Corpuz vs People GR No 180016

7/24/2019 Corpuz vs People GR No 180016

1/35

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Baguio City

EN BANC

G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014

LITO CORPUZ,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES,Respondent.

D E C I I ! N

PERALTA, J.:

"his is to resolve the Petition for Revie# on Certiorari, under Rule $% of the Rules ofCourt, dated Nove&ber %, '((), of petitioner *ito Corpu+ petitioner-, seeing to reverseand set aside the Decision/dated 0arch '', '(() and Resolution'dated epte&ber %,'(() of the Court of Appeals CA-, #hich affir&ed #ith &odification the Decision 1dated2uly 1(, '(($ of the Regional "rial Court R"C-, Branch $3, an 4ernando City, findingthe petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&e of Estafa under Article 1/%,paragraph /-, sub5paragraph b- of the Revised Penal Code.

"he antecedent facts follo#.

Private co&plainant Danilo "angcoy and petitioner &et at the Ad&iral Royale Casino in!longapo City so&eti&e in /66(. Private co&plainant #as then engaged in thebusiness of lending &oney to casino players and, upon hearing that the for&er hadso&e pieces of 7e#elry for sale, petitioner approached hi& on 0ay ', /66/ at the sa&ecasino and offered to sell the said pieces of 7e#elry on co&&ission basis. Privateco&plainant agreed, and as a conse8uence, he turned over to petitioner the follo#ingite&s9 an /: dia&ond ring for &en; a #o&an


2/35

having received fro& one Danilo "angcoy, one /- &entending loans to Base e&ployees. 4or everycollection &ade, they earn a co&&ission. Petitioner denied having transacted anybusiness #ith private co&plainant.

@o#ever, he ad&itted obtaining a loan fro& Bala7adia so&eti&e in /6:6 for #hich he#as &ade to sign a blan receipt. @e clai&ed that the sa&e receipt #as then dated 0ay', /66/ and used as evidence against hi& for the supposed agree&ent to sell thesub7ect pieces of 7e#elry, #hich he did not even see.

After trial, the R"C found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&echarged in the Infor&ation. "he dispositive portion of the decision states9

?@ERE4!RE, finding accused *I"! C!RP I*" beyond reasonable doubt ofthe felony of Estafa under Article 1/%, paragraph one /-, subparagraph b- of the

Revised Penal Code;

there being no offsetting generic aggravating nor ordinary &itigating circu&stance=s tovary the penalty i&posable;

accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of deprivation ofliberty consisting of an i&prison&ent under the Indeter&inate entence *a# of 4!R$- EAR AND "?! '- 0!N"@ of Prision Correccional in its &ediu& period A


3/35

0INI00, to 4!R"EEN /$- EAR AND EI@" :- 0!N"@ of Reclusion"e&poral in its &ini&u& period A 0AI00; to inde&nify private co&plainant Danilo"angcoy the a&ount of P6:,(((.(( as actual da&ages, and to pay the costs of suit.

! !RDERED.

"he case #as elevated to the CA, ho#ever, the latter denied the appeal of petitionerand affir&ed the decision of the R"C, thus9

?@ERE4!RE, the instant appeal is DENIED. "he assailed 2udg&ent dated 2uly 1(,'(($ of the R"C of an 4ernando City P-, Branch $3, is hereby A44IR0ED #ith0!DI4ICA"I!N on the i&posable prison ter&, such that accused5appellant shall sufferthe indeter&inate penalty of $ years and ' &onths of prision correccional, as &ini&u&,to : years of prision &ayor, as &a>i&u&, plus / year for each additional P/(,(((.((, ora total of ) years. "he rest of the decision stands.

! !RDERED.

Petitioner, after the CA denied his &otion for reconsideration, filed #ith this Court thepresent petition stating the follo#ing grounds9

A. "@E @!N!RAB*E C!R" !4 APPEA* ERRED IN C!N4IR0IN "@EAD0II!N AND APPRECIA"I!N B "@E *!?ER C!R" !4 PR!EC"I!NEFIDENCE, INC*DIN I" E@IBI", ?@IC@ ARE 0ERE 0AC@INE C!PIE, A"@I FI!*A"E "@E BE" EFIDENCE R*E;

B. "@E @!N!RAB*E C!R" !4 APPEA* ERRED IN A44IR0IN "@E *!?ER

C!R"


4/35

D. "@E @!N!RAB*E C!R" !4 APPEA* ERRED IN A44IR0IN "@E *!?ERC!R"hibit KAK and its sub&arings,although the sa&e #as &erely a photocopy, thus, violating the best evidence rule.@o#ever, the records sho# that petitioner never ob7ected to the ad&issibility of the saidevidence at the ti&e it #as identified, &ared and testified upon in court by privateco&plainant. "he CA also correctly pointed out that petitioner also failed to raise anob7ection in his Co&&ent to the prosecution


5/35

failed to interpose a ti&ely ob7ection to evidence at the ti&e they #ere offered inevidence, such ob7ection shall be considered as #aived. %

Another procedural issue raised is, as clai&ed by petitioner, the for&ally defectiveInfor&ation filed against hi&. @e contends that the Infor&ation does not contain the

period #hen the pieces of 7e#elry #ere supposed to be returned and that the date #henthe cri&e occurred #as different fro& the one testified to by private co&plainant. "hisargu&ent is untenable. "he CA did not err in finding that the Infor&ation #assubstantially co&plete and in reiterating that ob7ections as to the &atters of for& andsubstance in the Infor&ation cannot be &ade for the first ti&e on appeal. It is true thatthe grava&en of the cri&e of estafa under Article 1/%, paragraph /, subparagraph b- ofthe RPC is the appropriation or conversion of &oney or property received to thepre7udice of the o#ner3and that the ti&e of occurrence is not a &aterial ingredient of thecri&e, hence, the e>clusion of the period and the #rong date of the occurrence of thecri&e, as reflected in the Infor&ation, do not &ae the latter fatally defective. "he CAruled9

> > > An infor&ation is legally viable as long as it distinctly states the statutorydesignation of the offense and the acts or o&issions constitutive thereof. "hen ection3, Rule //( of the Rules of Court provides that a co&plaint or infor&ation is sufficient ifit states the na&e of the accused;

the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or o&issions co&plained of asconstituting the offense; the na&e of the offended party; the appro>i&ate ti&e of theco&&ission of the offense, and the place #herein the offense #as co&&itted. In thecase at bar, a reading of the sub7ect Infor&ation sho#s co&pliance #ith the foregoingrule. "hat the ti&e of the co&&ission of the offense #as stated as K on or about the fifth

%th- day of 2uly, /66/K is not lie#ise fatal to the prosecutionact date does notrender the Infor&ation ipso facto defective. 0oreover, the said date is also near the duedate #ithin #hich accused5appellant should have delivered the proceeds or returned thesaid Gpieces of 7e#elryH as testified upon by "angoy, hence, there #as sufficientco&pliance #ith the rules. Accused5appellant, therefore, cannot no# be allo#ed to clai&that he #as not properly apprised of the charges proferred against hi&. )

It &ust be re&e&bered that petitioner #as convicted of the cri&e of Estafa under Article1/%, paragraph / b- of the RPC, #hich reads9

AR". 1/%. #indling estafa-. Any person #ho shall defraud another by any of the&eans &entioned hereinbelo#.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt7


6/35

/. ?ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, na&ely9

> > > >

b- By &isappropriating or converting, to the pre7udice of another, &oney, goods, or any

other personal property received by the offender in trust or on co&&ission, or forad&inistration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to &ae delivery of or toreturn the sa&e, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by abond; or by denying having received such &oney, goods, or other property; > > >

"he ele&ents of estafa #ith abuse of confidence are as follo#s9 a- that &oney, goodsor other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on co&&ission, or forad&inistration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to &ae delivery of, or toreturn the sa&e; b- that there be &isappropriation or conversion of such &oney orproperty by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; c- that such&isappropriation or conversion or denial is to the pre7udice of another; and d- that there

is a de&and &ade by the offended party on the offender.:

Petitioner argues that the last ele&ent, #hich is, that there is a de&and by the offendedparty on the offender, #as not proved. "his Court disagrees. In his testi&ony, privateco&plainant narrated ho# he #as able to locate petitioner after al&ost t#o '- &onthsfro& the ti&e he gave the pieces of 7e#elry and ased petitioner about the sa&e ite&s#ith the latter pro&ising to pay the&. "hus9

PR!. 0AR"INE

8 No#, 0r. ?itness, this #as e>ecuted on ' 0ay /66/, and this transaction could have

been finished on % 2uly /66/, the 8uestion is #hat happens sic- #hen the deadlineca&eL

a I #ent looing for hi&, sir.

8 4or #ho&L

a *ito Corpu+, sir.

8 ?ere you able to loo sic- for hi&L

a I looed for hi& for a #ee, sir.

8 Did you no# his residenceL

a es, sir.

8 Did you go thereL
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt8


7/35

a es, sir.

8 Did you find hi&L

a No, sir.

8 ?ere you able to tal to hi& since % 2uly /66/L

a I taled to hi&, sir.

8 @o# &any ti&esL

a "#o ti&es, sir.

8 ?hat did you tal sic- to hi&L

a About the ite&s I gave to sic- hi&, sir.

8 Referring to E>hibit A5'L

a es, sir, and according to hi& he #ill tae his obligation and I ased hi& #here theite&s are and he pro&ised &e that he #ill pay these a&ount, sir.

8 p to this ti&e that you #ere here, #ere you able to collect fro& hi& partially or fullL

a No, sir.6

No specific type of proof is re8uired to sho# that there #as de&and./(

De&and need noteven be for&al; it &ay be verbal.//"he specific #ord Kde&andK need not even be usedto sho# that it has indeed been &ade upon the person charged, since even a &ere8uery as to the #hereabouts of the &oney Gin this case, propertyH, #ould be tanta&ountto a de&and./'As e>pounded in Ase7o v. People9/1

?ith regard to the necessity of de&and, #e agree #ith the CA that de&and under thisind of estafa need not be for&al or #ritten. "he appellate court observed that the la# issilent #ith regard to the for& of de&and in estafa under Art. 1/% /b-, thus9

?hen the la# does not 8ualify, ?e should not 8ualify. hould a #ritten de&and be

necessary, the la# #ould have stated so. !ther#ise, the #ord Kde&andK should beinterpreted in its general &eaning as to include both #ritten and oral de&and. "hus, thefailure of the prosecution to present a #ritten de&and as evidence is not fatal.

In "ubb v. People, #here the co&plainant &erely verbally in8uired about the &oneyentrusted to the accused, #e held that the 8uery #as tanta&ount to a de&and, thus9
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt13


8/35

> > > G"Hhe la# does not re8uire a de&and as a condition precedent to the e>istence ofthe cri&e of e&be++le&ent. It so happens only that failure to account, upon de&and forfunds or property held in trust, is circu&stantial evidence of &isappropriation. "he sa&e#ay, ho#ever, be established by other proof, such as that introduced in the case at bar./$

In vie# of the foregoing and based on the records, the prosecution #as able to provethe e>istence of all the ele&ents of the cri&e. Private co&plainant gave petitioner thepieces of 7e#elry in trust, or on co&&ission basis, as sho#n in the receipt dated 0ay ',/66/ #ith an obligation to sell or return the sa&e #ithin si>ty 3(- days, if unsold. "here#as &isappropriation #hen petitioner failed to re&it the proceeds of those pieces of

7e#elry sold, or if no sale too place, failed to return the sa&e pieces of 7e#elry #ithin orafter the agreed period despite de&and fro& the private co&plainant, to the pre7udice ofthe latter.

Anent the credibility of the prosecution


9/35

penalties provided for in the said cri&es cannot be re&edied through this Courtcessive penalties. 5 ?henever a court hasno#ledge of any act #hich it &ay dee& proper to repress and #hich is not punishableby la#, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief E>ecutive,through the Depart&ent of 2ustice, the reasons #hich induce the court to believe thatsaid act should be &ade the sub7ect of penal legislation.

In the sa&e #ay, the court shall sub&it to the Chief E>ecutive, through the Depart&entof 2ustice, such state&ent as &ay be dee&ed proper, #ithout suspending the e>ecutionof the sentence, #hen a strict enforce&ent of the provisions of this Code #ould result in

the i&position of a clearly e>cessive penalty, taing into consideration the degree of&alice and the in7ury caused by the offense./:

"he first paragraph of the above provision clearly states that for acts bourne out of acase #hich is not punishable by la# and the court finds it proper to repress, the re&edyis to render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief E>ecutive, throughthe Depart&ent of 2ustice, the reasons #hy the sa&e act should be the sub7ect of penallegislation. "he pre&ise here is that a deplorable act is present but is not the sub7ect ofany penal legislation, thus, the court is tased to infor& the Chief E>ecutive of the needto &ae that act punishable by la# through legislation. "he second paragraph is si&ilarto the first e>cept for the situation #herein the act is already punishable by la# but the

corresponding penalty is dee&ed by the court as e>cessive. "he re&edy therefore, asin the first paragraph is not to suspend the e>ecution of the sentence but to sub&it tothe Chief E>ecutive the reasons #hy the court considers the said penalty to be non5co&&ensurate #ith the act co&&itted. Again, the court is tased to infor& the ChiefE>ecutive, this ti&e, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.

In his boo, Co&&entaries on the Revised Penal Code, /6uiller&o B. uevara opinedthat in Article %, the duty of the court is &erely to report to the Chief E>ecutive, #ith areco&&endation for an a&end&ent or &odification of the legal provisions #hich itbelieves to be harsh. "hus9

"his provision is based under the legal &a>i& Knullu& cri&en, nulla poena sige lege,Kthat is, that there can e>ist no punishable act e>cept those previously and specificallyprovided for by penal statute.

No &atter ho# reprehensible an act is, if the la#5&aing body does not dee& itnecessary to prohibit its perpetration #ith penal sanction, the Court of 7ustice #ill beentirely po#erless to punish such act.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt19


10/35

nder the provisions of this article the Court cannot suspend the e>ecution of asentence on the ground that the strict enforce&ent of the provisions of this Code #ouldcause e>cessive or harsh penalty. All that the Court could do in such eventuality is toreport the &atter to the Chief E>ecutive #ith a reco&&endation for an a&end&ent or&odification of the legal provisions #hich it believes to be harsh. '(

Anent the non5suspension of the e>ecution of the sentence, retired Chief 2ustice Ra&onC. A8uino and retired Associate 2ustice Carolina C. riMo5A8uino, in their boo, "heRevised Penal Code,'/echoed the above5cited co&&entary, thus9

"he second paragraph of Art. % is an application of the hu&anitarian principle that7ustice &ust be te&pered #ith &ercy. enerally, the courts have nothing to do #ith the#isdo& or 7ustness of the penalties fi>ed by la#. K?hether or not the penaltiesprescribed by la# upon conviction of violations of particular statutes are too severe orare not severe enough, are 8uestions as to #hich co&&entators on the la# &ay fairlydiffer; but it is the duty of the courts to enforce the #ill of the legislator in all cases

unless it clearly appears that a given penalty falls #ithin the prohibited class ofe>cessive fines or cruel and unusual punish&ent.K A petition for cle&ency should beaddressed to the Chief E>ecutive.''

"here is an opinion that the penalties provided for in cri&es against property be basedon the current inflation rate or at the ratio of P/.(( is e8ual to P/((.(( . @o#ever, it#ould be dangerous as this #ould result in uncertainties, as opposed to the definitei&position of the penalties. It &ust be re&e&bered that the econo&y fluctuates and ifthe proposed i&position of the penalties in cri&es against property be adopted, thepenalties #ill not cease to change, thus, &aing the RPC, a self5a&ending la#. @ad thefra&ers of the RPC intended that to be so, it should have provided the sa&e, instead, it

included the earlier cited Article % as a re&edy. It is also i&proper to presu&e #hy thepresent legislature has not &ade any &oves to a&end the sub7ect penalties in order toconfor& #ith the present ti&es. 4or all #e no#, the legislature intends to retain thesa&e penalties in order to deter the further co&&ission of those punishable acts #hichhave increased tre&endously through the years. In fact, in recent &oves of thelegislature, it is apparent that it ai&s to broaden the coverage of those #ho violate penalla#s. In the cri&e of Plunder, fro& its original &ini&u& a&ount of P/((,(((,(((.((plundered, the legislature lo#ered it to P%(,(((,(((.((. In the sa&e #ay, the legislaturelo#ered the threshold a&ount upon #hich the Anti50oney *aundering Act &ay apply,fro& P/,(((,(((.(( to P%((,(((.((.

It is also #orth noting that in the cri&es of "heft and Estafa, the present penalties do notsee& to be e>cessive co&pared to the proposed i&position of their correspondingpenalties. In "heft, the provisions state that9

Art. 1(6. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by9

/. "he penalty of prision &ayor in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if the valueof the thing stolen is &ore than /',((( pesos but does not e>ceed '',((( pesos,


11/35

but if the value of the thing stolen e>ceeds the latter a&ount the penalty shall bethe &a>i&u& period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year foreach additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty #hich &ay bei&posed shall not e>ceed t#enty years. In such cases, and in connection #ith theaccessory penalties #hich &ay be i&posed and for the purpose of the other

provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be ter&ed prision &ayor or reclusionte&poral, as the case &ay be.

'. "he penalty of prision correccional in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods, if thevalue of the thing stolen is &ore than 3,((( pesos but does not e>ceed /',(((pesos.

1. "he penalty of prision correccional in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if thevalue of the property stolen is &ore than '(( pesos but does not e>ceed 3,(((pesos.

$. Arresto &ayor in its &ediu& period to prision correccional in its &ini&u&period, if the value of the property stolen is over %( pesos but does not e>ceed'(( pesos.

%. Arresto &ayor to its full e>tent, if such value is over % pesos but does note>ceed %( pesos.

3. Arresto &ayor in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if such value does note>ceed % pesos.

). Arresto &enor or a fine not e>ceeding '(( pesos, if the theft is co&&itted

under the circu&stances enu&erated in paragraph 1 of the ne>t preceding articleand the value of the thing stolen does not e>ceed % pesos. If such value e>ceedssaid a&ount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be&ade applicable.

:. Arresto &enor in its &ini&u& period or a fine not e>ceeding %( pesos, #henthe value of the thing stolen is not over % pesos, and the offender shall haveacted under the i&pulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihoodfor the support of hi&self or his fa&ily.

In a case #herein the value of the thing stolen is P3,(((.((, the above5provision states

that the penalty is prision correccional in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods 3 &onthsand / day to $ years and ' &onths-. Applying the proposal, if the value of the thingstolen is P3,(((.((, the penalty is i&prison&ent of arresto &ayor in its &ediu& periodto prision correccional &ini&u& period ' &onths and / day to ' years and $ &onths-. It#ould see& that under the present la#, the penalty i&posed is al&ost the sa&e as thepenalty proposed. In fact, after the application of the Indeter&inate entence *a# underthe e>isting la#, the &ini&u& penalty is still lo#ered by one degree; hence, the&ini&u& penalty is arresto &ayor in its &ediu& period to &a>i&u& period ' &onths


12/35

and / day to 3 &onths-, &aing the offender 8ualified for pardon or parole after servingthe said &ini&u& period and &ay even apply for probation. 0oreover, under theproposal, the &ini&u& penalty after applying the Indeter&inate entence *a# is arresto&enor in its &a>i&u& period to arresto &ayor in its &ini&u& period '/ days to '&onths- is not too far fro& the &ini&u& period under the e>isting la#. "hus, it #ould

see& that the present penalty i&posed under the la# is not at all e>cessive. "he sa&eis also true in the cri&e of Estafa.'1

0oreover, if #e apply the ratio of /9/((, as suggested to the value of the thing stolen inthe cri&e of "heft and the da&age caused in the cri&e of Estafa, the gap bet#een the&ini&u& and the &a>i&u& a&ounts, #hich is the basis of deter&ining the properpenalty to be i&posed, #ould be too #ide and the penalty i&posable #ould no longerbe co&&ensurate to the act co&&itted and the value of the thing stolen or the da&agecaused9

I. Article 1(6, or the penalties for the cri&e of "heft, the value #ould be &odified but the

penalties are not changed9

/. P/',(((.(( to P'',(((.(( #ill beco&e P/,'((,(((.(( to P','((,(((.((,punished by prision &ayor &ini&u& to prision &ayor &ediu& 3 years and / dayto /( years-.

'. P3,(((.(( to P/',(((.(( #ill beco&e P3((,(((.(( to P/,'((,(((.((,punished by prision correccional &ediu& and to prision correccional &a>i&u& 'years, $ &onths and / day to 3 years-. '$

1. P'((.(( to P3,(((.(( #ill beco&e P'(,(((.(( to P3((,(((.((, punishable by

prision correccional &ini&u& to prision correccional &ediu& 3 &onths and /day to $ years and ' &onths-.

$. P%(.(( to P'((.(( #ill beco&e P%,(((.(( to P'(,(((.((, punishable byarresto &ayor &ediu& to prision correccional &ini&u& ' &onths and / day to 'years and $ &onths-.

%. P%.(( to P%(.(( #ill beco&e P%((.(( to P%,(((.((, punishable by arresto&ayor / &onth and / day to 3 &onths-.

3. P%.(( #ill beco&e P%((.((, punishable by arresto &ayor &ini&u& to arresto

&ayor &ediu&.

> > > >.

II. Article 1/%, or the penalties for the cri&e of Estafa, the value #ould also be &odifiedbut the penalties are not changed, as follo#s9


13/35

/st. P/',(((.(( to P'',(((.((, #ill beco&e P/,'((,(((.(( to P','((,(((.((,punishable by prision correccional &a>i&u& to prision &ayor &ini&u& $ years,' &onths and / day to : years-. '%

'nd. P3,(((.(( to P/',(((.(( #ill beco&e P3((,(((.(( to P/,'((,(((.((,

punishable by prision correccional &ini&u& to prision correccional &ediu& 3&onths and / day to $ years and ' &onths-. '3

1rd. P'((.(( to P3,(((.(( #ill beco&e P'(,(((.(( to P3((,(((.((, punishableby arresto &ayor &a>i&u& to prision correccional &ini&u& $ &onths and / dayto ' years and $ &onths-.

$th. P'((.(( #ill beco&e P'(,(((.((, punishable by arresto &ayor &a>i&u& $&onths and / day to 3 &onths-.

An argu&ent raised by Dean 2ose 0anuel I. Diono, one of our estee&ed a&ici curiae,

is that the incre&ental penalty provided under Article 1/% of the RPC violates the E8ualProtection Clause.

"he e8ual protection clause re8uires e8uality a&ong e8uals, #hich is deter&inedaccording to a valid classification. "he test developed by 7urisprudence here and yonderis that of reasonableness,')#hich has four re8uisites9

/- "he classification rests on substantial distinctions;

'- It is ger&ane to the purposes of the la#;

1- It is not li&ited to e>isting conditions only; and

$- It applies e8ually to all &e&bers of the sa&e class. ':

According to Dean Diono, the Incre&ental Penalty Rule IPR- does not rest onsubstantial distinctions asP/(,(((.(( &ay have been substantial in the past, but it is notso today, #hich violates the first re8uisite; the IPR #as devised so that those #hoco&&it estafa involving higher a&ounts #ould receive heavier penalties; ho#ever, thisis no longer achieved, because a person #ho steals P/$',(((.(( #ould receive thesa&e penalty as so&eone #ho steals hundreds of &illions, #hich violates the secondre8uisite; and, the IPR violates re8uisite no. 1, considering that the IPR is li&ited to

e>isting conditions at the ti&e the la# #as pro&ulgated, conditions that no longer e>isttoday.

Assu&ing that the Court sub&its to the argu&ent of Dean Diono and declares theincre&ental penalty in Article 1/% unconstitutional for violating the e8ual protectionclause, #hat then is the penalty that should be applied in case the a&ount of the thingsub7ect &atter of the cri&e e>ceeds P'',(((.((L It see&s that the proposition poses&ore 8uestions than ans#ers, #hich leads us even &ore to conclude that the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt28


14/35

appropriate re&edy is to refer these &atters to Congress for the& to e>ercise theirinherent po#er to legislate la#s.

Even Dean Diono #as of the opinion that if the Court declares the IPR unconstitutional,the re&edy is to go to Congress. "hus9

> > > >

2"ICE PERA*"A9

No#, your position is to declare that the incre&ental penalty should be struc do#n asunconstitutional because it is absurd.

DEAN DI!ON!9

Absurd, it violates e8ual protection, our @onor, and cruel and unusual punish&ent.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"hen #hat #ill be the penalty that #e are going to i&pose if the a&ount is &ore than"#enty5"#o "housand P'',(((.((- Pesos.

DEAN DI!ON!9

?ell, that #ould be for Congress to ... if this Court #ill declare the incre&ental penaltyrule unconstitutional, then that #ould ... the void should be filled by Congress.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

But in your presentation, you #ere fi>ing the a&ount at !ne @undred "housandP/((,(((.((- Pesos ...

DEAN DI!ON!9

?ell, &y presen ... interrupted-

2"ICE PERA*"A9

4or every !ne @undred "housand P/((,(((.((- Pesos in e>cess of "#enty5"#o"housand P'',(((.((- Pesos you #ere suggesting an additional penalty of one /-year, did I get you rightL

DEAN DI!ON!9

es, our @onor, that is, if the court #ill tae the route of statutory interpretation.


15/35

2"ICE PERA*"A9

Ah ...

DEAN DI!ON!9

If the Court #ill say that they can go beyond the literal #ording of the la#...

2"ICE PERA*"A9

But if #e de ... interrupted-

DEAN DI!ON!9

....then....

2"ICE PERA*"A9

Ah, yeah. But if #e declare the incre&ental penalty as unsconstitutional, the courtcannot fi> the a&ount ...

DEAN DI!ON!9

No, our @onor.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

... as the e8uivalent of one, as an incre&ental penalty in e>cess of "#enty5"#o"housand P'',(((.((- Pesos.

DEAN DI!ON!9

No, our @onor.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"he Court cannot do that.

DEAN DI!ON!9

Could not be.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"he only re&edy is to go to Congress...


16/35

DEAN DI!ON!9

es, our @onor.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

... and deter&ine the value or the a&ount.

DEAN DI!ON!9

es, our @onor.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"hat #ill be e8uivalent to the incre&ental penalty of one /- year in e>cess of "#enty5"#o "housand P'',(((.((- Pesos.

DEAN DI!ON!9

es, our @onor.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"he a&ount in e>cess of "#enty5"#o "housand P'',(((.((- Pesos.

"han you, Dean.

DEAN DI!ON!9

"han you.

> > > >'6

Dean Diono also contends that Article 1/% of the Revised Penal Code constitutes crueland unusual punish&ent. Citing ole& v. @el&,1(Dean Diono avers that the nitedtates 4ederal upre&e Court has e>panded the application of a si&ilar Constitutionalprovision prohibiting cruel and unusual punish&ent, to the duration of the penalty, andnot 7ust its for&. "he court therein ruled that three things &ust be done to decide

#hether a sentence is proportional to a specific cri&e, vi+.; /- Co&pare the nature andgravity of the offense, and the harshness of the penalty; '- Co&pare the sentencesi&posed on other cri&inals in the sa&e 7urisdiction, i.e., #hether &ore serious cri&esare sub7ect to the sa&e penalty or to less serious penalties; and 1- Co&pare thesentences i&posed for co&&ission of the sa&e cri&e in other 7urisdictions.

@o#ever, the case of ole& v. @el& cannot be applied in the present case, because inole& #hat respondent therein dee&ed cruel #as the penalty i&posed by the state


17/35

court of outh Daota after it too into account the latters recidivist statute and not theoriginal penalty for uttering a Kno accountK chec. Nor&ally, the &a>i&u& punish&entfor the cri&e #ould have been five years i&prison&ent and a Q%,(((.(( fine.Nonetheless, respondent #as sentenced to life i&prison&ent #ithout the possibility ofparole under outh Daotas recidivist statute because of his si> prior felony

convictions. urely, the factual antecedents of ole& are different fro& the presentcontroversy.

?ith respect to the cri&e of Jualified "heft, ho#ever, it is true that the i&posablepenalty for the offense is high. Nevertheless, the rationale for the i&position of a higherpenalty against a do&estic servant is the fact that in the co&&ission of the cri&e, thehelper #ill essentially gravely abuse the trust and confidence reposed upon her by here&ployer. After accepting and allo#ing the helper to be a &e&ber of the household,thus entrusting upon such person the protection and safeeeping of the e&ployersloved ones and properties, a subse8uent betrayal of that trust is so repulsive as to#arrant the necessity of i&posing a higher penalty to deter the co&&ission of such

#rongful acts.

"here are other cri&es #here the penalty of fine and=or i&prison&ent are dependent onthe sub7ect &atter of the cri&e and #hich, by adopting the proposal, &ay create seriousi&plications. 4or e>a&ple, in the cri&e of 0alversation, the penalty i&posed dependson the a&ount of the &oney &alversed by the public official, thus9

Art. '/). 0alversation of public funds or property; Presu&ption of &alversation. Anypublic officer #ho, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds orproperty, shall appropriate the sa&e or shall tae or &isappropriate or shall consent,through abandon&ent or negligence, shall per&it any other person to tae such public

funds, or property, #holly or partially, or shall other#ise be guilty of the &isappropriationor &alversation of such funds or property, shall suffer9

/. "he penalty of prision correccional in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods, if thea&ount involved in the &isappropriation or &alversation does not e>ceed t#ohundred pesos.

'. "he penalty of prision &ayor in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if thea&ount involved is &ore than t#o hundred pesos but does not e>ceed si>thousand pesos.

1. "he penalty of prision &ayor in its &a>i&u& period to reclusion te&poral in its&ini&u& period, if the a&ount involved is &ore than si> thousand pesos but isless than t#elve thousand pesos.

$. "he penalty of reclusion te&poral, in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods, if thea&ount involved is &ore than t#elve thousand pesos but is less than t#enty5t#othousand pesos. If the a&ount e>ceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusionte&poral in its &a>i&u& period to reclusion perpetua.


18/35

In all cases, persons guilty of &alversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetualspecial dis8ualification and a fine e8ual to the a&ount of the funds &alversed or e8ualto the total value of the property e&be++led.

"he failure of a public officer to have duly forthco&ing any public funds or property #ith

#hich he is chargeable, upon de&and by any duly authori+ed officer, shall be pri&afacie evidence that he has put such &issing funds or property to personal use.

"he above5provisions conte&plate a situation #herein the overn&ent loses &oneydue to the unla#ful acts of the offender. "hus, follo#ing the proposal, if the a&ount&alversed is P'((.(( under the e>isting la#-, the a&ount no# beco&es P'(,(((.((and the penalty is prision correccional in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods ' years $&onths and / day to 3 years-. "he penalty &ay not be co&&ensurate to the act ofe&be++le&ent ofP'(,(((.(( co&pared to the acts co&&itted by public officialspunishable by a special la#, i.e., Republic Act No. 1(/6 or the Anti5raft and CorruptPractices Act, specifically ection 1,1/#herein the in7ury caused to the govern&ent is not

generally defined by any &onetary a&ount, the penalty 3 years and / &onth to /%years-1'under the Anti5raft *a# #ill no# beco&e higher. "his should not be the case,because in the cri&e of &alversation, the public official taes advantage of his publicposition to e&be++le the fund or property of the govern&ent entrusted to hi&.

"he said ine8uity is also apparent in the cri&e of Robbery #ith force upon thingsinhabited or uninhabited- #here the value of the thing unla#fully taen and the act ofunla#ful entry are the bases of the penalty i&posable, and also, in 0alicious 0ischief,#here the penalty of i&prison&ent or fine is dependent on the cost of the da&agecaused.

In Robbery #ith force upon things inhabited or uninhabited-, if #e increase the value ofthe thing unla#fully taen, as proposed in the ponencia, the sole basis of the penalty #illno# be the value of the thing unla#fully taen and no longer the ele&ent of forcee&ployed in entering the pre&ises. It &ay lie#ise cause an ine8uity bet#een the cri&eof Jualified "respass to D#elling under Article ':(, and this ind of robbery becausethe for&er is punishable by prision correccional in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods 'years, $ &onths and / day to 3 years- and a fine not e>ceeding P/,(((.((P/((,(((.(( no# if the ratio is /9/((- #here entrance to the pre&ises is #ith violenceor inti&idation, #hich is the &ain 7ustification of the penalty. ?hereas in the cri&e ofRobbery #ith force upon things, it is punished #ith a penalty of prision &ayor 3 yearsand / day to /' years- if the intruder is unar&ed #ithout the penalty of 4ine despite thefact that it is not &erely the illegal entry that is the basis of the penalty but lie#ise theunla#ful taing.

4urther&ore, in the cri&e of !ther 0ischiefs under Article 1'6, the highest penalty thatcan be i&posed is arresto &ayor in its &ediu& and &a>i&u& periods ' &onths and /day to 3 &onths- if the value of the da&age caused e>ceeds P/,(((.((, but under theproposal, the value of the da&age #ill no# beco&e P/((,(((.(( /9/((-, and stillpunishable by arresto &ayor / &onth and / day to 3 &onths-. And, if the value of the


19/35

da&aged property does not e>ceed P'((.((, the penalty is arresto &enor or a fine ofnot less than the value of the da&age caused and not &ore than P'((.((, if the a&ountinvolved does not e>ceed P'((.(( or cannot be esti&ated. nder theproposal, P'((.(( #ill no# beco&e P'(,(((.((, #hich si&ply &eans that the fineof P'((.(( under the e>isting la# #ill no# beco&e P'(,(((.((. "he a&ount of 4ine

under this situation #ill no# beco&e e>cessive and afflictive in nature despite the factthat the offense is categori+ed as a light felony penali+ed #ith a light penalty underArticle '3 of the RPC.11nless #e also a&end Article '3 of the RPC, there #ill be gravei&plications on the penalty of 4ine, but changing the sa&e through Court decision,either e>pressly or i&pliedly, &ay not be legally and constitutionally feasible.

"here are other cri&es against property and s#indling in the RPC that &ay also beaffected by the proposal, such as those that i&pose i&prison&ent and=or 4ine as apenalty based on the value of the da&age caused, to #it9 Article 1// "heft of theproperty of the National *ibrary and National 0useu&-, Article 1/' !ccupation of realproperty or usurpation of real rights in property-, Article 1/1 Altering boundaries or

land&ars-, Article 1/3 !ther for&s of s#indling-, Article 1/) #indling a &inor-,Article 1/: !ther deceits-, Article 1': pecial cases of &alicious &ischief- and Article11/ Destroying or da&aging statues, public &onu&ents or paintings-. !ther cri&esthat i&pose 4ine as a penalty #ill also be affected, such as9 Article '/1 4rauds againstthe public treasury and si&ilar offenses-, Article '/% Prohibited "ransactions-,

Article '/3 Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer-, Article '/: 4ailure ofaccountable officer to render accounts-, Article '/6 4ailure of a responsible publicofficer to render accounts before leaving the country-.

In addition, the proposal #ill not only affect cri&es under the RPC. It #ill also affect

cri&es #hich are punishable by special penal la#s, such as Illegal *ogging or Fiolationof ection 3: of Presidential Decree No. )(%, as a&ended. 1$"he la# treats cutting,gathering, collecting and possessing ti&ber or other forest products #ithout license asan offense as grave as and e8uivalent to the felony of 8ualified theft. 1%nder the la#, theoffender shall be punished #ith the penalties i&posed under Articles 1(6 and 1/(13ofthe Revised Penal Code, #hich &eans that the penalty i&posable for the offense is,again, based on the value of the ti&ber or forest products involved in the offense. No#,if #e accept the said proposal in the cri&e of "heft, #ill this particular cri&e of Illegal*ogging be a&ended also in so far as the penalty is concerned because the penalty isdependent on Articles 1(6 and 1/( of the RPCL "he ans#er is in the negative becausethe soundness of this particular la# is not in 8uestion.

?ith the nu&erous cri&es defined and penali+ed under the Revised Penal Code andpecial *a#s, and other related provisions of these la#s affected by the proposal, athorough study is needed to deter&ine its effectivity and necessity. "here &ay be so&eprovisions of the la# that should be a&ended; nevertheless, this Court is in no positionto conclude as to the intentions of the fra&ers of the Revised Penal Code by &erely&aing a study of the applicability of the penalties i&posable in the present ti&es. uchis not #ithin the co&petence of the Court but of the *egislature #hich is e&po#ered to


20/35

conduct public hearings on the &atter, consult legal lu&inaries and #ho, after dueproceedings, can decide #hether or not to a&end or to revise the 8uestioned la# orother la#s, or even create a ne# legislation #hich #ill adopt to the ti&es.

Ad&ittedly, Congress is a#are that there is an urgent need to a&end the Revised Penal

Code. During the oral argu&ents, counsel for the enate infor&ed the Court that atpresent, fifty5si> %3- bills are no# pending in the enate seeing to a&end the RevisedPenal Code,1)each one proposing &uch needed change and updates to archaic la#sthat #ere pro&ulgated decades ago #hen the political, socio5econo&ic, and culturalsettings #ere far different fro& todays conditions.

Ferily, the pri&ordial duty of the Court is &erely to apply the la# in such a #ay that itshall not usurp legislative po#ers by 7udicial legislation and that in the course of suchapplication or construction, it should not &ae or supervise legislation, or under theguise of interpretation, &odify, revise, a&end, distort, re&odel, or re#rite the la#, orgive the la# a construction #hich is repugnant to its ter&s. 1:"he Court should apply the

la# in a &anner that #ould give effect to their letter and spirit, especially #hen the la# isclear as to its intent and purpose. uccinctly put, the Court should shy a#ay fro&encroaching upon the pri&ary function of a co5e8ual branch of the overn&ent;other#ise, this #ould lead to an ine>cusable breach of the doctrine of separation ofpo#ers by &eans of 7udicial legislation.

0oreover, it is to be noted that civil inde&nity is, technically, not a penalty or a 4ine;hence, it can be increased by the Court #hen appropriate. Article ''(3 of the Civil Codeprovides9

Art. ''(3. "he a&ount of da&ages for death caused by a cri&e or 8uasi5delict shall be

at least three thousand pesos, even though there &ay have been &itigatingcircu&stances. In addition9

/- "he defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of thedeceased, and the inde&nity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; suchinde&nity shall in every case be assessed and a#arded by the court, unless thedeceased on account of per&anent physical disability not caused by thedefendant, had no earning capacity at the ti&e of his death;

'- If the deceased #as obliged to give support according to the provisions ofArticle '6/, the recipient #ho is not an heir called to the decedentceeding five years, the e>actduration to be fi>ed by the court;

1- "he spouse, legiti&ate and illegiti&ate descendants and ascendants of thedeceased &ay de&and &oral da&ages for &ental anguish by reason of thedeath of the deceased.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt38


21/35

In our 7urisdiction, civil inde&nity is a#arded to the offended party as a ind of &onetaryrestitution or co&pensation to the victi& for the da&age or infraction that #as done tothe latter by the accused, #hich in a sense only covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it iscivil inde&nity. "hus, in a cri&e #here a person dies, in addition to the penalty ofi&prison&ent i&posed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victi& a

su& of &oney as restitution. Clearly, this a#ard of civil inde&nity due to the death of thevicti& could not be conte&plated as ain to the value of a thing that is unla#fully taen#hich is the basis in the i&position of the proper penalty in certain cri&es. "hus, thereasoning in increasing the value of civil inde&nity a#arded in so&e offense cannot bethe sa&e reasoning that #ould sustain the adoption of the suggested ratio. Also, it isapparent fro& Article ''(3 that the la# only i&poses a &ini&u& a&ount for a#ards ofcivil inde&nity, #hich is P1,(((.((. "he la# did not provide for a ceiling. "hus, althoughthe &ini&u& a&ount for the a#ard cannot be changed, increasing the a&ount a#ardedas civil inde&nity can be validly &odified and increased #hen the present circu&stance#arrants it. Corollarily, &oral da&ages under Article '''(16of the Civil Code also doesnot fi> the a&ount of da&ages that can be a#arded. It is discretionary upon the court,

depending on the &ental anguish or the suffering of the private offended party. "hea&ount of &oral da&ages can, in relation to civil inde&nity, be ad7usted so long as itdoes not e>ceed the a#ard of civil inde&nity.

In addition, so&e &ay vie# the penalty provided by la# for the offense co&&itted astanta&ount to cruel punish&ent. @o#ever, all penalties are generally harsh, beingpunitive in nature. ?hether or not they are e>cessive or a&ount to cruel punish&ent is a&atter that should be left to la#&aers. It is the prerogative of the courts to apply thela#, especially #hen they are clear and not sub7ect to any other interpretation than that#hich is plainly #ritten.

i&ilar to the argu&ent of Dean Diono, one of 2ustice Antonio Carpios opinions is thatthe incre&ental penalty provision should be declared unconstitutional and that thecourts should only i&pose the penalty corresponding to the a&ount of P'',(((.((,regardless if the actual a&ount involved e>ceeds P'',(((.((. As suggested, ho#ever,fro& no# until the la# is properly a&ended by Congress, all cri&es of Estafa #ill nolonger be punished by the appropriate penalty. A conundru& in the regular course ofcri&inal 7ustice #ould occur #hen every accused convicted of the cri&e of estafa #ill be&eted penalties different fro& the proper penalty that should be i&posed. uch drastict#ist in the application of the la# has no legal basis and directly runs counter to #hatthe la# provides.

It should be noted that the death penalty #as reintroduced in the dispensation ofcri&inal 7ustice by the Ra&os Ad&inistration by virtue of Republic Act No. )3%6$(inDece&ber /661. "he said la# has been 8uestioned before this Court. "here is,arguably, no punish&ent &ore cruel than that of death. et still, fro& the ti&e the deathpenalty #as re5i&posed until its lifting in 2une '((3 by Republic Act No. 61$3,$/theCourt did not i&pede the i&position of the death penalty on the ground that it is a Kcruelpunish&entK #ithin the purvie# of ection /6 /-,$'Article III of the Constitution.


22/35

lti&ately, it #as through an act of Congress suspending the i&position of the deathpenalty that led to its non5i&position and not via the intervention of the Court.

Even if the i&posable penalty a&ounts to cruel punish&ent, the Court cannot declarethe provision of the la# fro& #hich the proper penalty e&anates unconstitutional in the

present action. Not only is it violative of due process, considering that the tate and theconcerned parties #ere not given the opportunity to co&&ent on the sub7ect &atter, it issettled that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attaced collaterally becauseconstitutionality issues &ust be pleaded directly and not collaterally,$1&ore so in thepresent controversy #herein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of anyof the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

Besides, it has long been held that the prohibition of cruel and unusual punish&ents isgenerally ai&ed at the for& or character of the punish&ent rather than its severity inrespect of duration or a&ount, and applies to punish&ents #hich public senti&ent hasregarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the #hipping post, or in the

pillory, burning at the stae, breaing on the #heel, dise&bo#eling, and the lie. 4ineand i&prison&ent #ould not thus be #ithin the prohibition.$$

It taes &ore than &erely being harsh, e>cessive, out of proportion, or severe for apenalty to be obno>ious to the Constitution. "he fact that the punish&ent authori+ed bythe statute is severe does not &ae it cruel and unusual. E>pressed in other ter&s, ithas been held that to co&e under the ban, the punish&ent &ust be Kflagrantly andplainly oppressive,K K#holly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc the&oral sense of the co&&unity.K$%

Cruel as it &ay be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to a&end the la# and

adapt it to our &odern ti&e.

"he solution to the present controversy could not be solved by &erely ad7usting the8uestioned &onetary values to the present value of &oney based only on the currentinflation rate. "here are other factors and variables that need to be taen intoconsideration, researched, and deliberated upon before the said values could beaccurately and properly ad7usted. "he effects on the society, the in7ured party, theaccused, its socio5econo&ic i&pact, and the lies &ust be painstaingly evaluated and#eighed upon in order to arrive at a #holistic change that all of us believe should be&ade to our e>isting la#. De7ectedly, the Court is ill5e8uipped, has no resources, andlacs sufficient personnel to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies and surveysto validly effect these changes in our Revised Penal Code. "his function clearly andappropriately belongs to Congress. Even Professor "adiar concedes to this conclusion,to #it9

> > > >

2"ICE PERA*"A9


23/35

eah, 2ust one 8uestion. ou are suggesting that in order to deter&ine the value ofPeso you have to tae into consideration several factors.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

es.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

Per capita inco&e.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

Per capita inco&e.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

Consu&er price inde>.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

eah.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

Inflation ...

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

es.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

... and so on. Is the upre&e Court e8uipped to deter&ine those factorsL

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

"here are &any #ays by #hich the value of the Philippine Peso can be deter&ined

utili+ing all of those econo&ic ter&s.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

eah, but ...

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9


24/35

And I dont thin it is #ithin the po#er of the upre&e Court to pass upon and peg thevalue to !ne @undred P/((.((- Pesos to ...

2"ICE PERA*"A9

eah.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

... !ne P/.((.((- Peso in /61(.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"hat is legislative in nature.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

"hat is &y position that the upre&e Court ...

2"ICE PERA*"A9

eah, oay.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

... has no po#er to utili+e the po#er of 7udicial revie# to in order to ad7ust, to &ae thead7ust&ent that is a po#er that belongs to the legislature.

2"ICE PERA*"A9

"han you, Professor.

PR!4E!R "ADIAR9

"han you.$3

4inally, the opinion advanced by Chief 2ustice 0aria *ourdes P. A. ereno echoes thevie# that the role of the Court is not &erely to dispense 7ustice, but also the active duty

to prevent in7ustice. "hus, in order to prevent in7ustice in the present controversy, theCourt should not i&pose an obsolete penalty pegged eighty three years ago, butconsider the proposed ratio of /9/(( as si&ply co&pensating for inflation. 4urther&ore,the Court has in the past taen into consideration Kchanged conditionsK or Ksignificantchanges in circu&stancesK in its decisions.

i&ilarly, the Chief 2ustice is of the vie# that the Court is not delving into the validity ofthe substance of a statute. "he issue is no different fro& the Courts ad7ust&ent of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#fnt46


25/35

inde&nity in cri&es against persons, #hich the Court had previously ad7usted in light ofcurrent ti&es, lie in the case of People v. Panto7a.$)Besides, Article /( of the Civil Code&andates a presu&ption that the la#&aing body intended right and 7ustice to prevail.

?ith due respect to the opinions and proposals advanced by the Chief 2ustice and &y

Colleagues, all the proposals ulti&ately lead to prohibited 7udicial legislation. hort ofbeing repetitious and as e>tensively discussed above, it is truly beyond the po#ers ofthe Court to legislate la#s, such i&&ense po#er belongs to Congress and the Courtshould refrain fro& crossing this clear5cut divide. ?ith regard to civil inde&nity, aselucidated before, this refers to civil liability #hich is a#arded to the offended party as aind of &onetary restitution. It is truly based on the value of &oney. "he sa&e cannot besaid on penalties because, as earlier stated, penalties are not only based on the valueof &oney, but on several other factors. 4urther, since the la# is silent as to the&a>i&u& a&ount that can be a#arded and only pegged the &ini&u& su&, increasingthe a&ount granted as civil inde&nity is not proscribed. "hus, it can be ad7usted in lightof current conditions.

No#, #ith regard to the penalty i&posed in the present case, the CA &odified the rulingof the R"C. "he R"C i&posed the indeter&inate penalty of four $- years and t#o '-&onths of prision correccional in its &ediu& period, as &ini&u&, to fourteen /$- yearsand eight :- &onths of reclusion te&poral in its &ini&u& period, as &a>i&u&.@o#ever, the CA i&posed the indeter&inate penalty of four $- years and t#o '-&onths of prision correccional, as &ini&u&, to eight :- years of prision &ayor, as&a>i&u&, plus one /- year for each additionalP/(,(((.((, or a total of seven )- years.

In co&puting the penalty for this type of estafa, this Courti&u& period to prision &ayor in its&ini&u& period, if the a&ount of the fraud is over /',((( but does not e>ceed '',(((pesos, and if such a&ount e>ceeds the latter su&, the penalty provided in thisparagraph shall be i&posed in its &a>i&u& period, adding one year for each additional/(,((( pesos; but the total penalty #hich &ay be i&posed shall not e>ceed t#enty

years. In such case, and in connection #ith the accessory penalties #hich &ay bei&posed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall beter&ed prision &ayor or reclusion te&poral, as the case &ay be.

"he penalty prescribed by Article 1/% is co&posed of only t#o, not three, periods, in#hich case, Article 3% of the sa&e Code re8uires the division of the ti&e included in thepenalty into three e8ual portions of ti&e included in the penalty prescribed, for&ing one


26/35

period of each of the three portions. Applying the latter provisions, the &a>i&u&,&ediu& and &ini&u& periods of the penalty prescribed are9

0a>i&u& 5 3 years, : &onths, '/ days to : years

0ediu& 5 % years, % &onths, // days to 3 years, : &onths, '( days

0ini&u& 5 $ years, ' &onths, / day to % years, % &onths, /( days $6

"o co&pute the &a>i&u& period of the prescribed penalty, prisin correccional&a>i&u& to prisin &ayor &ini&u& should be divided into three e8ual portions of ti&eeach of #hich portion shall be dee&ed to for& one period in accordance #ith Article3%%(of the RPC.%/In the present case, the a&ount involved is P6:,(((.((, #hiche>ceeds P'',(((.((, thus, the &a>i&u& penalty i&posable should be #ithin the&a>i&u& period of 3 years, : &onths and '/ days to : years of prision &ayor. Article1/% also states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every

additional P/(,(((.(( defrauded in e>cess of P'',(((.((, but in no case shall the totalpenalty #hich &ay be i&posed e>ceed '( years.

Considering that the a&ount of P6:,(((.(( is P)3,(((.(( &ore than the P'',(((.((ceiling set by la#, then, adding one year for each additional P/(,(((.((, the &a>i&u&period of 3 years, : &onths and '/ days to : years of prision &ayor &ini&u& #ould beincreased by ) years. "aing the &a>i&u& of the prescribed penalty, #hich is : years,plus an additional ) years, the &a>i&u& of the indeter&inate penalty is /% years.

Applying the Indeter&inate entence *a#, since the penalty prescribed by la# for theestafa charge against petitioner is prision correccional &a>i&u& to prision &ayor

&ini&u&, the penalty ne>t lo#er #ould then be prision correccional in its &ini&u& and&ediu& periods.

"hus, the &ini&u& ter& of the indeter&inate sentence should be any#here fro& 3&onths and / day to $ years and ' &onths.

!ne final note, the Court should give Congress a chance to perfor& its pri&ordial dutyof la#&aing. "he Court should not pre5e&pt Congress and usurp its inherent po#ersof &aing and enacting la#s. ?hile it &ay be the &ost e>peditious approach, a shortcut by 7udicial fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited

7udicial legislation.

?@ERE4!RE, the Petition for Revie# on Certiorari dated Nove&ber %, '(() ofpetitioner *ito Corpu+ is hereby DENIED. Conse8uently, the Decision dated 0arch '','(() and Resolution dated epte&ber %, '(() of the Court of Appeals, #hich affir&ed#ith &odification the Decision dated 2uly 1(, '(($ of the Regional "rial Court, Branch$3, an 4ernando City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri&e ofEstafa under Article 1/%, paragraph /-, sub5paragraph b- of the Revised Penal Code,are hereby A44IR0ED #ith 0!DI4ICA"I!N that the penalty i&posed is the


27/35

indeter&inate penalty of i&prison&ent ranging fro& "@REE 1- EAR, "?! '-0!N"@ and E*EFEN DA of prision correccional, as &ini&u&, to 4I4"EEN /%-EAR of reclusion te&poral as &a>i&u&.

Pursuant to Article % of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this Decision be

furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Depart&ent of2ustice.

Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the enate and thepeaer of the @ouse of Representatives.

! !RDERED.

!IOS!A!O M. PERALTAAssociate 2ustice

?E C!NCR9

ee Concurring and Dissenting !pinionMARIA LOUR!ES P.A. SERENO

Chief 2ustice

ee Dissenting !pinionANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate 2ustice

PRES"ITERO #. $ELASCO, #R.Associate 2ustice

TERESITA #. LEONAR!O%!E

CASTROAssociate 2ustice

ee9 Concurring !pinion

ARTURO !. "RIONAssociate 2ustice

I tae no part due to prior action inthe CA

LUCAS P. "ERSAMIN&Associate 2ustice

I 7oin the Dissent of 2. AbadMARIANO C. !EL CASTILLO

Associate 2ustice

ee Dissenting !pinionRO"ERTO A. A"A!Associate 2ustice

MARTIN S. $ILLARAMA, #R.Associate 2ustice

#OSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate 2ustice

#OSE CATRAL MEN!OZAAssociate 2ustice

"$IEN$ENI!O L. RE'ESAssociate 2ustice

No PartESTELA M. PERLAS%"ERNA"E&

Associate 2ustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#carpiohttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#brionhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#abadhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#carpiohttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#brionhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_so_2014.html#abad


28/35

MAR$IC MARIO $ICTOR F. LEONENAssociate 2ustice

C E R " I 4 I C A " I ! N

Pursuant to ection /1, Article FIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions inthe above Decision #ere reached in consultation before the case #as assigned to the#riter of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOUR!ES P. A. SERENOChief 2ustice

Foo()o(*+

S No part.

/Penned by Associate 2ustice Estela 0. Perlas5Bernabe no# a &e&ber of theupre&e Court-, #ith Associate 2ustices Rodrigo F. Cosico and *ucas P.Bersa&in no# a &e&ber of the upre&e Court-, concurring; rollo, pp. 1/5$/.

'Rollo, p. $1.

1Id. at $:5%'.

$

*ibuit v. People, %(3 Phil. %6/, %66 '((%-.%Blas v. Angeles5 @utalla, $:' Phil. $:%, %(/ '(($-.

3Juinto v. People, 13% Phil. '%6, ')( /666-.

)Rollo, p. 1). Citations o&itted.-

:Dia+ v. People, %:% Phil. 1/:, 11' '((:-, citing Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals,1): Phil. 3)(, 3)% /666-.

6

"N, Dece&ber /), /66', pp. 65/(. E&phasis supplied.-/("an v. People, %$' Phil. /::, '(/ '(()-.

//Id., citing *ee v. People, $6% Phil. '16, '%( '((%-.

/'Id.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt12


29/35

/1%%% Phil. /(3 '(()-.

/$Id. at //$. Citations o&itted.-

/%Cos&e, 2r. v. People, %1: Phil. %', 33 '((3-, citing People v. arillo, $$3 Phil.

/31, /)$5/)% '((1-.

/3Id., citing ullon v. People, %(( Phil. 16, $% '((%- ; People v. Bulan, $6: Phil.%:3, %6: '((%-.

/)Id. at 3), citing People v. aspar, 1)3 Phil. )3', ))6 /666-.

/:E&phasis supplied.

/6"hird Edition, /6$(.

'(

Id. at /3. E&phasis supplied-

'//66) Edition.

''Id. at 61, citing nited tates v. Falera Ang , '3 Phil. %6: /6/$-; People v.ala+ar y abriel, /(' Phil. //:$ /6%:-; "iu a, %/ !.. /:31; *i&aco, 66 Phil.1% /6%3-, and People v. Del Rosario y Natividad, 3' Phil. :'$ /613-. E&phasissupplied.-

'1Art. 1/%. #indling estafa-. Any person #ho shall defraud another by any ofthe &eans &entioned hereinbelo# shall be punished by9

/st. "he penalty of prision correccional in its &a>i&u& period toprision &ayor in its &ini&u& period, if the a&ount of the fraud isover /',((( pesos but does not e>ceed '',((( pesos, and if sucha&ount e>ceeds the latter su&, the penalty provided in thisparagraph shall be i&posed in its &a>i&u& period, adding oneyear for each additional /(,((( pesos; but the total penalty #hich&ay be i&posed shall not e>ceed t#enty years. In such cases, andin connection #ith the accessory penalties #hich &ay be i&posedunder the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be ter&edprision &ayor or reclusion te&poral, as the case &ay be.

'nd. "he penalty of prision correccional in its &ini&u& and &ediu&periods, if the a&ount of the fraud is over 3,((( pesos but does note>ceed /',((( pesos;

1rd. "he penalty of arresto &ayor in its &a>i&u& period to prisioncorreccional in its &ini&u& period if such a&ount is over '((pesos but does not e>ceed 3,((( pesos; and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt23


30/35

$th. By arresto &ayor in its &a>i&u& period, if such a&ount doesnot e>ceed '(( pesos, provided that in the four cases &entioned,the fraud be co&&itted by any of the follo#ing &eans9

/. ?ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, na&ely9

a- By altering the substance, 8uantity, or 8uality or anything ofvalue #hich the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation todo so, even though such obligation be based on an i&&oral orillegal consideration.

b- By &isappropriating or converting, to the pre7udice of another,&oney, goods, or any other personal property received by theoffender in trust or on co&&ission, or for ad&inistration, or underany other obligation involving the duty to &ae delivery of or toreturn the sa&e, even though such obligation be totally or partially

guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such &oney,goods, or other property.

c- By taing undue advantage of the signature of the offendedparty in blan, and by #riting any docu&ent above such signaturein blan, to the pre7udice of the offended party or of any thirdperson.

'. By &eans of any of the follo#ing false pretenses or fraudulent actse>ecuted prior to or si&ultaneously #ith the co&&ission of the fraud9

a- By using fictitious na&e, or falsely pretending to possess po#er,influence, 8ualifications, property, credit, agency, business ori&aginary transactions, or by &eans of other si&ilar deceits.

b- By altering the 8uality, fineness or #eight of anything pertainingto his art or business.

c- By pretending to have bribed any overn&ent e&ployee,#ithout pre7udice to the action for calu&ny #hich the offended party&ay dee& proper to bring against the offender. In this case, theoffender shall be punished by the &a>i&u& period of the penalty.

d- GBy post5dating a chec, or issuing a chec in pay&ent of anobligation #hen the offender therein #ere not sufficient to cover thea&ount of the chec. "he failure of the dra#er of the chec todeposit the a&ount necessary to cover his chec #ithin three 1-days fro& receipt of notice fro& the ban and=or the payee orholder that said chec has been dishonored for lac of insufficiencyof funds shall be pri&a facie evidence of deceit constituting false


31/35

pretense or fraudulent act. As a&ended by R.A. $::%, approved2une /), /63).-H

e- By obtaining any food, refresh&ent or acco&&odation at ahotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apart&ent

house and the lie #ithout paying therefor, #ith intent to defraud theproprietor or &anager thereof, or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn,restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apart&ent house bythe use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiouslyre&oving any part of his baggage fro& a hotel, inn, restaurant,boarding house, lodging house or apart&ent house after obtainingcredit, food, refresh&ent or acco&&odation therein #ithout payingfor his food, refresh&ent or acco&&odation.

1. "hrough any of the follo#ing fraudulent &eans9

a- By inducing another, by &eans of deceit, to sign any docu&ent.

b- By resorting to so&e fraudulent practice to insure success in aga&bling ga&e.

c- By re&oving, concealing or destroying, in #hole or in part, anycourt record, office files, docu&ent or any other papers.

'$0ay be entitled to Probation.

'%0ay be entitled to Probation if the &a>i&u& penalty i&posed is 3 years.

'30ay be entitled to Probation.

')Juinto v. Co&&ission on Elections, .R. No. /:636:, 4ebruary '', '(/(, 3/1CRA 1:%, $/$.

':People v. Cayat, 3: Phil. /', /: /616-.

'6"N, !ral Argu&ents, 4ebruary '%, '(/$, pp. /6'5/6%.

1($31 .. ')) /6:1-

1/ection 1. Corrupt practices of public officers. 5 In addition to acts or o&issionsof public officers already penali+ed by e>isting la#, the follo#ing shall constitutecorrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unla#ful9

a- Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perfor& anact constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly pro&ulgated byco&petent authority or an offense in connection #ith the official duties of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt31


32/35

the latter, or allo#ing hi&self to be persuaded, induced, or influenced toco&&it such violation or offense.

b- Directly or indirectly re8uesting or receiving any gift, present, share,percentage, or benefit, for hi&self or for any other person, in connection

#ith any contract or transaction bet#een the overn&ent and any otherpart, #herein the public officer in his official capacity has to interveneunder the la#.

c- Directly or indirectly re8uesting or receiving any gift, present or otherpecuniary or &aterial benefit, for hi&self or for another, fro& any personfor #ho& the public officer, in any &anner or capacity, has secured orobtained, or #ill secure or obtain, any overn&ent per&it or license, inconsideration for the help given or to be given, #ithout pre7udice toection thirteen of this Act.

d- Accepting or having any &e&ber of his fa&ily accept e&ploy&ent in aprivate enterprise #hich has pending official business #ith hi& during thependency thereof or #ithin one year after its ter&ination.

e- Causing any undue in7ury to any party, including the overn&ent, orgiving any private party any un#arranted benefits, advantage orpreference in the discharge of his official ad&inistrative or 7udicialfunctions through &anifest partiality, evident bad faith or grossine>cusable negligence. "his provision shall apply to officers ande&ployees of offices or govern&ent corporations charged #ith the grant oflicenses or per&its or other concessions.

f- Neglecting or refusing, after due de&and or re8uest, #ithout sufficient7ustification, to act #ithin a reasonable ti&e on any &atter pending beforehi& for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, fro& any personinterested in the &atter so&e pecuniary or &aterial benefit or advantage,or for the purpose of favoring his o#n interest or giving undue advantagein favor of or discri&inating against any other interested party.

g- Entering, on behalf of the overn&ent, into any contract or transaction&anifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the sa&e, #hether or not thepublic officer profited or #ill profit thereby.

h- Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in anybusiness, contract or transaction in connection #ith #hich he intervenes ortaes part in his official capacity, or in #hich he is prohibited by theConstitution or by any la# fro& having any interest.

i- Directly or indirectly beco&ing interested, for personal gain, or having a&aterial interest in any transaction or act re8uiring the approval of a


33/35

board, panel or group of #hich he is a &e&ber, and #hich e>ercisesdiscretion in such approval, even if he votes against the sa&e or does notparticipate in the action of the board, co&&ittee, panel or group.

Interest for personal gain shall be presu&ed against those public officers

responsible for the approval of &anifestly unla#ful, ine8uitable, or irregulartransaction or acts by the board, panel or group to #hich they belong.

7- Ono#ingly approving or granting any license, per&it, privilege or benefitin favor of any person not 8ualified for or not legally entitled to suchlicense, per&it, privilege or advantage, or of a &ere representative ordu&&y of one #ho is not so 8ualified or entitled.

- Divulging valuable infor&ation of a confidential character, ac8uired byhis office or by hi& on account of his official position to unauthori+edpersons, or releasing such infor&ation in advance of its authori+ed release

date.

"he person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referredto in subparagraphs b- and c-; or offering or giving to the public officerthe e&ploy&ent &entioned in subparagraph d-; or urging the divulging orunti&ely release of the confidential infor&ation referred to insubparagraph - of this section shall, together #ith the offending publicofficer, be punished under ection nine of this Act and shall beper&anently or te&porarily dis8ualified in the discretion of the Court, fro&transacting business in any for& #ith the overn&ent.

1'

R.A. No. 1(/6, ec. 6.11Art. '3. ?hen afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. A fine, #hether i&posedas a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, ifit e>ceeds 3,((( pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not e>ceed 3,((( pesosbut is not less than '(( pesos; and a light penalty if it less than '(( pesos.

1$Revised 4orestry Code, as a&ended by E.!. No. ')), eries of /6:).

1%"aopa v. People, %6' Phil. 1$/, 1$% '((%-.

13

Art. 1/(. Jualified theft. "he cri&e of theft shall be punished by the penaltiesne>t higher by t#o degrees than those respectively specified in the ne>tpreceding article, if co&&itted by a do&estic servant, or #ith grave abuse ofconfidence, or if the property stolen is &otor vehicle, &ail &atter or large cattle orconsists of coconuts taen fro& the pre&ises of the plantation or fish taen fro&a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taen on the occasion of fire, earth8uae,typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other cala&ity, vehicular accident or civildisturbance.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_180016_2014.html#rnt36


34/35

1

Documents

Corpuz vs People GR No 180016