People v. Crisostomo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jesus L. Crisostomo was charged with estafa under Article 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on September 16, 1945, Crisostomo sold a parcel of land for P15,000.00 to spouses Teodoro Faustino and Regina Pangan, representing in the deed of sale that the property was free from all liens and encumbrances. However, the property was previously mortgaged to one Antonio Villarama, a fact known to Crisostomo but not to the vendees. The vendees discovered the encumbrance in 1953. The property was later sold at public auction due to foreclosure proceedings, causing damage to the spouses in the amount of P15,000.00. Procedural History: On September 3, 1959, an information was filed. On October 18, 1959, the accused moved to quash the information, arguing that the offense had already prescribed. The prosecution contended that the offense prescribes in 15 years, while the defense argued for 5 years. The trial court, after considering the pleadings, issued an order dismissing the case, holding that the offense had prescribed. The trial court reasoned that the penalty of arresto mayor prescribes in 5 years, and the fine, being an additional penalty and not an alternative one, should not be the basis for computing prescription, unlike in the Basalo case. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal order, questioning the trial court's computation of the prescriptive period for the offense charged.
Issue(s)
Whether the prescriptive period for a crime punishable by a compound penalty of imprisonment and a fine should be based on the correctional prison term (arresto mayor) or the afflictive fine, as dictated by Articles 26 and 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, holding that the crime had not prescribed. The case was remanded for appropriate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that when the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides for a compound penalty consisting of both imprisonment and a fine, the highest penalty among them must be the basis for computing the prescriptive period. Under the last paragraph of Article 90 of the RPC, when the penalty fixed by law is compound, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules of prescription. In this case, the penalty for estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 is arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the value of the damage and not more than three times such value. Since the damage was P15,000.00, the imposable fine ranges from P15,000.00 to P45,000.00, which Article 26 of the RPC explicitly classifies as an 'afflictive penalty' because it exceeds P6,000.00. The Court clarified that a fine is a principal penalty and is not subordinate to imprisonment; Article 26's classification applies to fines regardless of whether they are imposed alone, alternatively, or conjunctively. Therefore, applying the rule in People v. Basalo and People v. Rufo Cruz, the afflictive fine is the 'highest penalty' in the compound, and the corresponding prescriptive period is fifteen years under Article 90. Consequently, whether the period began in 1945 (the date of the act) or 1953 (the date of discovery), the information filed in 1959 was timely.
Main Doctrine
When the penalty for an offense is a compound one, consisting of imprisonment and fine, the penalty that is higher, whether imprisonment or fine, shall be the basis for computing the period of prescription of the crime. A fine is considered afflictive if it exceeds P6,000.00, correctional if it does not exceed P6,000.00 but is not less than P200.00, and light if it is less than P200.00.