STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION CASES
1. LITO CORPUZ VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR. No. 180016
April 29, 2014
Lito Corpuz – Petitioner
People of the Philippines - Respondent
PONENTE:
PERALTA
FACTS:
Private Complainant, Danilo Tangcoy met Lito Corpuz at the Admiral Royale
Casino. Danilo was engaged in a businesss of lending money. Upon hearing this,
petitioner offered to sell the said pieces of jewelry by petitioner on a comiision
basis. Danilo agreed and he turned over to the petitioner the following itmes: an
18k diamond ring for men, a woman’s bracelet; one men’s necklace and another
men’s bracelet, with an aggregate of P 98000.
They both agreed that petitioner shall remit the proceeds of the sale, and if
unsold to return the items within a period of 60 days. The period expired and the
petitioner failed to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the jewelry. When
Danilo met the petitioner, the latter promised that he will pay the value of the
items entrusted to him, but to no avail.
Thus, an information was file against the petitioner for the crime of estafa under
the RPC Articl 315 pragraph 1, subparagraph b.
Petitioner with the assistance of his counsel, plead not guilty. The petitioner
testified that Danilo and him were agents of Antonio Balajadia and for every
collection they made, they earn a commission. Petitioner denied having
transacted with Danilo. Although he admitted that he obtained a loan from
Balajadia which he was made to sign a blank receipt and he claimed that the
same receipt was the one used as evidence against him.
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged in the information. Petitioner was charged with deprivation of liberty
consisting of an imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law of FOUR
(4) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correccional in its medium period
AS MINIMUM, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of
Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period AS MAXIMUM; to indemnify private
complainant Danilo Tangcoy the amount of P98,000.00 as actual damages, and
to pay the costs of suit.
The case was elevated to the CA which approved the decision of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated July
30, 2004 of the RTC of San Fernando City (P), Branch 46, is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION on the imposable prison term, such that accused-appellant
shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year
for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of 7 years. The rest of the decision
stands.
ISSUES:
Petitioner, after the CA denied his motion for reconsideration, filed with this Court
the present petition stating the following grounds:
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE
ADMISSION AND APPRECIATION BY THE LOWER COURT OF
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ITS EXHIBITS, WHICH ARE MERE
MACHINE COPIES, AS THIS VIOLATES THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE;
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR
ESTAFA WAS NOT FATALLY DEFECTIVE ALTHOUGH THE SAME DID NOT
CHARGE THE OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 315 (1) (B) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE IN THAT -
1. THE INFORMATION DID NOT FIX A PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE
SUBJECT [PIECES OF] JEWELRY SHOULD BE RETURNED, IF UNSOLD, OR
THE MONEY TO BE REMITTED, IF SOLD;
2. THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME ALLEGED IN THE
INFORMATION AS OF 05 JULY 1991 WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
THE ONE TESTIFIED TO BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHICH WAS 02
MAY 1991;
C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT DEMAND TO RETURN THE SUBJECT
[PIECES OF] JEWELRY, IF UNSOLD, OR REMIT THE PROCEEDS, IF SOLD –
AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE – WAS PROVED;
D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ALTHOUGH -
1. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED ON TWO (2) VERSIONS OF THE
INCIDENT;
2. THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER – ACCUSED IS MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND LOGICAL, CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN
EXPERIENCE;
3. THE EQUIPOISE RULE WAS NOT APPRECIATED IN AND APPLIED TO
THIS CASE;
4. PENAL STATUTES ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE STATE.
RULING
1. The exhibits were properly admitted inasmuch as petitioner failed to object to
their admissibility.
According to petitioner, the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court,
admitting in evidence a receipt dated May 2, 1991 marked as Exhibit “A” and
its submarkings, although the same was merely a photocopy, thus, violating
the best evidence rule. However, the records show that petitioner never
objected to the admissibility of the said evidence at the time it was identified,
marked and testified upon in court by private complainant. The CA also
correctly pointed out that petitioner also failed to raise an objection in his
Comment to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence and even admitted
having signed the said receipt. The established doctrine is that when a party
failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered
in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.
2. The information was not defective inasmuch as it sufficiently established the
designation of the offense and the acts complained of
An information is legally viable as long as it distinctly states the
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions
constitutive thereof. Then Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
provides that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the
name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name
of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the
offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.
In the case at bar, a reading of the subject Information shows compliance with
the foregoing rule. That the time of the commission of the offense was stated
as “ on or about the fifth (5th) day of July, 1991” is not likewise fatal to the
prosecution's cause considering that Section 11 of the same Rule requires a
statement of the precise time only when the same is a material ingredient of
the offense. The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the appropriation or
conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the offender.
Thus, aside from the fact that the date of the commission thereof is not an
essential element of the crime herein charged, the failure of the prosecution
to specify the exact date does not render the Information ipso
facto defective.
3. The prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged.
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
Petitioner argues that the last element, which is, that there is a demand by the
offended party on the offender, was not proved. This Court disagrees. In his
testimony, private complainant narrated how he was able to locate petitioner
after almost two (2) months from the time he gave the pieces of jewelry and
asked petitioner about the same items with the latter promising to pay them.
No specific type of proof is required to show that there was demand.[10] Demand
need not even be formal; it may be verbal.[11] The specific word “demand” need
not even be used to show that it has indeed been made upon the person
charged, since even a mere query as to the whereabouts of the money [in this
case, property], would be tantamount to a demand
With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree with the CA that demand
under this kind of estafa need not be formal or written. The appellate court
observed that the law is silent with regard to the form of demand in estafa under
Art. 315 1(b), thus:
When the law does not qualify, We should not qualify. Should a written demand
be necessary, the law would have stated so. Otherwise, the word "demand"
should be interpreted in its general meaning as to include both written and oral
demand. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to present a written demand as
evidence is not fatal.
4. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ALTHOUGH -
Anent the credibility of the prosecution's sole witness, which is questioned by
petitioner, the same is unmeritorious. Settled is the rule that in assessing the
credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the
trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied
the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case
5. Penalties
The Incremental Penalty Rule (IPR) violates the equal protection clause since
it does not rest on substantial distinctions as P10,000.00 may have been
substantial in the past, but it is not so today, which violates the first requisite;
the IPR was devised so that those who commit estafa involving higher
amounts would receive heavier penalties; however, this is no longer achieved,
because a person who steals P142,000.00 would receive the same penalty
as someone who steals hundreds of millions, which violates the second
requisite; and, the IPR violates requisite no. 3, considering that the IPR is
limited to existing conditions at the time the law was promulgated, conditions
that no longer exist today.
Verily, 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.[38] 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.
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of
monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or
infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only
covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity.
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.
NOTES
If the court finds an act that needs to be repressed, the remedy if to render
the proper decision and report to the Chief Executive through the DOJ. If
an act is already punishable, but the court finds the punishment excessive,
they will also submit to the Chief Executive the need for a legislation to
provide the proper penalty.
nullum crimen, nulla poena sige lege (there can exist no punishable act
except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute.)
Plunder from 100M to 50M
Anti-Money Laundering Act from 1M to 500K
- The equal protection clause requires equality among equals, which is determined
according to a valid classification. The test developed by jurisprudence here and
yonder is that of reasonableness,[27] which has four requisites:
(1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[
- The court therein ruled that three things must be done to decide whether a
sentence is proportional to a specific crime, viz.;
(1) Compare the nature and gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the
penalty; (2) Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same
jurisdiction, i.e., whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or
to less serious penalties; and (3) Compare the sentences imposed for
commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
2. DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS COURT OF APPEALS
GR. 102858 ( July 28, 1997)
Director of Lands – Petitioner
Court of Appeals – Respondent
PONENTE:
Panganiban
FACTS:
Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648
square meters of land under PD No. 1529. It was docketd as LRC 86 and assigned to
Branch 44 of the RTC of Mindoro. However during the pendency of his petition he died.
Hence, his heirs substituted as applicants.
The law registration court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In dismissing the
petition the RTC reasoned that the applicants failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 23 of PD 1529 which requires the applicants to publish the notice of Initial
Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The applicants only published the notice
in the Official Gazette.
The RTC was in view that the court has not acquired legally jurisdiction over the
application for failure to publish.
The respondents appealed to the CA where the CA set aside the decision of the RTC
The director of Lands represented by the SolGen elevated the case to us. This court
notes that the petitioner’s counsel anchored his petition in Rule 65 which is an error
since the remedy should be based on Rule 45 because he is appealing a final
disposition of the CA. Hence it will be treated as Rule 45 and not for certiorari under
Rule 65.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the publication of the notice of initial hearing under PD 1529 Section 23
either mandatory or merely directory?
RULING:
By demands of Statutory construction, the term shall prescribing the work to be done by
the Commissioner of Land Registration is imperative and denoted a mandatory
character.
It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem. 17 Being in
rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as against all persons,
including the state, who have rights to or interests in the property. An in rem proceeding
is validated essentially through publication. This being so, the process must strictly be
complied with.
Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication requirement of the
law. Private respondents did not proffer any excuse; even if they had, it would not have
mattered because the statute itself allows no excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no
authority to dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is unambiguous and its
rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that where the law speaks in
clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or
equivocation; there is room only for application.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application of private respondent for land
registration is DISMISSED without prejudice. No costs.
NOTES:
The public shall be given notice by publication, mailing, and posting
In rem is the latin for against the thing which is why the process of publication
should be complied with since it is the seizure of the land against all persons,
including the state.
Publication in the Official Gazette is jurisdictional, while publication in a
newspaper of general circulation is a requirement for procedural due process.
