Corpuz v.

People
29 April 2014 | Peralta, J. | Rule 45 certiorari | I. General principles – B. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege | Conejero

PETITIONER: Lito Corpuz

RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines

SUMMARY: Corpuz offered to sell jewelry which Tangcoy was selling, for a commission, and after failing to return the goods or
remit the proceeds within 60 days, promised Tangcoy he would pay. After demand went unsatisfied, Corpuz was sued and convicted
for estafa. The imposable penalty was disputed by several justices who believed the Court must take current factors such as inflation
when imposing the penalty (based on 1932 values of money as approximations for damage). The Court held that it must impose the
penalties based on Article 315 of the RPC in relation to Article 65, quoting Guillermo Guevara’s book, Commentaries on the Revised
Penal Code regarding Article 5 that the duty of the court is merely to report to the Chief Executive, with a recommendation for an
amendment or modification of the legal provisions which it believes to be harsh, “based under the legal maxim "nullum crimen, nulla
poena sige lege," that is, that there can exist no punishable act except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute.

DOCTRINE: See Issue/Ratio 3. 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. The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and
spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose. Succinctly put, the Court should shy away from encroaching upon
the primary function of a co-equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an inexcusable breach of the doctrine of
separation of powers by means of judicial legislation.

SEPARATE OPINIONS: Brion concurred, saying thr ''plain meaning rule" and the principle of separation of powers prevented the
SC from judicially legislating a new penalty. Both Sereno and Leonen concurred and dissented as they voted to affirm the conviction
but recompute the penalty, saying that jurisprudence and statutory construction both permit recomputation. Carpio and Abad,
dissenting separately, stated that the penalty in Art 315(1) is unconstitutional for violating the proscription against cruel punishment.

guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to

FACTS:
1. Petnr. Corpuz seeks to reverse his RTC San Fernando
conviction for estafa [Article 315(1)(b) RPC1] (30 Jul
2004) and the CA Decision and Resolution (Mar 22
and Sept 5, 2007) affirming the same.
2. On May 2, 1991 Danilo Tangcoy was approached by
and entrusted to Corpuz ₱98k worth of jewelry items2
for the latter to sell on commission. Corpuz was to tum
over either the proceeds or the items after 60 days.
3. Corpuz neither remitted the stated proceeds nor
returned what he got after 60 days. He promised
Tangcoy he would pay the value but did not.
Consequently, the Public Prosecutor of Olongapo
charged him with estafa before the RTC.
4. Corpuz said at trial that he and Tangcoy were
collecting agents of Antonio Balajadia, a financer of
loans to Base employees. Corpuz said he signed a
blank receipt dated 2 May 1991 to obtain a loan from
Balajadia in 1989, which was being used to frame him.
5. After trial, the RTC on 30 July 2004 found petitioner
pay 98k plus serve a minimum 4y 2m prison
correccional in the medium period to a maximum 14y
8m reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
6. The CA denied Corpuz’s appeal but changed the
penalty to 4y 2m prison correccional as minimum, to
8y prison mayor as maximum, plus 7 years (a year for
each additional P10k over P22k).
7. Corpuz filed with the SC this petition saying that there
was a best evidence violation due to photocopy
evidence, a fatal defect in the information for estafa,
and insufficient evidence—it was denied.
ISSUE/RATIO:
1. Whether the crime of estafa was proven—YES.
 Whether Corpuz may submit objection to photocopy
evidence—NO, as he waived it by not raising it at
testimonial identification of the evidence.
 Whether the information for estafa was defective—
NO, as the period for return of the jewelry is not material
to the crime and was sufficiently approximated as

1
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned hereinbelow… 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence, namely: (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;
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.
2
The pieces of jewelry were an 18k diamond ring for men worth ₱45k; a 2-baht
[one baht = 15.244 grams] woman's bracelet worth ₱12k; one (1) men's
necklace and a 3-bath men's bracelet worth ₱25k.
 substantial compliance.
 Whether asking about the jewelry was sufficient
demand—YES. Tancoy testified that he located Corpuz
after 2 months and “talked to him about the items he
gave,” but was “promised he would pay the amount..
Demand need not be formal or written; even a verbal
query is demand as the law does not qualify, and even so
the crime may be proven by other evidence (Tubb v.
People). Prosecution herein proved misappropriation
with the 2 May 1991 receipt, and its witness was credible
by both CA and RTC findings.
2. Whether the penalty imposed was appropriate—NO. The
penalty imposed should be 3y 2m 11d prison correccional
as minimum, to 15y reclusion temporal as maximum. Based
on People v. Cosme: under Art. 315, estafa is punished by
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is 12,001-
₱22k; if such exceeds ₱22k, the penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period, adding 1 year up to 20 years for each
additional ₱10k pesos (prision mayor/reclusion temporal).
 Maximum: Prisión correccional maximum to
prisión 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. Here, the maximum penalty
imposable should be within the maximum period of
6y 8m 21d to 8y of prision mayor. Article 315 also
states that a period of one year (up to a max 20
years) shall be added to the penalty for every
additional ₱10k defrauded over ₱22k.₱98k is ₱76k
or 7 times more than the ₱22k ceiling set by law, so
the maximum period of 6y 8m 21d to 8y of prision
mayor minimum would be increased by 7 years. The
maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8
years, plus 7 years, makes the maximum 15 years.
 Minimum term of the indeterminate sentence: 6
to m 1d to 4y 2m after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, since the penalty for estafa is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum,
and the penalty next lower is prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods.
2. Whether the Court may adjust penalties fixed by law—
NO. The Court here went into a long discussion about the
correct penalties to be imposed because they were
excessive, as based on the amount of damage measured by
the value of money in 1932. It decided that it could not
modify the said range of penalties as it would be judicial
legislation. It would be encroachment to remedy the
legislature's failure in amending penalties through judcicial
decisions. Article 5 RPC provides that in case of excessive
penalties, the Court shall render the proper decision and
report to the Chief Executive reasons for legislative action. 3
DISPOSITIVE: Petition DENIED. CA and RTC affirmed with
MODIFICATION that the penalty is the indeterminate penalty
3
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,
of imprisonment ranging from 3y 2m 11d of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 15y of reclusion temporal as
maximum. Pursuant to Article 5 RPC, let a Copy of this
Decision be furnished the President, through the DOJ; also, the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the HOR
CONCURRENCE: Brion
o Present day application of the 1930 values will not result
in the denial of Corpuz' s right to equal protection.
o The permissible solution to perceived disparity between
the prescribed penalty and the crime in light of he present
values of money and property is the President’s grant of
executive clemency through pardon or parole.
o I disagree that the incremental penalty for estafa is
unconstitutional as a cruel and unusual punishment; Lim v.
People and People v. Tongko prove otherwise.
o Some statutes increased the penalties for estafa under
certain conditions despite the then already declining
monetary value on account of inflation: (1) Presidential
Decree No. 818 (enacted in October 22, 1975) increased
the penalties in cases of estafa resulting from bouncing
checks under Article 315(2)(d); and (2) Presidential Decree
No. 1689 (enacted on April 6, 1980) increased the penalty
for certain forms of estafa under Articles 315 and 316.
o Justice Abad’s view is not agreeable: (1) the modification
of the penalty transgressed the clear intent of the legislature
as the adjustment for inflation is not supported by the letter
of Article 315 of the RPC nor by its intent; (2) in adjusting
for inflation the monetary values to modify the penalties
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING: Sereno and Leonen
 Sereno: Inaction would erroneously endanger the
accused’s right to liberty contrary to the presumed
intention of the legislature, and the law must be
construed in favor of the accused.
o Money is an assigned representation, similar
to People v. Pantoja (1968) on compensatory
damages for death, where the Court
explained that P9k was imposed based on the
pre-war purchasing power. The NCC in post-
war 1950 imposed P3k damages since the
peso was 1/3rd pre-war value. As the Court
then found the 1968 peso as 1/4th the pre-war
purchasing power, damages were set at P12k.
o The purchasing power of the peso was
accepted as a "judicially manageable
standard": for adjustment of penalty,
valuation in expropriation cases, penalties in
criminal cases, and damages and indemnities.
o The Court must construe criminal rules in
favor of the accused, as based on the equally
vital doctrine of presumption of innocence.
o Article 10 of the Civil Code states: "In case
of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail."
 Leonen: We must reflect the purchasing power of
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.
 the peso after 80yrs, as part of construing the law.
o The gravity of a crime where someone was
defrauded of ₱50 of property in 1932 is not
the same as the gravity of the same offense in
2014. Even the inflation rate can be derived
from comparing one year’s price index with
another year’s price index. same index from
one year to the next. Price index is the
"measure of the average level of prices," the
most common being the Consumer Price
Index (1948).
DISSENTS: Carpio and Abad
 Carpio: Penalty should be 3y 1m 11d prision
correccional, as minimum, to 4y 9m 11d of prision
correccional, as maximum; and the portion of the first
paragraph of Article 315 RPC is unconstitutional for
being violative of Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting cruel punishment as well as
the UDHR in 1948 and the ICCPR in 1986.
o Jurisprudence shows standards of
disproportionality for the threshold for the
breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause.
Punishments that "shock public sentiment
and violate the judgment of reasonable
people" or "[are] flagrantly and plainly
oppressive" are violative of the Clause.
o Impermissible disproportionality is gauged
by using alternative parameters: (1) whether
more serious crimes are equally or less
severely punished; or (2) whether the
punishment reasonably advances the state
interest behind the penalty.
o Article 315 of the Code calibrates the
maximum penalty for estafa on an escalated
basis of one year imprisonment for every
₱10k fraud, with 20 years as ceiling. For a
fraud of ₱98k, the trial court sentenced
petitioner to a maximum term of 15 years
(within the range for homicide or kidnapping
and 3-day detainment). By imposing a level
of punishment for estafa equal to more
serious crimes against persons such as
homicide and kidnapping, Article 315’s
system of calibration is arbitrary and
disproportionate to the severity of the crime
punished. Crucially, the calibration does not
take into account the real value of the peso.
o The enormous disparity in the values of fraud
between these points in time (exceeding
100%) and the imposition of the same level
of maximum punishment in both instances
remove any semblance of reasonability in the
manner by which the punishment is derived
and its connection to the purpose of the law.
The arbitrary differential treatment of estafa
(and theft) crosses the line separating the
exercise of valid legislative discretion and the
Cruel Punishment Clause.
 Abad: The penalty should be the indeterminate
penalty to 2m arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 y 8m
prision correccional, as maximum, entitling him to
probation under Colinares v. People.
o As a general principle, RPC crimes carry the
same penalties whatever year the accused
commits them (e.g. mutilation of a Philippine
coin in 1932 and in 2014 would still mean the
same 2 year and 4 month maximum penalty).
But proportional correspondence between the
gravity of the offense and severity of the
penalty changes for RPC crimes re: property.
o There is violation of the equal protection
clause in comparing uneven treatment: ₱98k
jewelry items subject of his offense would be
valued at ₱980 in 1932 when he would have
been imprisoned for only 2y 4m maximum,
but in 1991 he gets a 15 years maximum.
o Carpio’s view annuls the incremental penalty
but maintain the validity of the basic
penalties for fraud. The uniform adjustment
in the base amounts using the PSA formula
(from a 2013 study) of ₱1 in 1949 to ₱100 in
2013 will maintain uniform levels of
legislative indignation or outrage over the
wrongs committed in these crimes.
o The clear intent of the law can be given by
"harmonizing" the law or "aligning the
numerical figures to the economic realities.
 When the Code Commission drafted
the Civil Code in 1949, it fixed the
new minimum civil indemnity for
death to ₱3k but the Court in the
light of inflation t ₱75k in 2009.
 The Court emphasized in People v.
Pantoja that these judicial
adjustments are dictated by: "the
difference between the value of the
present currency and that at the time
when the law fixing a minimum
indemnity was passed. Pantoja
explained that, then, the purchasing
power of the peso has declined
further until the rate of exchange in
the free market was U.S. $1.00 to
₱4.00 Philippine pesos.
o In case of doubt the RPC is to be construed in
favor of the accused. While the Court has in
1964 construed the minimum in Article 2206
as subject to adjustment to cope with inflation
although this worked against the accused.
The Court has not similarly constructed to the
favorable, inflation-affected penalty
provisions of Article 315 RPC.