CASE DIGEST || Ponce
Lito Corpuz vs People of the Philippines
Procedural posture:
Petition for review on Certiorari of petitioner Lito Corpuz seeking to reverse and set aside RTC decision
which CA affirmed with modification finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Estafa under art. 315, par(1). Sub-par (b) of the RPC.
Facts:
Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy and Lito Corpuz, petitioner, met at Admiral Royale Casino in
Olongapo City in 1990. Private complainant is engaged in the business of lending money to casino
players and upon hearing that complainant is selling pieces of jewelry, petitioner offered him to sell the
jewelry on a commission basis wherein the private complainant agreed. This amounted to P98,000
comprising 4 pieces of jewelry. (18k ring, womans bracelet, mens necklace and mens bracelet) They
agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the sale if unsold to return the same items within 60
days. The period expired and petitioner did not remit. The former was able to meet the latter and the latter
promised the former to pay, but to no avail.
A case was filed against the petitioner for the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence at the RTc of San
Fernando Branch 46. Petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. No
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Prision correccional 4 years and 2 months in its medium period
as minimum and Reclusion temporal 14 years and 8 months minimum as maximum.
The case was elevated to CA, however, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification. Accused-
appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of prision correccional 4 yrs and 2 mo. as minimum to 8
yrs of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1 yr for each additional P10,000, or a total of 7 years.
The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the CA. Hence, the present
petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the admission of the prosecution’s evidence violates the best evidence rule for
being mere photocopies
2. Whether or not the criminal information of estafa is fatally defective for it being incomplete
a. No fix period of return
b. Occurrence of crime is different from the date testified
3. Whether or not the demand by the offended party (according to the elements of estafa) was not
proved
4. Whether or not the imposed penalty for the crime of Estafa under art. 315 is excessive
Held:
1. No. It does not violate the best evidence rule. OSG contends that the exhibits were properly
admitted. That the findings of the appellate court are conclusive, and was strengthened when the
said court affirmed the findings of RTC. That the petitioner failed to interpose a timely objection to
evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.
2. No. The argument is untenable because it is true that the gravamen of estafa under Art. 315. Par.
1, subparagraph (b) of RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to
the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material ingredient of the
crime. That the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence were established.
3. No. The demand of the offended party was proved when during the testimony, private
complainant narrated how he was able to locate the petitioner and asked the petitioner about the
same items with the latter promising to pay. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal.
The failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as evidence is not fatal. In Tubb v
People the non requirement of demand was strengthened. The prosecution was able to prove the
existence of all the elements of the crime.
4. Yes. The legislature pegged these penalties to the value of the money and property in 1930
when it enacted the RPC. Since there is no unanimity in decision, they decided to refer the case
to the Court en banc for considerations on the matter amongst amici curiae (consisted of Dean
Diokno, Dean Candelaria, Prof. Tadiar, the Senate President and the Speaker of the house) that
were invited for academic opinion.
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 on the amount of damage
measured by the value of money eighty years ago in 1932. HOWEVER, this Court cannot
modify the said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial legislation. What
the legislature's perceived failure in amending 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 render the whole situation without
any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
had anticipated this matter by including Article 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.)
paragraph 2
The provision is based under the legal maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”. 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 provisions which it believes to be
harsh. The 2nd paragraph of Art. 5 is an application of the humanitarian principle that justice may
be tempered with mercy. That there should be a petition for clemency.
There is also an opinion that the penalties provided for in crimes against property be based on
the current inflation rate or at the ratio of ₱1.00 is equal to ₱100.00. Also an opinion that the
present penalty imposed under the law is not excessive, that if we apply the 1:100 ratio, the gap
would be too excessive.
According to Dean Diokno, Art. 315 violates the equal protection clause, The Incremental
Penalty Rule (IPR) does not rest on substantial distinctions as ₱10,000.00 may have been
substantial in the past, but it is not so today, which violates the first requisite; the IPR was devised
so that those who commit estafa involving higher amounts would receive heavier penalties;
however, this is no longer achieved, because a person who steals ₱142,000.00 would receive the
same penalty as someone who steals hundreds of millions, which violates the second requisite;
and, the IPR violates requisite no. 3, considering that the IPR is limited to existing conditions at
the time the law was promulgated, conditions that no longer exist today. It seems that the
proposition poses more questions than answers, which leads us even more to conclude
that the appropriate remedy is to refer these matters to Congress for them to exercise their
inherent power to legislate laws. Even Dean Diokno was of the opinion that if the Court
declares the IPR unconstitutional, the remedy is to go to Congress.
the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall 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, revise,
amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its
terms. Whether or not they are excessive or amount to cruel punishment is a matter that
should be left to lawmakers. It is the prerogative of the courts to apply the law, especially
when they are clear and not subject to any other interpretation than that which is plainly
written. Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to amend the law
and adapt it to our modern time.
One final note, the Court should give Congress a chance to perform its primordial duty of
lawmaking. The Court should not pre-empt Congress and usurp its inherent powers of
making and enacting laws. While it may be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by
judicial fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial
legislation.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is
hereby DENIED. Affirmed with modification the decision of Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this Decision be furnished the President of
the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice.
Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Ruling:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned Here below.
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
xxxx
(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 duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property; x x x
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money, goods or other
personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such
receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that
there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
Then Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that a complaint or information is sufficient if it
states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.
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 which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Equal Protection Clause requisites
(1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.
Three things must be done to decide whether a sentence is proportional to a specific crime, viz.;
(1) Compare the nature and gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the penalty;
(2) Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, i.e., whether more
serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties; and
(3) Compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other
jurisdictions.
