Tickler: No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment (Article 3, Section 19, 1987 Constitution)

Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014

Law:

ART. 3, Sec. 19: (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Facts:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Lito Corpuz, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming, with
modification, the Regional Trial Court’s ruling finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1)(b) of the
Revised Penal Code.

Danilo Tangcoy, the private complainant, met the petitioner at a casino. Tangcoy, who was in the business of lending money to casino players,
agreed to let the petitioner sell certain pieces of jewelry on commission. The items, valued at ₱98,000, were to be sold within 60 days, or returned
if unsold. Petitioner failed to return the items or remit payment. Despite repeated demands, he did not fulfill his obligation.

The prosecution relied on Tangcoy’s testimony. The defense claimed the receipt used as evidence was originally signed in connection with a loan
from another person and was falsified to appear as a jewelry transaction.

The RTC convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (4 years and 2 Months as minimum to
14 years and eight months as maximum), plus ₱98,000 to Tangcoy and to pay the cost of the suit.

The Court of Appeals denied the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of the RTC, modifying only the prison term to 4 years and 2
months as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum plus one year for each additional Php 10,000.00, or a total of 7 years.

Issue:

Whether the penalties imposed on persons convicted of crimes involving property is excessive.

Ruling:

No.

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, which reads:

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.

The first paragraph of the above provision clearly states that for acts borne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it
proper to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the
reasons why the same actshould be the subject of penal legislation. The premise here 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 to make that act punishable by law through legislation.
The second paragraph is similar to the first except for the situation wherein the act is already punishable by law but the corresponding penalty is
deemed by the court as excessive. The remedy therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to suspend the execution of the sentence but to submit to
the Chief Executive the reasons why the court considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate with the act committed. Again, the court is
tasked to inform the Chief Executive, this time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.

In addition, some may view the penalty provided by law for the offense committed as tantamount to cruel punishment. However, all penalties are
generally harsh, being punitive in nature. 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.

It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the
punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual. Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under
the ban, the punishment must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive," "wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral
sense of the community."

Cruel as it may be, as discussed above, it is for the Congress to amend the law and adapt it to our modern time.

To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión correccional maximum toprisión mayor minimum should be divided into three
equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65 of the RPC. In the present case,
the amount involved is P98,000.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, thus, the maximum penalty imposable should be within the maximum period of 6
years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor. Article 315 also states that a period of one year shall be added to the penalty for every
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 P22,000.00 ceiling set by law, then, adding one year for each additional
P10,000.00, the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of prision mayor minimum would be increased by 7 years. Taking
the maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8 years, plus an additional 7 years, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15 years.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against petitioner is prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Thus, the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months.

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.

WHEREFORE,the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 5, 2007 of petitioner Lito Corpuz is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the
Decision dated March 22, 2007 and Resolution dated September 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision
dated July 30, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Fernando City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the
penalty imposed is the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from THREE (3) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS of
prision correccional, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum.

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.

SO ORDERED.