Corpuz v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private complainant Danilo Tangcoy was in the business of lending money to casino players. In 1991, petitioner Lito Corpuz approached Tangcoy and offered to sell some of his jewelry on a commission basis. Tangcoy agreed and turned over to Corpuz an 18k diamond ring, a woman's bracelet, and two men's bracelets, with a total value of P98,000.00. They agreed that Corpuz would remit the sale proceeds or return the items if unsold within 60 days. The period expired, but Corpuz failed to comply. When confronted, Corpuz promised to pay the value of the jewelry but failed to do so. Procedural History: An Information for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Corpuz. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the maximum penalty. The CA imposed a maximum term of 8 years of prision mayor, plus an incremental penalty of 1 year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, resulting in a total of 7 additional years, for a total maximum penalty of 15 years. The Petition: Corpuz filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. He argued that: (a) the CA erred in admitting a photocopy of the receipt, violating the Best Evidence Rule; (b) the Information was fatally defective for not specifying a return period and for alleging an incorrect date of the crime's commission; (c) the prosecution failed to prove the element of demand; and (d) his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. During deliberations, the Court En Banc decided to tackle the broader issue of the continued validity of imposing penalties for property crimes based on monetary values established in 1930.
Issue(s)
Procedural: Whether the CA erred in admitting a photocopy of the receipt in violation of the best evidence rule. Procedural: Whether the Information was fatally defective for failing to state a period for return and for alleging the wrong date of the crime's commission. Substantive: Whether the element of demand was sufficiently proven by the prosecution. Substantive: Whether the Court can adjust the penalties for Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC to account for inflation without engaging in judicial legislation.
Ruling
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. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, let a Copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice. Also, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Best Evidence Rule: The Court held that the petitioner waived his objection to the admissibility of the photocopy. The records show that he never objected when the evidence was identified, marked, and testified upon in court. Furthermore, he failed to raise an objection in his Comment to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence. Citing Blas v. Angeles-Hutalla, the Court reiterated the established doctrine that when a party fails to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time it is offered, such objection is considered waived. Therefore, the CA did not err in affirming the trial court's admission of the evidence. On the Defective Information: The Court found the petitioner's argument untenable. It ruled that the Information was substantially complete and that objections to matters of form and substance cannot be made for the first time on appeal. The gravamen of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) is the misappropriation of property to the prejudice of the owner, making the exact time of occurrence not a material ingredient of the crime. The Information's failure to state the precise period for return or its allegation of a slightly different date for the crime's commission did not render it fatally defective, as it still sufficiently apprised the accused of the charges against him. On the Element of Demand: The Court ruled that demand was sufficiently proven. It emphasized that demand need not be formal or in writing; a verbal demand suffices. Citing Asejo v. People, the Court stated that even a mere query as to the whereabouts of the property would be tantamount to a demand. In this case, the private complainant testified that he located the petitioner and asked about the jewelry, to which the petitioner responded with a promise to pay. This interaction was sufficient to establish that a demand was made, thereby satisfying the final element of the crime of Estafa. On Adjusting Penalties for Inflation: The Court held that it cannot modify the range of penalties for crimes against property to account for inflation, as doing so would constitute judicial legislation and violate the principle of separation of powers. The Court reasoned that the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties belongs exclusively to the legislature. While acknowledging the perceived injustice of applying penalties based on 1930s monetary values, the Court stated that the remedy is not judicial re-interpretation. Instead, the proper recourse is provided in Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, which directs the court to report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, any instance where a strict enforcement of the Code results in an excessive penalty, so that legislative amendment may be considered. The Court's primordial duty is to apply the law as written, not to rewrite it.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court cannot alter the penalties for crimes against property, such as Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, to account for inflation, as this would constitute judicial legislation and encroach upon the exclusive power of Congress. The judiciary's role is to apply the law as written. The proper remedy for perceived excessive penalties resulting from outdated monetary values is for the court to furnish a report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, recommending legislative amendment.