9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

TodayisSaturday,September05,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.L55992February14,1991
LOLITABAARESpetitioner,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALSandPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
FranciscoA.Lava,Jr.forpetitioner.

REGALADO,J.:
Petitionerhasinstitutedtheproceedingatbarseekingthereversalofrespondentcourt'sdecisionofFebruary18,
1980inCAG.R.No.21359CR,1
whichaffirmedthejudgmentofthethenCourtofFirstInstanceofNegrosOccidentalinCriminalCaseNo.14942
convicting her of estafa, and its resolution of January 6, 1981 3 denying her motion for reconsideration of said
decision.
The trial court imposed on petitioner an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum and twentyone (21) years and four (4) months of reclusion perpetua as maximum, to
indemnifytheoffendedpartyintheamountofP43,000.00,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,
and to pay the costs. Respondent court, finding no reversible error in the appealed judgment, affirmed the
aforesaidpenaltyintoto.
Insisting on her innocence, petitioner has come before us in this petition for review on certiorari, faulting
respondentcourtashavingallegedlycommittedverygraveerrorsoflaw:
1. In failing to take into account the trial court's finding and the complainant's admission that the subject
postdatedcheekwasissuedonlyasreceiptforthejewelry
2. In its over simplistic misinterpretation of the Padilla amendment in relation to the essential question of
deceit, contrary to the doctrine of People v. Sabio, Sr., which gross error led the Court of Appeals into
totally disregarding admitted and/or undisputed facts negating deceit in the case at bar, assuming
arguendothatthepostdatedcheckwasissuednotasreceiptbutaspaymentforthejewelry
3. In its failure to hold that the postdated check was in payment of preexisting obligation, on the same
arguendoassumptionthatthepostdatedcheckwasissuednotasareceiptbutaspaymentforthejewelry
4. In holding that the Padilla amendment eliminated the defense that the accused had informed the
offendedpartythatthedepositinthebankmaynotbesufficienttocoverthecheck,onthesamearguendo
assumptionthatthepostdatedcheckwasissuednotasareceiptbutaspaymentforthejewelry
5.Infailingtoappreciatethefactthatwhenpetitionerissuedthesubjectcheckheraccountinthebankhad
not yet been closed, on the same arguendo assumption that the postdated check was issued not as a
receiptbutaspaymentforthejewelry
6. In rejecting the petitioner's defense of accounting and setoff as "immaterial", on the same arguendo
assumptionthatthepostdatedcheckwasissuednotasareceiptbutaspaymentforthejewelry
7. In ignoring other admitted or undisputed facts further negating any supposed deceit on the part of the
petitioner,onthesamearguendoassumptionthatthepostdatedcheckwasissuednotasareceiptbutas
paymentforthejewelry
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

1/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

8. In failing to take into account the admitted or undisputed facts indicating that the postdated check for
P43,000.00wasnotissuedforthesubjectjewelryvaluedatP49,000.00butforotherjewelryinvolvedina
similarcasewhereinthepetitionerwasacquitteddecisivelyand
9. In affirming in toto the decision of the trial court instead of reversing the same and acquitting the
petitioner.4
The records show that complainant Anita Diolosa Uy came to know petitioner Lolita Baares sometime in
September,1974.5
From then on, Uy and Baares had several transactions involving the sale of jewelry. These transactions were
arrangedintheresidenceofMrs.AngelesZayco,sisterofcomplainant,atCapitolville,BacolodCity,oneofwhich
was the October 7, 1974 transaction wherein Uy sold to Baares one brilliant cut lady's ring and one pair of
earringsworthP43,000.00andinconsiderationwhereofpetitionerissuedMetropolitanBankandTrustCompany
Check No. BD 2364996 PA 6 with the assurance that the check was good and sufficiently funded. 7 It was only
afterpetitionerhadleftthehouseofMrs.ZaycothatUydiscoveredthatsaidcheckwasdatedOctober14,1974.8
Sincethetransactionwasagreedtobeoncashbasis,uponrealizingthatthecheckwaspostdatedshelostno
time in calling up petitioner by telephone, but was informed that the latter had not yet arrived home.
Subsequently,petitionerherselfcalledandbeggedcomplainanttogiveheroneweektomakegoodtheamount
ofthecheck,withtheguaranteethatthecheckwasareliableone.October14,1974camebut,again,petitioner
beggedforanothertwentydaystocompleteherdepositoftheamount,towhichUyacceded. 9OnNovember4,
1974, Uy sent one of her employees to Bacolod City to encash the check but he was not able to do so and,
instead,hewasgiventhebank'sreturnslip10showingthatpetitioner'saccounthadbeenclosed.11
The following day, complainant went to Bacolod City and confronted petitioner, demanding from the latter the
payment for the jewelry or, better still, the return of the same. However, petitioner could not comply with either
demand since, as she admitted to complainant, she had pledged the jewelry. She requested for more time to
settlethematterbutcomplainantdecidedtofileacase12
resultinginpetitionerbeingchargedinthefollowinginformation:
Thatonoraboutthe7thdayofOctober,1974,intheCityofBacolod,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the herein accused with intent to gain and by means of false pretenses and
fraudulentactsexecutedpriortoorsimultaneouslywiththecommissionofthefraud,knowingfullywellthat
hercurrentaccountNo.1021intheMetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,BacolodBranch,BacolodCity
wasalreadyclosedandwithoutinformingthehereinoffendedparty,AnitaDiolosaUyofsuchfactdid,then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue, make out and deliver Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company Check No. 2364996 Bacolod Branch, postdated to October 14, 1974 in the amount of FORTY
THREETHOUSANDPESOS(P43,000.00),PhilippineCurrency,payabletoAnitaDiolosaUyaspaymentby
theaccusedofone(1)pairofearringsmar(q)uisewhiteperfectwithseveralbrillantesabout1carateach
andone(1)ladiesringwithbrillantesroundperfectabout3carats1flumkethdesignonengastewhichthe
saidaccusedpurchasedfromthesaidAnitaDiolosaUythatuponpresentationofsaidcheck,however,to
theMetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,BacolodBranch,BacolodCityforencashment,thesamewas
dishonored and refused payment because the accused's account with the aforesaid bank was already
closedandsaidaccusedinspiteofthenoticegiventoherbysaidoffendedpartythathercheckhadbeen
dishonored because her account with the aforesaid bank was already closed has failed and refused and
stillfailsandrefusestodeposittheamountnecessarytocoverhercheck,ortoredeemsaidcheckwithin
three(3)daysfromreceiptofsuchnotice,norhasthesaidaccusedreturnedtheaforementionedjewelries
to the herein offended party but, instead, once in possession of the same, misapplied, converted, and
misappropriated the same or the proceeds thereof to her own personal use and benefit, thus causing
damageandprejudicetothesaidAnitaDiolosaUyintheaforementionedamountofP43,000.00.13
Afteracarefulreviewoftherecords,theCourtrulesthatthepresentrecourseisdevoidofmerit.
The first submission of petitioner is that the cheek in question was not intended for encashment but that it was
actually merely a receipt, 14 adverting to the fact that complainant had admitted that for every jewelry she
deliveredtopetitioneracorrespondingcheckwasgiveninreturn.
To buttress her theory, petitioner's brief attempts to expound on the nature of the jewelry business and the
participationofthejewelrymerchants.Sheseekstoimpressonusthatinsaidbusinesswhensalesareoncredit,
checks may function and serve as promissory notes or securities depending on the intention of the parties.15
Sincewethereforehavetoascertainthenatureofthetransactioninissue,wetakenoteoftherulethatinorder
tojudgetheintentionofthecontractingparties,theircontemporaneousandsubsequentactsshallbeprincipally
considered.16
ComplainantUyexplicitlytestifiedondirectexaminationincourtasfollows:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

2/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

COURT
xxxxxxxxx
...Whatwasyourreactionwhenyourattentionwasdrawnandyouobservedthatthecheckissuedtoyou
andwhichyouacceptedontheagreementthatthepaymentwastobeincashturnedouttobepostdated
toOctober14,1974:
MRS.UY
Ifeltbad.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.CASTRO
Whatdidyoudo,ifanything,afteryoudiscoveredthatitisapostdatedcheck?
MRS.UY
IwasinstructedbyMrs.ZaycotocallupMrs.Baares.
ATTY.CASTRO
Didyoucallher?
MRS.UY
Yes,Icalledherup.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.CASTRO
Whatconversation,ifany(sic)betweenyouandMrs.Baareswhenshecalledyouup?
MRS.UY
Shebeg(sic)metoallowhertobegivenoneweek'stimesothatitcouldbedoneonOctober14.
COURT
Whatdidshesay?Shebeggedyoutoconsenttothepostdatedcheckthenbygivingheran
allowanceofoneweekafterwhichyoucouldcashthecheckonOctober15?
MRS.UY
Yes,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
COURT
WhatdidyoutellherregardingherrequestthatyouwaituntilOctober15tocashthecheck?
MRS.UY
Iconsented.Sheassuredmethatcheckwasreallyareliable
check.17
Sheclarifiedthismatterfartheroncrossexamination:
ATTY.DITCHING
(Towitness)YousaidthatonOctober7,1974youhadatransactionwiththeaccusedinvolving
jewelryamountingtoFortythreeThousandPesosandbeforeshegaveyouthischeckExhibit"A",
wasthattransactionforcashornot?
MRS.UY
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

3/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

Yes,forcashbasis.
ATTY.DITCHING
Andsheissuedacheck?
COURT
Let'squalifythatquestion...
ATTY.DITCHING
Anddidyounottellherthatshebettermakegoodthismatterbecauseallothertransactionswhich
shehadcoveringchecksthereisuncertaintyregardingthis?
COURT
Letussimplifythat.(Towitness)Didyounotdemandcashinsteadofcheck?
MRS.UY
SinceifIwouldreceivemoreincashitwouldbeverybulkyformeandriskytogobacktoIloiloCity.
18

From the foregoing unrebutted facts, the transaction was clearly on cash basis although complainant accepted
thecheckduetotheinconvenienceandriskofcarryingcashfromBacolodCitytoIloiloCity.Complainantparted
withherjewelrybelievingpetitioner'sassurancethatthecheckwasgoodanddulyfunded.Sheneverdoubtedthe
veracityofpetitioner'sassuranceswhichkeptherfromverifyingwiththebankwhetherthecheckwasfundedor
not.Theelementoftrustisimperativetothosewhoareengagedinthiskindofbusiness,andcomplainantisnot
anexception.Complainant'strustinpetitionerhadbeendevelopedbytheirseveralpriorbusinessdealingsand
because of the praises for and recommendations in favor of petitioner by their mutual friends. Since the
transactionwasoncashbasis,complainantnaturallyexpectedpetitionertoissueacheckdatedonthesameday
whensheturnedoverthejewelry.
Petitioner'sownevidencefailedtosupporthercontentionthatthecheckwasintendedonlyasareceipt.Ifitwas,
she would not have made the aforestated series of requests for extension of time to deposit the money. Such
comportmentofpetitioner,betrayingadeviousschemetodefraudcomplainant,isfurthermademanifestbythe
factthathercurrentaccountwiththebankagainstwhichthecheckwasissuedhadalreadybeenclosed.
Themainthrustofpetitioner'ssecond,third,fourth,fifth,sixthandseventhassignederrorshingesontheissueof
deceit.Shearguesthatfalsepretenseordeceitshouldattendtheissuanceofthecheckinorderthatitsdishonor
willconstituteestafaunderArticle315,paragraph2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode.Shecontendsthatthefactthat
shehadallegedlyinformedcomplainantthatthecheckinquestionmightnotbecoveredwithsufficientfundsin
the bank negates false pretense or deceit on her part. Even assuming that she did give that information, this
wouldbeunavailingundertheprovenfactualsettingofthiscase.AspointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral,former
Senator Ambrosio Padilla who authored Republic Act No. 4885, clarified this matter thus: "This amendment by
RepublicActNo.4885eliminatesthedefense...thatthedrawerofthecheckhadinformedthepayeethatthe
fundsdepositedinthebankmaynotbesufficienttocovertheamountofhischeck."19
Shefurtherassertsthatevenifshefailedtomakegoodthecheckwithinthreedaysfromnoticeofitsdishonor,
shemaynotbeconvictedofestafaifnodeceitattendedtheissuanceofthecheck,aswhenthecheckwasissued
inpaymentofapreexistingobligation.Itshouldberecalledthatasearlierdemonstrated,however,thepostdated
checkwasissuednotaspaymentforapreexistingobligationbutastheconsiderationforpetitioner'spurchaseof
thejewelryofcomplainantandwas,therefore,theefficientcauseforcomplainant'spartingwiththemerchandise
infavorofpetitioner.
Article315,paragraph2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.4885,provides:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelowshallbepunishedby:
xxxxxxxxx
2.Bymeansofanyofthefollowingfalsepretensesorfraudulentactsexecutedpriortoorsimultaneously
withthecommissionofthefraud:
xxxxxxxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

4/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

(d)Bypostdatingacheck,orissuingacheckinpaymentofanobligationwhentheoffenderhadnofundsin
thebank,orhisfundsdepositedthereinwerenotsufficienttocovertheamountofthecheck.Thefailureof
the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receiptofnoticefromthebankand/orthepayeeorholderthatsaidcheckhasbeendishonoredforlackor
insufficiencyoffundsshallbeprimafacieevidenceofdeceitconstitutingfalsepretenseorfraudulentact.
The amendment has eliminated both the phrase "the offender knowing at the time that he had no funds in the
bank"andtherequirementunderthepreviousprovisionforthedrawertoinformthepayeethathehadnofunds
in the bank or the funds deposited by him were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. Moreover, it is
significanttonotethatthetimeoroccasionforthecommissionofthefalsepretenseorfraudulentacthasnotat
allbeenchangedbytheamendment.20
The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of a
checkwhetherpostdatedornot,thatis,thelatterwouldnothavepartedwithhismoneyorotherpropertywereit
notfortheissuanceofthecheck,21
whichwaswhattranspiredinthecaseatbar.
ThepresumptionunderArticle315,paragraph2(d)asamendedbyRepublicActNo.4885,prescribesaperiodof
timewithinwhichthedrawer/issuerofthecheckmustpaythecreditor,otherwise,aprimafacieinferenceofdeceit
constitutingfalsepretenseorfraudulentActwillarise.TheexplanatorynoteofSenateBillNo.413whichbecame
Republic Act No. 4885 states: "It is true that a check may be dishonored without any fraudulent pretense or
fraudulentactofthedrawer.Hence,thedrawerisgiventhree(3)daystomakegoodthesaidcheckbydepositing
the necessary funds to cover the amount thereof Otherwise, a prima facie Presumption will arise as to the
existenceoffraud,whichisanelementofthecrimeofestafa."
There is, of course, no constitutional objection to a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be
overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what
evidenceshallbesufficienttoovercomesuchpresumptionofinnocence.Thelegislaturemayprovidefor prima
facie evidence of guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection
betweenthefactsprovedandtheultimatefactpresumedsothattheinferenceoftheonefromproofoftheothers
isnotunreasonableandarbitrarybecauseoflackofconnectionbetweenthetwoincommonexperience.22
Therecanbenodoubtthatpostdatingorissuingacheckinpaymentofanobligationwhentheoffenderhadno
fundsinthebank,orhisfundsdepositedthereinwerenotsufficienttocovertheamountofthecheck,isafalse
pretenseorfraudulentact.23
In the case at bar, the matter was aggravated by the fact that the bank account of petitioner was not only
insufficientbutalreadyclosed.Worse,petitionercouldnotcomplywiththedemandofcomplainantforatleastthe
return of the jewelry because the former had pledged them. These circumstances characterize the element of
deceit constitutive of the crime of estafa. Under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, the following are the elements of estafa: (1) postdating or issuance of a
checkinpaymentofanobligationcontractedatthetimethecheckwasissued(2)lackorinsufficiencyoffundsto
coverthecheckand(3)damagetothepayeethereof.24
Petitioner insists that she acted in good faith in her aforesaid dealing with complainant, there being a mutual
creditordebtor relationship necessitating accounting, setoff and settlement between them such that their
relationshipmustbedeemedaspurelycivilinnature. 25Wefindnomeritinthiscontention.Whilepetitionerand
complainantmayhavehadpriortransactions,asearlierexplainedtheyspecificallyagreedonthenatureoftheir
transactionwithrespecttothepiecesofjewelrysubjectofthiscase.Werepeatforemphasisthatthecatenated
acts of petitioner in issuing a bad cheek, in asking for several extensions of time to complete her deposit, in
closing her account with the bank and in subsequently pledging the said jewelry could not but be indubitable
indiciaofbadfaithonherpart.
On her eighth assigned error, petitioner represents that the P43,000.00 check in issue was not for the earrings
and lady's ring involved in the instant case, which was valued at P49,000.00, but for one 4carat diamond ring
subjectmatterofanothercasewhereinshewasacquitted.Itisobvious,ofcourse,thatthesearefactualmatters
raisedbywayofdefense.Definitely,petitionerhastheburdenofevidencethereonbutitdoesnotappearthatshe
hasdischargedthatevidentialonustothesatisfactionofeitherthecourtaquoorrespondentcourt.Theirfactual
findingsareentitledtoourrespectandourevaluationthereofwarrantsacceptanceofthesame.
On the other hand, the prosecution's refutation of petitioner's aforesaid theory inspires and deserves more
credence. It is true that complainant initially appraised the pieces of jewelry in question at P49,000.00 but the
evidenceshowsthatshereducedthepricetoP43,000.00becausepetitioneragreedtopayforthesameoncash
basis.Theprosecutionpointsoutthatthecaseinvolvinga4caratdiamondringwhereinpetitionerwasabsolved
is an entirely different matter from the present case. There were two separate acts of deceit committed on
differentdates,althoughdirectedagainstonlyoneperson.26
1 w p h i1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

5/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992

That petitioner was acquitted by another court in another case involving a different piece of jewelry under a
differentfactualsettingobviouslycannotdictatealikeexculpationundertheprovenfactsoftheinstantcase.At
anyrate,theforegoingcontentionsofthePeoplearebasedonthefactualfindingsofbothlowercourtsand,the
samenotbeingnegatedbytheevidencenorabradedbyanysuggestionofimplausibility,wedonotfeelatliberty
todisturbthesame.
Wedonot,however,agreewiththepenaltyimposedbythecourtaquoonpetitionerandaffirmedbyrespondent
court.Bothcourtsandthecontendingpartiesthemselvesappeartohavetakentheirbearingsthereonfromthe
penaltiesprovidedbyArticle315,paragraph2(d)oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyPresidentialDecree
No.818,therelevantportionofwhichreads:
lst.Thepenaltyofreclusiontemporaliftheamountofthefraudisover12,000pesosbutdoesnotexceed
22,000pesos,andifsuchamountexceedsthelattersum,thepenaltyprovidedinthisparagraphshallbe
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty
whichmaybeimposedshallnotexceedthirtyyears.Insuchcases,andinconnectionwiththeaccessory
penaltieswhichmaybeimposedundertheprovisionsofthisCode,thepenaltyshallbetermed,reclusion
perpetua27
Said amendment increasing the penalty for this type of estafa under paragraph 2(d) took effect on October 22,
1975whilethecrimechargedinthepresentcaseandofwhichpetitionerwasconvictedtookplaceonOctober7,
1974.Evidently,PresidentialDecreeNo.818cannotbegivenretroactiveeffect,hencethepenaltytobeimposed
onpetitionershallbethatprovidedbythelawatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense28
which,forthecrimeofestafainvolvedinthiscase,wasasfollows:
lstThepenaltyofprisioncorrecional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amountofthefraudisover12,000pesosbutdoesnotexceed22,000pesosandifsuchamountexceeds
thelattersum,thepenaltyprovidedinthisparagraphshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod,addingone
yearforeachadditional10,000pesos,butthetotalpenaltywhichmaybeimposedshallnotexceedtwenty
years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal,asthecasemaybe
Inviewoftheamountinvolvedinthiscase,thebasicprincipalpenaltyshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod,or
six (6) years, eight (8) months and twentyone (21) days to eight (8) years, to which shall be added an
incrementalpenaltyoftwo(2)yearssincetheamountofthedefraudationisP43,000.00.Theminimumrangeof
theindeterminatesentenceshallconsistofthenexttwoperiodsinthegraduatedscaleimmediatelyfollowingthe
penalty prescribed for the crime, 29 that is, prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, or six (6)
monthsandone(1)daytofour(4)yearsandtwo(2)months,tobeimposedinanyperiodofsuchrange.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing petitioner to serve an indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years,eleven(11)monthsandeleven(11)daysofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,toeight(8)years,eight(8)
months and twentyone (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, As thus MODIFIED, the challenged decision
andresolutionofrespondentcourtareherebyAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera,Paras,PadillaandSarmiento,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1

AssociateJusticeJuanA.Sison,ponente,andAssociateJusticesMamaD.BusranandRodolfoA.Nocon
concurring.
2

OriginalRecord,457465.

Rollo,180181.

BriefforthePetitioner,14Rollo,198.

TSN,February14,1975,10.

Exhibit"A"OriginalRecord,108.

TSN,February14,1975,1120.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

6/7

9/5/2015

G.R.No.L55992
8

Ibid.,Id.,22.

Ibid.,Id.,2730.

10

Exhibit"B"OriginalRecord,109.

11

TSN,February14,1975,3137.

12

Ibid.,Id.,3844.

13

OriginalRecord,1.

14

BriefforthePetitioner,23Rollo,198.

15

Ibid.,5Id.,198.

16

Article1371,CivilCode.

17

TSN,February14,1974,2427.

18

Ibid.,Id.,101102.

19

BrieffortheRespondents,8,citingPadilla,RevisedPenalCode,Bk.III,1972ed.,337Rollo,218.

21

Peoplevs.Sabio,Sr.,etal.,86SCRA568(1978),citingCongressionalRecord,Senate,Volume11,No.
37,March20,1967,931937.
21

Vallartavs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,150SCRA336(1987).

22

Peoplevs.Mingoa92Phil.856(1953).

23

Vallartavs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,ante.

24

Peoplevs.Sabio,Sr.,etal.,supra.

25

BriefforthePetitioner,31Rollo,198.

26

BrieffortheRespondents,1011Rollo,220221.

27

Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuacontemplatedintheamendatorydecreeisnotthereclusionperpetua
referredtoinArts.25,27,70and71oftheRevisedPenalCodeandSec.2ofActNo.4103(Indeterminate
SentenceLaw)whichhasadurationof30yearsand,amongothers,disqualifiestheconvictfrom
entitlementtoanindeterminatesentence.
28

Arts.21and22,RevisedPenalCodePeoplevs.Villaraza,etal.,81SCRA95(1978).

29

Arts.61(5)and71,RevisedPenalCode.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_l_55992_1991.html

7/7