SC thumbs down inflation-based

penalties for estafa

By MARK MERUEAS, GMA NewsMay 7, 2014 1:16pm
20 35 0 224



Tags: Supreme Court
Adjusting monetary values related to estafa and similar crimes to present value would not solve the
alleged injustice in imposing penalties set under the country's 84-year-old Revised Penal Code.

In its decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with the position of estafa convict Lito Corpuz, who
insisted during oral arguments on the issue last February that the penalty for property crimes should
be adjusted based on inflation and not on the value of money in the 1930s when the RPC the
countrys general criminal code was crafted.

The high court had earlier taken an initiative to hold oral debates to clear the matter on whether or
not the penalty provided under the RPC should now be considered as disproportionate and
excessively harsh given that the value of money has declined since the 1930s.

The [Revised Penal] Code has an underlying philosophy of proportional retribution, said Corpuz's
lawyer Mario Luza Bautista during the oral debates, adding that the high court should harmonize
the peso value of today to its equivalent value in 1930.

In its ruling, however, the SC said: The solution to the present controversy could not be solved by
merely adjusting the questioned monetary values to the present value of money based only on the
current inflation rate.

Article 315 of the RPC imposes a maximum penalty based on the amount defrauded exceeding
P22,000.

If the money involved exceeds that amount, the RPC states that [T]he penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000, but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed 20 years.

Corpuz was convicted over a P98,000 estafa case. The Court of Appeals then imposed a penalty on
him of four years and two months (minimum) to 15 years (maximum) imprisonment.

Other factors

In its ruling, the SC said that other factors should first be considered and exhaustively researched
before amendments to the law are made, like the effects of such an adjustment on the society, the
injured party, the accused, its socio-economic impact, among others.

However, the court admitted that it is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks sufficient personnel
to conduct public hearings and sponsor studies and surveys to validly effect these changes in our
Revised Penal Code.

The high court pointed out that Congress is the appropriate body to not only conduct such studies,
but also determine what adjustments or amendments should be made.

There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts
continue to impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage
measured by the value of money eighty years ago in 1932, the SC said.

However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial
legislation," it added.

Revised Penal Code

The SC said it would be encroaching on the power of Congress if it corrects Congress' perceived
failure in amending the penalties for such money-related crimes.

The SC also said framers of the RPC seemed to have included a remedy for this problem, through
Article 5.

Article 5 allows the court to submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, a
statement, without suspending the execution of the sentence, saying that a penalty is seen to be as
being excessive.

Dangerous proposal

During the oral arguments, Bautista suggested that the penalties for property crimes like estafa
should be adjusted in the ratio P100 now for every P1 in the 1930s, or P1:P100.

In its ruling, the high court disagreed with Bautista's proposal, saying such adjustment would be
dangerous as this would result in uncertainties, as opposed to the definite imposition of the
penalties.

The court said the RPC would become a self-amending law, if the imposed penalties in it would
always get adjusted based on a fluctuating economy.

"Had the framers of the RPC intended that to be so, it should have provided the same, instead, it
included the earlier cited Article 5 as a remedy," the SC said.

The SC said that the framers of the RPC might have in the first place intended to retain the same
penalties in order to deter further commission of those punishable acts which have increased
tremendously through the years.

In fact, in recent moves of the legislature, it is apparent that it aims to broaden the coverage of
those who violate penal laws. In the crime of Plunder, from its original minimum amount of
P100,000,000.00 plundered, the legislature lowered it to P50,000,000.00, the SC said.

It added: In the same way, the legislature lowered the threshold amount upon which the Anti-Money
Laundering Act may apply, from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00.

The court said the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or
character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration of imprisonment or amount
of fine.

It said such prohibition applies to punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or
obsolete, like those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on
the wheel, disemboweling, and the like.

It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be
obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does
not make it cruel and unusual, the SC said.

Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be
'flagrantly and plainly oppressive,' 'wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock
the moral sense of the community,'" it added.

During oral arguments in February, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta expressed concerns that
adjusting the penalty for estafa would affect not only property crimes but also other crimes like
malversation, meaning a higher amount would need to be involved before an offender becomes
liable for malversation.

Are we giving premiums then to corrupt officials by modifying penalties?" asked Peralta at the time,
to which Bautista replied: "These exceptions may be carved out of the modification."

'Present value'

For his part, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen during oral debates stressed that the high court
should not be "tied up to a certain period like the 1930s."

The magistrate cited two recent Supreme Court cases that explained the economic concept of
"present value," which uses inflation rate to approximate the value of a certain property at a certain
time.

Associate Justice Roberto Abad noted that the high court has had a long history of adjusting
amounts fixed by law to cope with inflation.

For his part, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio stressed that "a law may be constitutional
when enacted, but over the passage of time, it may become unconstitutional" or what Bautista noted
as "relative constitutionality."

Govt defense

In defense of the RPC provision, Senior State Solicitor Florin Hilbay representing the government
said the definition of crimes and imposition of corresponding penalties should be left to the political
departments.

Hilbay said the "prudent and constitutional solution" to the high court's concern on inflation is to refer
the matter to the president.

Hilbay insisted that it is the legislature which determines penalties for crimes, and not the judiciary.
Hilbay added that Congress still considered the current penal scheme as "just."

'Friends' of SC

Valentina Santana-Cruz, Senate legal counsel who was invited as an amicus curiae (a friend of the
court), said the remedy was not adjustment based on inflation but a resort to Article 5 of the Revised
Penal Code on "excessive penalties."

Article 5 states: "[T]he court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,
such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when
a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly
excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense."

Cruz also said there are currently 56 bills seeking to amend the Revised Penal Code but none to
particularly amend Article 315 on estafa.

Manuel "Chel" Diokno, dean of the De La Salle University-College of Law, meanwhile said he thinks
that the "incremental penalty rule" being observed in estafa cases "is not only absurd; it defeats the
purposes of criminal law."

Under the current penalty, a person who commits estafa in an amount exceeding P142,000 will
receive the same penalty as someone who commits estafa involving millions or hundreds of millions
of pesos.

"Is it reasonable that one who commits estafa involving billions of pesos will receive the same
amount of penalty as one who commits estafa involving P143,000 or higher," Diokno asked.

"Is it reasonable that a person who commits estafa or theft of over P142,000 will receive the same
penalty as one who commits homicide or direct assault," he added.

When asked by the justices, what penalty would be put in place in case the high court deems Article
315 of the RPC as unconstitutional, Diokno said: "If the Court should invalidate the incremental
penalty rule, the void as to what penalty should be imposed should be filled by Congress."

University of the Philippines Law professor Alfredo Tadiar, meanwhile, said adjusting the penalty for
estafa based on inflation is not within the power of the high court.

In April 2012, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima formed a committee to conduct a two-phase revision
of the Revised Penal Code because some of its provisions stem from an antiquated general penal
law enacted during the American occupation in 1932.

The new Criminal Code, of which the first of two books has already been written, is a priority project
of the Aquino administration.