LITO CORPUZ, petitioner vs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

[G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014.]

(ARTICLE 3, SECTION 19, 1987 CONSTITUTION)

(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it, Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

FACTS:
➔ According to Tangcoy, accused Corpuz signed a receipt and received from
Tangcoy pieces of jewelry with an obligation to sell the same and shall
remit the proceeds of the sale, and/or, if unsold, to return the same items,
within a period of 60 days.
◆ One (1) Men’s diamond ring, 18k, worth P45,000.00
◆ One (1) three-baht men’s bracelet, 22k, worth P25,000.00
◆ One (1) two-baht ladies’ bracelet,22k, worth P12,000.00
➔ The period expired without Corpuz remitting the proceeds of the sale or
returning the pieces of jewelry.
➔ When Tangcoy was 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.
➔ Thus Tangcoy filed against Corpuz for the crime of ESTAFA.
➔ Corpuz entered a plea of not guilty and argued as follows:
 ◆ The receipt presented by Tangcoy was merely a photocopy, thus,
violating the best evidence rule.
◆ The information does not contain the period when the pieces of
jewelry were supposed to be returned and the date when the crime
occured was different from the one testified by Tangcoy.
◆ That the last element of estafa (that there is a demand made by the
offended party on the offender) was not proved.
➔ On July 30, 2004 the RTC found Corpuz GUILTY as charged.
➔ On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Corpuz’s conviction but
modified the penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus incremental
penalty of one year for each additional P10,000.00 for a total maximum of
15 years.
➔ While the Court’s Third Division was deliberating on the case, the question
of the continued validity of imposing on persons convicted of crimes
involving property came up. The legislature apparently pegged these
penalties to the value of money and property in 1930 when it enacted the
Revised Penal Code which led to the decision of referring the case to the
Court En Banc (session which the case is heard before all the judges in a
Court) for consideration and resolution.

ISSUES:
If the portion of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code that imposes on
Corpuz in addition to the basic penalty of 8 years and 1 day of imprisonment an
additional incremental penalty of 1 year for each additional P10,000.00 of the
amount of fraud in excess of P22,000.00 violates his constitutional right against
cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment?

RULING:
 Justice Antonio T. Carpio expressed the view, joined by Dean Diokno, that
insofar as Article 315 imposes on Corpuz in addition to the basic penalty of 8
years and 1 day an additional incremental penalty of 1 year for each additional
P10,000.00 of the amount of fraud in excess of P22,000.00, such law
VIOLATES his constitutional right against cruel, unusual and degrading
punishment. Putting a price of P10,000.00, for each additional year of
imprisonment makes the penalty grossly disproportionate to the wrong
committed. This injustice and inhumanity will go on as it has gone on for decades
unless the Court acts to rein it in.

WHEREFORE, the PETITION for Review on Certiorari dated November 5, 2007

of petitioner Corpuz is hereby DENIED.