Title and Citation: Lito Corpuz (Petitioner) vs.

People of the Philippines (Respondent) ;

G.R. No. 180016; April 29, 2014
Facts:
The accused Corpuz received from complainant Danilo Tangcoy pieces of jewelry with
an obligation to sell the same and remit the proceeds of the sale or to return the same if
not sold, within 60 days. The complainant agreed and turned over to petitioner an 18k
diamond ring for men; a woman's bracelet; a men's necklace; and another men's
bracelet, with a total value of P98,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt.
The period expired without petitioner remitting anything or returning the pieces of
jewelry. When Tangcoy was later on able to meet Corpuz, the latter promised the former
that he will pay the value of the said items entrusted to him, but to no avail. This led to
Tangcoy filing a case for estafa with abuse of confidence against Corpuz.
The RTC found him guilty under the felony of estafa under the Revised Penal Codes
Article 315, Par. 1, Sub-par (b). After CA affirmed the RTCs decision, Corpuz presented
to the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari. He argued as follows:
a. The proof submitted by Tangcoy (receipt) is inadmissible for being a mere photocopy.
b. The information was defective because the date when the jewelry should be returned
and the date when crime occurred is different from the one testified to by Tangcoy (05
July 1991 was materially different from the one testified to by the private complainant
which was 02 May 1991)
c. Demand (an element of estafa) from offended party is not proved.
d. Testimony of Tangcoy is not sufficient for conviction
Petition for Review on Certiorari DENIED. However, the penalty was modified by the SC
ranging from 3 years, 2 months and 11 days of prison correctional as minimum, to 15
years of reclusional temporal as maximum.

Issues and Decision/Rationale

1) Issue: Is Corpuz guilty of committing estafa?
Decision: Yes.
Rationale: The CA affirmed the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised
Penal Code. This is such as Corpuz case shows the elements of estafa with abuse
of confidence:
(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 The complainant gave petitioner
the pieces of jewelry in trust as shown in the receipt dated May 2,1991 with an
obligation to sell or return the same within sixty (60) days, if unsold;

(b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the

offender or denial on his part of such receipt and (c) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another There was misappropriation
when petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold, or if no
sale took place, failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed
period despite demand from the private complainant; and
(d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender The
complainant made querys on the whereabouts of the property, but to no avail.
2) Issue: Whether or not the penalty provided for estafa under the Revised Penal Code
is now excessive and thus should be adjusted by the court (given that the value of
money has declined since the 1930s).
Decision: No
Rationale: The SC stated that the issue could not be solved by merely adjusting the
questioned monetary values to the present value of money based only on the
current inflation rate. The court also opined that it has no resources and lacks
personnel to conduct public hearings and surveys to validate effects of changes in
the Revised Penal Code.
It was also raised that it is beyond the powers of the Court to legislate laws because
such power belongs to Congress, and the Court should refrain from crossing this
clear-cut divide. Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code indicates that the Court cannot
suspend the execution of a harsh penalty, as its duty is to merely report to the Chief
Executive, with a recommendation for an amendment or modification of the legal
provisions which it believes to be harsh.

Analysis
The Revised Penal Code of 1930 pegs the penalties for estafa to the amount of fraud
committed as follows:
Amount of the Fraud
1) P22,001 and above

Penalty
=

8 yrs. & 1 day plus 1 year for every

additional P10,000.00 (but not more than 20 years)

2) P12,001 to P22,000

4 yrs., 2 mos. & 1 day to 8 yrs.

3) P6,001 to P12,000

6 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos.

4) P201 to P6,000

4 mos. & 1 day to 2 yrs. & 4 mos.

5) P0.01 to P200

4 mos. & 1 day to 6 mos.

Unmindful of the immense erosion of the purchasing power of the peso, courts have
persisted in literally applying the above table of penalties in fraud cases. As a result,
they in effect mete out heavier penalties from year to year for the commission of exactly
the same offense. This uneven treatment is true in Corpuzs case. The P98,000.00
jewelry items subject of his offense would have a value of only P980 in 1932.
Consequently, had he committed his crime that year, he would have been imprisoned
for only 2 years and 4 months maximum. But since he committed it 43 years later in
1991 when the jewelry items are now valued at P98,000.00 due to inflation, he would be
imprisoned for 15 years maximumthe same crime, the same law, yet a shockingly
higher penalty. This result would undoubtedly deny Corpuz his constitutional right to
equal protection of the law.
The Court is also aware that if the estafa penalties be adjusted in the ratio of P100 now
for every P1 in the 1930s, the mere adjustments in the penalty would be dangerous as
this would result in uncertainties, as opposed to the definite imposition of penalties. This
would result in the Revised Penal Code if the imposed penalties in it would always be
adjusted based on a fluctuating economy.