 127
example, one who mutilates a Philippine coin in 1932, when the code took VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 127
effect, would go to jail for 2 years and 4 months maximum, exactly the same Corpuz vs. People
penalty that another who mutilates a coin in 2014 would get. The crime involving property the penalty depends on when it is committed.
correspondence between the gravity of the offense and the severity of the Since the price of rice in 1932 (P4.50 per cavan) is a mere 0.25% of today’s
penalty does not change with the passage of time. price (P1,800.00 per cavan), does this mean that the P100 today is the
_______________ equivalent of only P0.25 in 1932? It is uncertain since the government did not
14 478 Phil. 573; 434 SCRA 441 (2004).
15 Id., at p. 580; p. 445. yet conduct a statistical survey of the prices of key commodities in 1932 that
16 487 Phil. 531; 446 SCRA 299 (2004). would provide empirical support for such a conclusion.23 The first of such a
126
statistical survey was made only in 1949, enabling the government after
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
comparison with recent surveys to determine that the purchasing power of P1
Corpuz vs. People
in 1949 is the equivalent of about P100 today — P1 is to P100.24
But, unwittingly, the penalties for crimes involving property under the For want of reliable 1930 economic data, it will be assumed for the purpose
Revised Penal Code are in breach of that principle. Although these penalties of this discussion that the purchasing power of the peso then did not vary
are meant to be proportionate to the harm caused, they are not described in much from that of 1949 which, as already stated, has been officially
specific and constant terms like the number of days of incapacity for work of established. This assumption is based on the Court’s own observation in the
the offended party in physical injuries cases. case of People v. Pantoja25 that the purchasing power of the peso in 1949 was
Rather, the harm done in property crimes are made to depend on the “one-third of its pre-war purchasing power,” meaning P1 as against P3. This
“amount of the fraud” committed,17 on the “value of the property taken,”18 on currency movement is minimal and may, for convenience, be considered
the “value of the thing or property stolen,”19 or on “the value of the damage absorbed in the massive erosion of the purchasing power of the peso by about
caused.”20 As it happens, money and property values are in a state of constant 100 times from 1949 to the present. Consequently, this discussion will use
change, and sways with the wind of economic change, primarily with the rate this reference rate — the P1 is to P100 — in comparing the prices of the past
of inflation from year to year. The objects of commerce like bread and fish do (1930-1949) with the present.
not change but their prices or monetary values change in the course of time. _______________
 23 Carmen N. Ericta, OIC National Statistician, Philippine Statistics Authority, SUBJECT: Update on the VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 129
Value of the Present Day Peso as Compared to its Prevailing Value in 1932 (February 10, 2014).
24 Id., citing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (formerly known as Central Bank of the Philippines), Statistical Corpuz vs. People
Bulletin, Vol. IX, No. 4.
25 134 Phil. 453; 25 SCRA 468 (1968).
incremental imprisonment of 1 year for every P10,000.00 in excess of the
128 P22,000.00 for a total of 20 years.
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED This uneven treatment is true in Corpuz’s case. The P98,000.00 jewelry
Corpuz vs. People items subject of his offense would have a value of only P980 in 1932.
3. Escalation of Penalties and Consequently, had he committed his crime that year, he would have been
the Equal Protection Clause imprisoned for only 2 years and 4 months maximum. But since he committed
The Revised Penal Code of 1930 pegs the penalties for estafa to the amount it 43 years later in 1991 when the jewelry items are now valued at P98,000.00
of fraud committed as follows: due to inflation, he would be imprisoned for 15 years maximum — the same
Amount of the
Penalty
crime, the same law, yet a shockingly higher penalty. This result would
Fraud undoubtedly deny Corpuz his constitutional right to equal protection of the
1) P22,001 and 8 yrs. & 1 day plus 1 year for every additional P10,000.00 (but
above
=
not more than 20 years)
law.
2) P12,001 to 4. Incremental Penalty and
=4 yrs., 2 mos. & 1 day to 8 yrs.
P22,000 the Cruel, Unusual, and De-
3) P6,001 to grading Punishment Clause
=6 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos.
P12,000
4) P201 to Justice Antonio T. Carpio expressed the view, joined by Dean
=4 mos. & 1 day to 2 yrs. & 4 mos. Diokno,26 that insofar as Article 315 imposes on Corpuz in addition to the
P6,000
5) P0.01 to P200 =4 mos. & 1 day to 6 mos. basic penalty of 8 years and 1 day an additional incremental penalty of 1 year
Unmindful of the immense erosion of the purchasing power of the peso, for each additional P10,000.00 of the amount of fraud in excess of P22,000.00,
courts have persisted in literally applying the above table of penalties in such law violates his constitutional right against cruel, unusual, and
fraud cases. As a result, they in effect mete out heavier penalties from year to degrading punishment. Putting a price of P10,000.00, about the cost of five
year for the commission of exactly the same offense. sacks of rice, for each additional year of imprisonment makes the penalty
For instance, if the accused defrauds another of 79 cavans of rice in 1930- grossly disproportionate to the wrong committed. This view would thus have
1949, then valued at only P1,422.00 (P18.00 per cavan), she would be the incremental penalty voided. Professor Tadiar and Dean Diokno appear to
imprisoned for 2 years and 4 months maximum. This would cause her pain be sympathetic to it.27
but tolerable pain. Yet, if another commits exactly the same fraud today when _______________
26 Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, Comment (September 21, 2013).
that 79 cavans of rice is now valued at P142,200.00 (P1,800.00 per cavan), she 27 “Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code x x x violates the bedrock principle of a democratic and republican
would be committed to prison for 20 years maximum. She would leave prison government x x x [and] may outrightly be struck down as unconstitutional in the present petition by the power of
judicial review. x x x Article 39 x x x must be struck down as unconstitutional for its imposition of a cruel
an old woman, irreversibly deprived of the company of her family for the punishment that has long been outdated by currency devaluation. Thus, the
greater part of her life. This is a gross denial of her right to equal protection 130
since the first offender got off after 2 years and 4 months whereas she got off 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
after 20 years. Corpuz vs. People
Her 20-year prison term is of course enormous because the penalty for The incremental penalty is of course grossly disproportionate to the wrong
fraud amounting to P22,000.00 is already 8 years and 1 day maximum but, committed. But that penalty would not have been regarded as such if the
since the amount of her fraud (P142,200.00) exceeds that figure, she would offense had been committed in 1932 when P10,000.00 was a hefty sum.
suffer additional Indeed, if it were to be adjusted for inflation, that P10,000.00 would be the
129 equivalent of P1,000,000.00 today. An incremental penalty for each
P1,000,000.00 would not have been that bad. Anyway, the point is that it is 30 Taupe Lipstick available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/taupe-
lipstick/271167294212?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item3f22d48b04 (last accessed March 6, 2014).
the curse of inflation, not the idea of an incremental penalty, which is the 31 Authentic Brand New Old Navy Slippers available athttp://www.ebay.ph/itm/Authentic-Brand-New-OLD-
culprit. NAVY-Womens-Lippers-Size-7-Color-White
/261178377863?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item3ccf71c687 (last accessed March 6, 2014).
If Justice Carpio’s view is adopted, the Court would annul the incremental 32 Authentic Philip Stein Large Black Calfskin Strap Brandnew available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/AUTH-
penalty but maintain the validity of the basic penalties for fraud. But those Philip-Stein-Large-Black-Calfskin-Strap-Brand-New-/261176803770?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_
211&hash=item3ccf59c1ba (last accessed March 6, 2014).
penalties are just as disproportionate to the wrong committed. 33 Authentic Louis Vuitton Lumineuse available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/BNEW-Authentic-Louis-Vuitton-LV-
For instance, half a gallon of coconut cooking oil would cost about P2.03 in Lumineuse-PM-Aube-140923515015?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item20cfb23087 (last accessed March 6,
2014).
1930-1949. If Alex gives Ben P2.03 in 1949 to buy for him such half-gallon but 132
Ben instead pockets the P2.03, he would be imprisoned 6 months maximum 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
for estafa. On the other hand, if Carlos gives Dante P203 today to buy for him Corpuz vs. People
also a half-gallon of coconut cooking oil but Dante instead pockets the P203, Unless checked, courts will impose 12 years maximum on the housemaid
he would be imprisoned for 2 years and 4 months maximum. To be who steals a P39 lipstick from her employer. They will also impose on her 30
imprisoned and separated from family for 2 years and 4 months for the taking years maximum for stealing a pricy lady’s handbag. This of course is grossly
of the price of a half-gallon cooking oil, what it will cost a hungry couple and obscene and unjust, even if the handbag is worth P125,000.00 since 30 years
their child their meal, is just as cruel, unusual, and degrading. It is an in prison is already the penalty for treason, for raping and killing an 8-year-
outrage to a democratic society even if no incremental penalty is involved.28 old girl, for kidnapping a grade school student, for robbing a house and killing
_______________
condition for the exercise of the power of judicial review is that the questionable statute must be closely the entire family, and for a P50-million plunder.
intertwined with the principal issue of the case, that is the disproportionateness of the penalty imposed based on a It is not only the incremental penalty that violates the accused’s right
devalued currency. x x x Thus, it is imperative for this Supreme Court to declare through its power of judicial review
that these statutory provisions are unconstitutional.” (Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar,Constitutional Challenge in the against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow
Sentencing Process, pp. 14-16, August 16, 2013). across the board touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and
28 Prof. Tadiar agreed to this statement.
131 inhumanity will go on as it has gone on for decades unless the Court acts to
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 131 rein it in.
Corpuz vs. People 5. Judicial Construction of Statutes
The harshness of this antiquated 1930 scheme for punishing criminal But annulling Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code or portions of it slaps
offenders is doubly magnified in qualified theft where the offender is a the hand of the legislature that enacted it in 1930 when the economy of the
domestic helper or a trusted employee. Qualified theft is a grievous offense time warranted the amounts stated in those penalties. Allowing courts to
since its penalty is automatically raised two degrees higher than that usually adhere to that law but construe it instead in a way that would attain its
imposed on simple theft. Thus, unadjusted for inflation, the domestic helper purpose, an alternative based on long precedents, presents a more moderate
who steals from his employer would be meted out a maximum of: remedy.
a) 6 years in prison for a toothbrush worth P5;29 It may be assumed that those who enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930
b) 12 years in prison for a lipstick worth P39;30 did not foresee the onslaught of inflation in the second half of the century.
c) 14 years and 8 months in prison for a pair of female slippers worth P150;31 They had an agricultural economy and, presumably, the purchasing power of
d) 20 years in prison for a wristwatch worth P19,000;32 or the peso at that time had not changed perceptibly in the years that they had
e) 30 years in prison for a branded lady’s handbag worth P125,000.33 known. It would be imprudent to believe that, if those legislators had an
_______________ inkling of the shape and value of money and things would take down the
29 Angola Toothbrush
/221195152522?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&
available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/ANGOLA-Toothbrush- years to 2014, they would have still pegged those penalties to their 1930
hash=item3380422c8a (last accessed March 6, 2014). economy. But they did. Clearly, they were uninformed and, therefore, their
intent must have been to match the penalties written in the
133 Did Reynaldo, the houseboy, deserve the same severe penalty imposed on
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 133 Ricardo and Apolonio for their brutal crime? Reynaldo did not rape his
Corpuz vs. People employer’s wife, torture his children, or murder any of them. If the
law to the values of money and property as they understood it at that time. prosecution were to be believed, his employer merely lost some of his
As it turned out, the passage of time altered what the 1930 legislature collection of watches and jewelry. In the present case, the wealthy jeweler did
intended respecting those penalties. Time made those penalties toxic and this not lose his life to Corpuz. All that he supposedly lost to him were a few
is exemplified in the case of Corpuz. On the one hand, if the Court were to jewelry worth P98,000.00 today, the equivalent of but P980.00 in 1930-1949.
adjust the penalty imposed on him to compensate for inflation, using the Still, the Court would, literally applying the law, sentence Corpuz to a
government’s P1 to P100 equation, Corpuz should be deemed to have maximum of 15 years in prison like he already killed the jeweler in an angry
defrauded Tangcoy of only P980 rather than P98,000. He would then be confrontation.
meted out a penalty of only 2 years and 4 months maximum. This is about the Again, the key to solving the problem that this case presents lies in
same penalty imposed for the crimes of offending religious ascertaining the will of the legislature that enacted the Revised Penal Code in
feelings,34 tumultuous disturbance,35and slander,36 which are correctional 1930 and give its language the construction that will honor that will. Some,
penalties. like the Office of the Solicitor General, the Senate President, and the Speaker
On the other hand, if the amount of fraud is made to depend on the false of the House of Representatives hold the view that adjusting the penalties to
assumption that the value of P1 in 1930-1949 is the same as the value of P1 compensate for inflation will amount to judicial legislation.41
today, Corpuz would be liable for fraud amounting to P98,000 and draw a But the Court need not rewrite the penalties that the law provides. Rather,
penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 15 years maximum, an afflictive penalty. the clear intent of the law can be given by, to borrow a phrase from Atty.
These 15 years would be within the range of the penalty for homicide37 or for Mario L. Bautista, counsel for Corpuz, “harmonizing” the law or “aligning the
intentional abortion thru violence against a pregnant woman,38 which means numerical
meting out to Corpuz a penalty equivalent to the taking of human life. _______________
40 People v. Solangon, 563 Phil. 316; 537 SCRA 746 (2007).
About seven years ago, a lawyer accused his houseboy, Reynaldo Bayon, of 41 Office of the Solicitor General, Supplemental Comment (August 22, 2013); Senate President, Memorandum
stealing from him watches and jewelry worth P540,000.00.39 For this, the trial (September 26, 2013); and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Memorandum (October 21, 2013).

court imposed on Bayon the penalty of imprisonment for 30 years maximum.

135
Ironically, the trial court meted out to Bayon the same penalty that another
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 135
trial court imposed on Ricardo Solangon and Apolonio Haniel who kidnapped
Corpuz vs. People
Libertador Vidal and de-
_______________ figures”42 to the economic realities of the present. To put it another way,
34 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 133.
35 Id., Art. 153.
ascertaining the facts of the case in order to faithfully apply to it the law as
36 Id., Art. 174. the legislature intended it is a judicial function. Dean Candelaria of Ateneo
37 Id., Art. 249.
38 Id., Art. 256.
shares this position.43
39 People v. Bayon, G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 702. This would not have been the first time that the Court would have given a
134 construction to the fixed monetary values set by law to take into account the
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED problems caused by inflation. When the Code Commission drafted the Civil
Corpuz vs. People Code in 1949, it fixed the new minimum civil indemnity for death to
manded ransom from his tormented family.40 After lengthy negotiations, P3,000.00.44 Article 2206 of the Code reads:
they settled for P50,000.00, got the money, and killed their victim. Since the _______________
42 Mario L. Bautista, Compliance 2 (March 12, 2014).
police recovered only his bones, no one knew just how much Libertador 43 “Applied to the present case, while Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code appears on its face as
suffered before being killed. constitutionally valid, the manner by which it is applied by the Court of Appeals to petitioner’s case will result into
an unreasonable consequence for the petitioner. Instead of being qualified for probation based on an interpretation
that takes into account adjustment for inflation, petitioner would be made to suffer the penalty of from four (4) years
the value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing
and two (2) months as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum. This interpretation is plainly discriminatory, a minimum indemnity” was passed.53Pantoja explained that, at its writing,
unreasonable and oppressive. x x x The mechanism suggested by the undersigned through judicial interpretation is
not antithetical to the established rule that this Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review cannot encroach
“due to economic circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing
upon the power of the Legislature.” (Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, pp. 4, 11-12 [September 30, 2013]). power of the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of
“It is well settled that a court may consider the spirit and reason of a statute, and even resort to extrinsic aids,
when its literal application would lead to absurdity, contradiction, impossibility, injustice, or would defeat the clear
exchange now in the free market is US$1.00 to P4.00 Philippine pesos.”54
purpose of the law makers. x x x This Court, therefore, can go outside the four corners of the law to give it meaning.” None of the justices of the Court, which included renowned Chief Justice
(Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, Free Legal Assistance Group, De La Salle University College of Law, Comment, p. 3
[September 21, 2013]).
Roberto Concepcion, Jose B.L. Reyes, Arsenio P. Dizon, Querube C.
44 AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Republic Act 386, Art. 2206 (1950). Makalintal, Fred Ruiz Castro, and Enrique M. Fernando, regarded as
136 amounting to judicial legislation the decision interpreting the P3,000
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED minimum for death compensation established by law in 1949 as P12,000 in
Corpuz vs. People the economy of the late 60s. There is no record of Congress disagreeing with
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least
three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.45
them. It makes no sense for the Court to refuse to use the same reasoning and
The Civil Code sets the minimum compensation for death at only not employ it to the judicial construction of the penalty provisions in crimes
P3,000.00. Ordinarily, this legislative judgment has to be obeyed no matter if involving property.
it already becomes harsh or unfair to the victim’s heirs as inflation sets in. It is of course said that Article 2206 of the Civil Code merely sets the
For the law is the law. Yet, following past precedents, the Court would, minimum civil liability for death at P3,000, implying that courts are free to
construing the law in the light of the inflationary movement of money values, grant benefits to the victim’s heirs upwards of that minimum. This is true but
set a new minimum of P6,000 in 1964,46 P12,000 in 1968,47 P30,000 in the Court’s decisions were not in the nature of mere suggestions regarding
1983,48 P50,000 in 1990,49 and most recently, P75,000 in 2009.50 It regarded as how the courts below are to exercise their discretions when awarding such
inequitable on account of inflation the award of a measly P3,000 to the benefit. The Court has actually been raising the minimum civil liability for
victim’s heirs. death. Proof of this is that when the trial court or the CA orders the payment
Justice Jose C. Vitug observed that the Court increases the minimum civil of only P50,000 to the victim’s heirs, an amount already well above the
indemnity “to such amounts as the peso value might actually command at minimum of P3,000 set by law, the Court would readily find the order
given times and circumstances.”51 This is not judicial legislation but taking erroneous and raise the award to P75,000.
judicial notice of the relentless rise in money and property values over the Some would say that Article 2206 of the Civil Code merely governs civil
years and construing the law in the light of such circumstances. indemnity whereas Article 315 of the Revised
_______________
The Court emphasized in People v. Pantoja52 that these judicial 53 Id., at pp. 457-458; p. 473.
adjustments are dictated by: “the difference between 54 Id., at p. 458; id.
_______________ 138
45 Id., Art. 2206. 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
46 M. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 120 Phil. 102, 106; 11 SCRA 98, 102 (1964).
47 People v. Pantoja, supra note 25 at p. 458; p. 473. Corpuz vs. People
48 People v. Dela Fuente, 211 Phil. 650, 656; 126 SCRA 518, 524 (1983). Penal Code on penalties for estafa governs criminal liability, implying that
49 Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, Minutes (August 30, 1990).
50 People v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 213; People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434, the latter is quite different. But the Civil Code stands on the same footing as
454; 500 SCRA 727, 742 (2006). the Revised Penal Code in terms of force and effect. One is not superior to the
51 Vitug, Jose C., Civil Law, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. 2006.
52 Supra note 25. other. The point is that prudent judicial construction works equally on both
137 codes.
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 137 In any event, the rule is that in case of doubt the provisions of the Revised
Corpuz vs. People Penal Code are to be construed in favor of the accused. What has happened,
however, is that the Court has beginning in 1964 construed the minimum It is said that this decision would cause numerous difficulties one of which
amount set in Article 2206 as subject to adjustment to cope with inflation is that the Court does not have the means for ascertaining the purchasing
although this worked against the accused in murder and homicide cases. The power of the peso at any given time.
Court has not come around to give the same construction to the inflation- But it has the means. The Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA), formerly
affected penalty provisions of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which the National Statistics Office is the “highest policy making body on statistical
would be favorable to him. matters.”58 It regularly gathers from the marketplace the average prices of a
Incidentally, it is not the severity of the penalty written in the law that the basket of
Court has to adjust in order to compensate for inflation but the amount of the _______________
55 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 5.
fraud or the damage that was proved at the trial. For instance, if an offender 56 Id.
defrauds another of P20,000 worth of jewelry items today and he is found 57 People v. Montano and Cabagsang, 57 Phil. 598 (1932); People v. Canja, 86 Phil. 518 (1950), (see Dissenting
Opinion of J. Montemayor, pp. 522-523).
guilty, the trial court could make a finding that he had committed fraud in 58 Arsenio M. Balisacan, Socio-Economic Planning Secretary and Director-General, National Economic and
that amount. During sentencing, however, it would just determine, applying Development Authority (April 23, 2014).
140
the P1 to P100 equation stated above, that such P20,000 is the equivalent of
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
P200 in the economy of the 1930 table of penalties. The court would then
Corpuz vs. People
apply the penalty provided by law for such reduced amount: 4 months and 1
consumer items like rice, sugar, fish, meat, school supplies, and other
day to 6 months. It would have been that simple.
products.59 The PSA then determines based on these the purchasing power of
It is pointed out that the Court’s remedy in Corpuz’s and similar cases lies
the peso in a given year in relation to other years. “[O]nce the data generated
in Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which
by the PSA staff is approved and released by the National Statistician, it is
provides:
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, deemed official and controlling statistics of the government.”60 It is the PSA
such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending that provided the official finding that the P1 in 1949 is the equivalent of
139
about P100 in 2013.61 This information is used by government planners,
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 139
international rating agencies, economists, researchers, businessmen,
Corpuz vs. People
the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in
academicians, and students. The rules allow the Court to take judicial notice
the imposition of clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and injury of this fact.62
caused by the offense.55 The OSG claims that there are many ways of determining the present
But the above applies to a specific case before the court that tried it where, value of money, not just through its purchasing power as the PSA determines.
“taking into consideration the degree of malice and injury caused by the This may be true but it is presumed that the legislature intended the term
offense,”56 the penalty to be imposed on the accused appears to be excessive. “value” in reference to money based on how money is commonly understood,
This is best exemplified in a case where the trial court regarded as excessive not on how it might be understood by theoreticians or moralists. Everyone
the lawful penalty it imposed on a father and his son who stole 10 tender knows that the value of money of any amount depends on what it can buy —
coconut fruits from a plantation solely for the family’s consumption.57 its purchasing power. People do not earn and keep money for its own sake.
Here, however, the penalty has become excessive, not because of the _______________
59 National Statistics Office, Consumer Price Index Primer available
unusual circumstances of Corpuz’s case but because the penalty has become at http://www.census.gov.ph/old/data/technotes/Primer%20on%20Consumer%20Price%20Index.pdf(last accessed
grossly iniquitous through time, affecting not just Corpuz but all those March 21, 2014); Philippine Statistics Authority, Consumer Price Index for Bottom 30% Income Households,
Reference No. 2014-005 (January 30, 2014).
charged with crimes the penalties for which depend on the value of money or 60 Balisacan, supra note 58.
property involved. 61 Ericta, supra note 23.
62 Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that a court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the official acts of government. It may also take judicial notice as provided in Section 2 of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions. Indeed, the Court has in the past consistently taken note of and acted on
the inflationary movement of the purchasing power of the peso.
ties that courts have these past years been meting out for crimes involving
141 property. It is pointed out that the ruling fails to take into account its effect
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 141 on the victims.
Corpuz vs. People But the dissent is not advocating the lowering of the penalties for those
Another concern is that if the Court adjusts the penalty to cope with crimes; it merely seeks the restoration of the correct penalties. The
inflation, such adjustments may have unintended effects on other crimes adjustments sought would merely compensate for inflation in order to
where the penalties depend on the value of the damage caused or the property accomplice what the legislature intends regarding those crimes. The victims
unlawfully taken. Any adjustment of penalty in Corpuzwould of course of crimes today are not entitled to retributions that are harsher than what the
directly affect most of these crimes. That is inevitable if justice is to be served law provides. They have no right to exact more blood than the victims of
in those other cases as well since the same reasoning applies to them. yesterday.
For instance, if a poor woman steals four small cans of corned beef from For all the above reasons, I vote to AFFIRM Lito Corpuz’s conviction
the supermarket worth P280, which would be only P2.80 in 1932, she will be with MODIFICATION of the indeterminate penalty to 2 months of arresto
jailed for 4 years and 2 months maximum. If a poor employee pockets P250 in mayor, as minimum, to 1 year and 8 months of prisión correccional, as
government money entrusted to him, which would be only P2.50 in 1932, he maximum, entitling him to probation under the ruling laid down in Colinares
will be jailed for 10 years maximum. If one armed with a knife but commits v. People.63
no violence or intimidation robs a public building by forcibly opening a
window and stealing two brooms worth P300, which would be only P3.00 in CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
1932, he will be jailed for a maximum of 20 years. The absurdity in the literal
“Since we cannot change reality,
application of the 1932 penalties equally applies to these crimes.
let us change the eyes which see reality.”
The uniform adjustment in the base amounts using the PSA formula of P1
Nikos Kazantzakis1
to P100 will maintain uniform levels of legislative indignation or outrage over
LEONEN, J.:
the wrongs committed in these crimes. The harshness of the incremental
I concur with the ponencia of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in affirming the
penalty of one year imprisonment for every P10,000.00 would be obviated conviction of Lito Corpuz. However, I dissent on the penalty imposed by the
since the adjustment would make that one year imprisonment for every majority. I do not agree that it is judicial legislation for us to reconsider the
P1,000,000.00 illegally taken, which would be quite reasonable already. For
range of penalties created by Congress in 1932. The range of penalties for
this reason, no distortion can ever result in the application of the decision in _______________
similar cases. 63 G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 266.
1 Greek writer, poet, playwright, and philosopher, known for his novels such as Zorba the Greek (1946) and The
To repeat, from this dissent’s point of view, it is the amount of money or Last Temptation of Christ (1953).
value of the thing defrauded, taken, malversed, or damaged that undergoes 143
adjustment or correction resulting from a realistic appreciation of the facts of VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 143
the case. The law is not amended or changed. Corpuz vs. People
Finally, there is concern that if this dissent were to be adopted, the same the crime of estafa should be recomputed based on present value.
would result in the lowering of the penal- Our duty is to interpret the law. It is a duty reposed on us by the
142 Constitution. We provide meaning to law’s language and make laws written
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED in a different historical context relevant to present reality.2
Corpuz vs. People The meanings of the text of the law limited by the facts presented in the
cases that come to us are not arbitrarily determined. We arrive at such
meanings as a collegial court aware that we should keep faith in the spirit
that the laws have been promulgated. Our ideal should be that we can reflect Administration to adopt its own guidelines on the release of prisoners. This
the political consensus contained in the words approved by Congress and the difficulty is not insurmountable.
President but always framed by the fundamental principles and values of our I disagree that it will be difficult to find the correct present value for the
Constitution. Political consensus is not independent of reality. It is there to amounts involved. In Heirs of the Spouses Tria v. Land Bank of the
address that reality. Philippines3 and Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways
My sense of the law’s spirit is that it is always motivated by what is v. Spouses Tecson,4 we identified the correct formula in our concurring and
relevant and what is just under the circumstances. dissenting opinions. The formula for present value is known and has been
Viewed in this way, I must dissent in the penalty imposed upon the relied upon in the business community. Inflation rates may be discovered
accused. The pecuniary values that provided the basis for the range of using the latest statistics extrapolating for the years when there had been no
penalties for the crime of estafa (swindling) were the values in 1932. It is available values. I agree with the approach of Justice Roberto A. Abad in his
clear that the gravity of a crime where someone was defrauded of fifty pesos dissent-
(P50.00) of property in 1932 is not the same as the gravity of the same offense _______________
3 G.R. No. 170245, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 188, Separate Opinion, J.Leonen.
for property worth fifty pesos (P50.00) in 2014. The purchasing power of the 4 G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 243, Separate Opinion, J.Leonen.
peso has significantly changed after eight decades, and it is time that we 145
interpret the law the way it should be: to reflect the relative range of values it VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 145
had when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, just Corpuz vs. People
construing what it actually means. ing opinion in approximating the value already so that we do not need to get
_______________ unnecessarily entangled in the niceties of the science and art of determining
2 Ours is the duty to “interpret the law and apply it to breathe life to its language and give expression to its
spirit in the context of real facts.” (Emphasis supplied). Tecson v. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421, 643; 424 SCRA 277, 441 inflation rates.
(2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc], Dissenting Oinion, J. Carpio-Morales. Even the inflation rate should not present an extraordinarily
144
insurmountable problem even if it should be computed from 1932. Inflation is
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
only the change in price of the same index from one year to the next. Price
Corpuz vs. People
index is the “measure of the average level of prices,”5 while inflation is the
Of course, every interpretation we make on any provision of law occasioned “rise in the general level of prices.”6 As long as there is a price index, inflation
by actual cases will have their own share of difficulties when implemented. rate can be derived from comparing one year’s price index with another year’s
This is true when we declare law relied upon by many as unconstitutional, or price index.
interpret the provisions of a tax code, or even when we clarify the The most commonly used price index is the Consumer Price Index. The
requirements prescribed by the General Accounting and Auditing Manual Philippines began recording the Consumer Price Index in 1948, together with
(GAAM). We have always, however, proceeded with the right interpretation the creation of the Central Bank of the Philippines.7
and dealt with the difficulties accordingly. However, even before the creation of the Central Bank, the Philippines had
Definitely, an interpretation of a legal provision more beneficial to an been recording other price indices that could be used to approximate inflation
accused or a person who is convicted will have a retroactive effect. This and give a more precise picture of the price level in 1930, the year the Revised
should be because such interpretation is corrective in nature. This should not Penal Code was approved. A sectoral price index can be used to substitute the
present extremely debilitating difficulties, and we do not have to have special consumer price index. A dominant sector in the Philippines, agriculture, has a
rules. The convicted prisoner could simply file habeas corpus as a post- price index which pre-dates
conviction remedy whenever he or she would have served more than what _______________
would be required based on our new interpretations. It is also possible for the 5 P. A. SAMUELSON AND W. D. NORDHAUS, ECONOMICS, p. 439 (Eighteenth Edition).
6 Id.
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Corrections and Parole and Probation 7 The Central Bank was created by law under Republic Act No. 265 in 1949. Sections 22 to 24 refer to the
Department of Economic Research in the Central Bank, mandated, among other responsibilities, to collect “statistics
on the monthly movement of the money supply and of prices and other statistical series and economic studies useful
for the formulation and analysis of monetary, banking and exchange policies.” Because of this, the Central Bank
proscription against cruel and unusual punishments. The approach creatively
started recording national income estimates in the 1948-1950 period. See K. Nozawa, History of the Philippine addresses the unjustness of the present situation but does not have the same
Statistical
hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/Newsletter/No.13.english/Nozawa.html> (visited April 29, 2014).
System <http://www.ier. elegance of principle that is proposed in the dissent of Justice Abad. Both lead
146 to pragmatic results, and I think that between these two possibilities, we
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED should lean on that which is more consistent with the principle of reflecting
Corpuz vs. People the spirit of the law when it was promulgated.
World War I and covers the years 1902 until 1946.8 Hence, even before the A decision that recomputes penalties to account for present value should
war, for as long as the index compared with one from another is the same not be seen as a judgment of the achievements of Congress. That this was not
index, an inflation rate can be derived. its priority is a matter that should not concern us. Congress is an entirely
Law has never been a discipline too autonomous from the other disciplines. separate and autonomous branch of government, and it would be violative of
The points of view of those that inhabit the world of economics and finance the constitutional fiat of separation of powers for us to imply that updating
are not strange to lawyers. The eyes through which the law views reality penal statutes should have been its priority.
should not be too parochial and too narrow. Our understanding should Regardless, it is this actual case that confronts us. In my view, adjusting
instead be open enough to allow us to see more by borrowing from other penalties to account for the purchasing power of the peso is entirely within
disciplines. Doing so enhances rather than weakens judicial rigor. our power. It is not judicial legislation, it is merely interpreting the word
I am not convinced that a ruling that will affect penalties in other crimes “peso” in these range of penalties. It is quintessentially a judicial activity to
where the gravity is measured in pesos will present difficulties too interpret. We should not default on this duty. We cannot wait another century
debilitating so as to amount to being unimplementable. I do not see why before a just outcome is to be realized.
courts of law cannot simply adopt the universally acceptable formula for ACCORDINGLY, I vote to affirm the conviction of the accused. However, I
present value. vote that the penalty imposed be two months of arresto mayor as minimum, to
An interpretative methodology for penalties is proposed because of the one year and eight months of prisión correccional, as maximum, in accordance
extraordinary lapse of time from the date of promulgation of the law (1932) to with the computation proposed by Justice Roberto Abad in his dissenting
the present. Definitely, we will not be recomputing the penalties for all opinion.
statutes. I am of the view that the approach for computing the penalties in Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with modification.
this case will only be applicable to statutes that have been promulgated and 148
have not been amended for no less than the past eight decades. The world 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
was very different then. A world war intervened. Four different Constitutions Corpuz vs. People
with their corresponding amendments were promulgated and took effect. Notes.—Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, the elements of
_______________ estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (1) that the money, goods or
8 Agricultural statistics are collected to monitor production volume and prices of agricultural products, among
others. A statistics division was created for the Bureau of Agriculture as early as 1902. See K. Nozawa, History of the other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission,
Philippine Statistical System <http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/Newsletter/No.13.english/ or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
Nozawa.html> (visited April 29, 2014).
147
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or
VOL. 724, APRIL 29, 2014 147 conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
Corpuz vs. People such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
There are now more types of property than could have been imagined at that prejudice of another; and (4) that there is demand by the offended party to the
time. offender. (Jandusay vs. People, 698 SCRA 619 [2013])
I hesitate to agree with Justice Carpio’s approach to declare the Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct
incremental penalties as unconstitutional only because it violates the evidence or by circumstantial evidence. (Id.)
 ——o0o——