People v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza failed to remit Social Security Service (SSS) premium contributions of his employees at Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. from August 1998 to July 1999, amounting to ₱239,756.80, with penalties totaling ₱421,151.09. His defense of economic downturn and shutdown of the company was disbelieved by the trial court. Procedural History: The trial court convicted petitioner for violating Sections 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated August 3, 2010, affirmed the conviction with modification, imposing an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Petitioner voluntarily paid the delinquent contributions in 2007, prior to the Supreme Court's decision, and also notified the CA of this payment. The Petition: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the passage of RA No. 9903 (Social Security Condonation Law of 2009) during the pendency of his case constituted a supervening event entitling him to acquittal. He also invoked the equal protection clause and alternatively prayed for a fine instead of imprisonment.
Issue(s)
Whether the passage of RA No. 9903 constitutes a supervening event warranting acquittal. Whether the petitioner is entitled to acquittal based on the equal protection clause. Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime charged. Whether a fine can be imposed in lieu of imprisonment.
Ruling
The Court partially granted the motion for reconsideration. It affirmed the petitioner's conviction for violation of RA No. 8282, sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. However, the Court waived the petitioner's liability for accrued penalties amounting to ₱181,394.29, pursuant to RA No. 9903. The Court also transmitted the case to the Chief Executive, recommending the grant of executive clemency.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of RA No. 9903 as a supervening event and entitlement to acquittal: The Court ruled that RA No. 9903 does not apply to the petitioner's situation. The law clearly intends to condone only those employers who pay their delinquencies within the six-month period from its effectivity. Since the petitioner paid his delinquent contributions in 2007, which was outside the specified availment period, he cannot benefit from the condonation provision. The Court emphasized that laws granting condonation are strictly construed against applicants, and judicial legislation is abjured. Therefore, RA No. 9903 does not serve as a supervening event for acquittal in this case. On the issue of equal protection: The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that he is entitled to acquittal under the equal protection clause. The Court explained that the guarantee of equal protection does not prohibit reasonable classification. RA No. 9903 creates two classifications: those who pay within the six-month period and those who pay outside it. This classification is based on substantial distinctions and is germane to the law's purpose of encouraging prompt payment. Amplifying the scope of RA No. 9903 to include those who paid outside the period would constitute judicial legislation. Thus, the petitioner, belonging to the latter group, is not similarly situated with those who paid within the period. On whether the prosecution proved all elements of the crime: The Court reiterated that the petitioner's conviction was based on his admission of failing to remit employee contributions to the SSS. This failure to comply with a special law, RA No. 8282, is considered malum prohibitum, rendering defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent immaterial. The conviction was founded on proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the petitioner failed to raise substantial arguments to merit reversal. On the imposition of a fine in lieu of imprisonment: The Court denied the petitioner's prayer to impose a fine instead of imprisonment. Neither RA No. 8282 nor RA No. 9903 grants the Court the authority to exercise this option. The courts are bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper penalty, even if harsh, as mandated by Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The Social Security Condonation Law of 2009 (RA No. 9903) strictly applies only to employers who remit their delinquent contributions within the six-month period from its effectivity; payment outside this period does not entitle an employer to acquittal. However, accrued penalties may be waived for employers who settled arrears before the law's effectivity, based on equity.