Cruel Punishments some pieces of jewelry for sale, petitioner approached him on May

Corpuz v. People 2, 1991 at the same casino and offered to sell the said pieces of
Peralta, J. jewelry on commission basis.
3. Private complainant agreed, and as a consequence, he turned over
to petitioner the following items: an 18k diamond ring for men; a
Summarized by Anton Rodriguez woman's bracelet; one (1) men's necklace and another men's
bracelet, with an aggregate value of P98,000.00, as evidenced by a
receipt of even date.
This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari of petitioner Lito 4. They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the
Corpuz (petitioner), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision and sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the same items, within a period of
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the 60 days.
Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the petitioner guilty beyond 5. The period expired without petitioner remitting the proceeds of the
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. When private complainant
sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code. was able to meet petitioner, the latter promised the former that he
will pay the value of the said items entrusted to him, but to no avail.
Then theres a discussion on penalties nga pala. Because the penalties in
the RPC are based on 80 year old values. Antecedents (acc to defense)

IMPORTANT PEOPLE 1. Petitioner and private complainant were collecting agents of Antonio
Balajadia, who is engaged in the financing business of extending
Petitoner Corpuz loans to Base employees. For every collection made, they earn a
Private Complainant Tangcoy commission. Petitioner denied having transacted any business with
Amicus Curiae Dean Diokno private complainant.

2. He admitted obtaining a loan from Balajadia sometime in 1989 for

FACTS which he was made to sign a blank receipt. He claimed that the
1. Petitioner was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), same receipt was then dated May 2, 1991 and used as evidence
sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code. against him for the supposed agreement to sell the subject pieces
2. the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the of jewelry, which he did not even see.
crime charged in the Information.
3. The case was elevated to the CA, however, the latter denied the
appeal of petitioner and affirmed the decision of the RTC. ISSUE with HOLDING

Antecedents (acc to prosecution) 1. (Procedural) Was there a violation of the best evidence rule?
Yes, but this was waived.
1. Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy and petitioner met at the a. According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the
Admiral Royale Casino in Olongapo City sometime in 1990. ruling of the trial court, admitting in evidence a receipt
2. Private complainant was then engaged in the business of lending dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit "A" and its
money to casino players and, upon hearing that the former had
1
 submarkings, although the same was merely a the time he gave the pieces of jewelry and asked
photocopy, thus, violating the best evidence rule. petitioner about the same items with the latter promising
to pay them.
b. the records show that petitioner never objected to the
4. (Substantive) Were all elements of the crime proven by the
admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was prosecution? Yes.
identified, marked and testified upon in court by private a. Private complainant gave petitioner the pieces of jewelry
complainant. The CA also correctly pointed out that in trust, or on commission basis, as shown in the receipt
petitioner also failed to raise an objection in his dated May 2, 1991 with an obligation to sell or return the
Comment to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence same within sixty days, if unsold. There was
and even admitted having signed the said receipt. 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
2. (Procedural) Was the information defective? No. within or after the agreed period despite demand from
a. Petitioner contends that the Information does not contain the private complainant, to the prejudice of the latter.
the period when the pieces of jewelry were supposed to
be returned and that the date when the crime occurred 5. (Substantive) Is it appropriate for the court to impose penalties
was different from the one testified to by private on crimes against property based on values from 1930 when
complainant. the RPC was enacted? Yes, remedy is through Art 5, RPC.

b. SC says that the information was substantially complete. a. this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties
Also, in the crime charged the time of occurrence is not because that would constitute judicial legislation.
a material ingredient, hence, the exclusion of the period What the legislature's perceived failure in amending the
and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot be
reflected in the Information, do not make the latter fatally remedied through this Court's decisions, as that would
defective. be encroaching upon the power of another branch of the
c. Info was complete as it indicated government. This, however, does not render the whole
i. the acts or omissions complained of as situation without any remedy. It can be appropriately
constituting the offense; presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code
ii. the name of the offended party; had anticipated this matter by including Article 5.
iii. the approximate time of the commission of the
offense, and the place wherein the offense was b. Under the provisions of this article the Court cannot
committed. suspend the execution of a sentence on the ground
that the strict enforcement of the provisions of this
3. (Substantive) Was the last element of Estafa under par 1(b) Code would cause excessive or harsh penalty. All
“that there is a demand made by the offended party on the that the Court could do in such eventuality is to report
offender” present? Yes. the matter to the Chief Executive with a recommendation
a. Petitioner argues that the last element was not proved for an amendment or modification of the legal provisions
b. SC disagrees. Private complainant narrated how he was which it believes to be harsh
able to locate petitioner after almost two months from
2
c. There is an opinion that the penalties provided for in existing conditions at the time the law was
crimes against property be based on the current inflation promulgated, conditions that no longer
rate or at the ratio of P1.00 is equal to P100.00. exist today.
However, this would be dangerous because:
i. this would result in uncertainties, as opposed to ii. However, the Court notes that this opens more
the definite imposition of the penalties questions than answers and so the matter must
ii. he economy fluctuates and if the proposed be left to the legislature.
imposition of the penalties in crimes against
property be adopted, the penalties will not cease e. Dean Diokno also contends that Article 315 of the
to change, making the RPC, a self-amending Revised Penal Code constitutes cruel and unusual
law. punishment.
iii. In crimes like Theft or Estafa where the penalty is
based on the amount, the gap between the i. With the numerous crimes defined and penalized
minimum and the maximum amounts would be under the Revised Penal Code and Special
too wide and the penalty imposable would no Laws, and other related provisions of these laws
longer be commensurate to the act committed affected by the proposal, a thorough study is
and the value of the thing stolen or the damage needed to determine its effectivity and necessity.
caused (for example in theft, theft of 12,000 will There may be some provisions of the law that
become 1,200,000 but will still only be punished should be amended; nevertheless, this Court
by prision mayor) is in no position to conclude as to the
intentions of the framers of the Revised Penal
d. An argument raised by Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno is Code by merely making a study of the
that the incremental penalty provided under Article 315 applicability of the penalties imposable in the
of the RPC violates the Equal Protection Clause. present times. Such is not within the
i. He contends it does not rest on substantial competence of the Court but of the Legislature
distinctions because which is empowered to conduct public hearings
1. P10,000.00 may have been substantial in on the matter, consult legal luminaries and who,
the past, but it is not so today, which after due proceedings, can decide whether or not
violates the first requisite of reasonability to amend or to revise the questioned law or other
of classification; laws, or even create a new legislation which will
2. the IPR was devised so that those who adopt to the times.
commit estafa involving higher amounts
would receive heavier penalties; however, ii. the primordial duty of the Court is merely to
this is no longer achieved, because a apply the law in such a way that it shall not
person who steals P142,000.00 would usurp legislative powers by judicial
receive the same penalty as someone legislation and that in the course of such
who steals hundreds of millions, which application or construction, it should not make or
violates the second requisite; supervise legislation, or under the guise of
3. and, the IPR violates requisite no. 3, interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort,
considering that the IPR is limited to
3
 remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a application of the law has no legal basis and
construction which is repugnant to its terms directly runs counter to what the law provides

f. On civil indemnity i. Using the death penalty as an example, the Court notes
i. Technically not a fine so the Court may impose that there is no more cruel punishment than the death
or increase it accordingly. penalty.
ii. it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law only i. Yet still, from the time the death penalty was re-
imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil imposed until its lifting in June 2006 by Republic
indemnity, which is P3,000.00. The law did not Act No. 9346 the Court did not impede the
provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum imposition of the death penalty on the ground
amount for the award cannot be changed, that it is a "cruel punishment" within the
increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity purview of Section 19 (1), Article III of the
can be validly modified and increased when the Constitution.
present circumstance warrants it ii. Ultimately, it was through an act of Congress
iii. Moral Damages are also not fixed and may be suspending the imposition of the death penalty
imposed by the Court that led to its non-imposition and not via the
intervention of the Court.

g. Some may view the penalty provided by law for the j. For the court to have discretion in changing penalties
offense committed as tantamount to cruel punishment. when it deems said penalty as cruel would be violative of
i. However, all penalties are generally harsh, being due process because
punitive in nature. i. the State and the concerned parties were not
ii. Whether or not they are excessive or amount to given the opportunity to comment on the subject
cruel punishment is a matter that should be left to matter
lawmakers. It is the prerogative of the courts ii. it is settled that the constitutionality of a statute
to apply the law, especially when they are cannot be attacked collaterally because
clear and not subject to any other constitutionality issues must be pleaded
interpretation than that which is plainly directly and not collaterally, more so in the
written present controversy wherein the issues never
touched upon the constitutionality of any of
h. Justice Antonio Carpio’s opinions is that the incremental the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
penalty provision should be declared unconstitutional
and that the courts should only impose the penalty iii. Besides, cruel punishments refer to form or
corresponding to the amount of P22,000.00, regardless character of the punishment rather than its
if the actual amount involved exceeds P22,000.00 severity in respect of duration or amount, and
i. A conundrum in the regular course of criminal applies to punishments which public sentiment
justice would occur when every accused has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance,
convicted of the crime of estafa will be meted those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the
penalties different from the proper penalty that pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the
should be imposed. Such drastic twist in the wheel, disemboweling, and the like. Fine and
4
 imprisonment would not thus be within the
prohibition.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

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.

Doctrine – read Issue 5