REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
LITO CORPUZ,
Petitioner,
-versus-

G.R. No. 180016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent
x-------------------------------------------------x

AMICUS BRIEF

NATURE OF PETITION

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 22,
2007 finding petitioner Lito Corpuz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Estafa, as well as the Resolution dated September 5, 2007 denying
his motion for reconsideration.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

Lito Corpuz, the petitioner, and Danilo Tangcoy worked as collection

agents for JBL, Inc. Tangcoy is also engaged in the buying and selling of
jewelry as a sideline. One day, petitioner agreed to sell jewelry on
commission for Tangcoy within sixty days. The period lapsed, yet petitioner
failed to remit the sale proceeds and return the remaining jewelry. Upon
Tangcoys demand, petitioner promised payment and restitution but
ultimately failed to do so. Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial
Court of Olongapo City of Estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed conviction
with modification of penalty to four years and two months of prision
correcional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum, with
incremental penalty of one year for each additional P10,000.00 for a total
maximum of 15 years.

Page 1 of 5

ISSUES

1. Should the penalty for Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa) be
altogether pronounced unconstitutional for being disproportionate and
excessively harsh considering deterioration of peso?
2. If found to be unconstitutional, may the Supreme Court modify the
penalty imposed taking into account the deterioration of peso from 1932 to
2013?

ARGUMENTS
1. As to the first issue, this Honorable Court should not pronounce the
unconstitutionality of the penalty for Article 315 for both substantive and
procedural reasons.
Procedurally, the present case does not fulfill the indispensable
elements to summon the Courts power to declare the provision
unconstitutional through its power of judicial review.
The Supreme Courts power to nullify unconstitutional laws is
unquestionable. In Juan Antonio, et. al vs. Hon. Factoran, Jr. [G.R. 101083,
July 30, 1993], this court clarified the extent of the Supreme Courts power
of judicial review: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
However, it is similarly doctrinal that the Supreme Courts power of
judicial review is not absolute. As ruled in Francisco Jr. vs. House of
Representatives [G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003] the power of
judicial review, like almost all powers granted by the Constitution, is subject
to several limitations, namely: ( 1) an actual case or controversy calling for
the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have
"standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case. In the case at hand, the issue of Article 315s
constitutionality was not raised before the appellate court. It is therefore, not
the lis mota of the case and consequently unable to fulfill all the requisites
for judicial review. The apparent failure to raise the issue renders the
discussion superfluous.
Page 2 of 5

Substantively, the present case does not violate any constitutional

provision including the unusual punishment clause.
The petitioner contends that Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
punishing the crime of Estafa, runs counter to the Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution particularly sections 1 and 19, the equal protection clause and
the unusual punishment clause respectively. Petitioners argument rooted
from his peso value formula computed as P1.00 in 1932 to P100.00 in 2013.
It cannot be denied that there is a significant peso decline in the span of
approximately 81 years. What contributed greatly to the massive inflation of
peso of Philippine peso was the belligerent Japanese occupation during
World War II. Nevertheless, the discrepancy in money value does not
constitute an infringement to the right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Sec.19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides, Excessive
fines shall not be imposed, nor degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall the 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 (italics
mine).
The degrading or inhuman punishment must initially be construed in
obedience to prevailing jurisprudence. In the case of People vs. Estoista [93
Phil. 674], this Court elucidated that 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. If petitioners
formula be applied, the maximum penalty of 15 years will be decreased to 2
years and 4 months maximum. Petitioners additional penalty of 13 years
and the overall penalty for Estafa, as considered with the decline of peso
may be disproportionate, but it is far from the nature as to shock the moral
sense of the community.
Furthermore, pronouncing the provision unconstitutional based on
peso value discrepancy will pave the way to more requests of considerations
in penalty imposition, particularly economic considerations. The change in
peso value is just as valid a ground as an offenders annual income, number
of his dependents or even the net worth of the offended party. This projected
leniency turns astray to the intention of the legislation. The Revised Penal
Code, although must be construed in favor of the criminal, was enacted to
penalize and punish. If economic considerations be granted, such will
definitely bolster mitigating circumstances afforded by the same statute. It
will be easy to imagine how fearless a Class D offender would remain after
misappropriating buy-and-sell proceeds worth no more than a hundred
thousand from a multi-millionaire businessman. The offender will suffer,
nay, undergo lighter penalties because the economy is poor, he himself is
poor and his victim is nowhere near poor.
Page 3 of 5

2. With regard to the second issue, this Honorable Court cannot modify the
penalty imposed for it would ultimately effect the uncalled for interpretation
of the provision anent the value of the thing swindled to prevailing prices in
1932 when the Revised Penal Code was enacted.
Verbal legis is a rule in statutory construction that limits one to literal
interpretation when the law is not ambiguous. This Court could not
emphasize this rule more strongly in a roll of decisions. One to note is the
decision in Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Municipality of Naga [24 SCRA
708] were it was settled, that when the law is clear and free from any doubt
or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be
punished by: First. The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000
pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided
in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under
the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor
or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The penalties imposed for Estafa, inclusive of the monetary values,
are clear and unambiguous, leaving no doubts as to its interpretation. The
penalty for Estafa, being clear and categorical does not call for any
construction through a modification based on current peso value. In addition
to, it as dogmatic, that the first duty of the Court is to apply the law where
interpretation is unnecessary for an uncalled for interpretation may lead to
judicial legislation.
If this Honorable Court would persist otherwise, it will turn its back
to the tenets of statutory construction and eventually trespass into the
dwellings of legislations. Nowhere in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
is an open door welcoming the modification of penalty. So, as the petitioner
knocks for a more favorable interpretation, the judicial branch cannot answer
gladly. However, should he opt to visit the legislative houses, the receipt
may be more hospitable.
In the Comment of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., a house bill has
been launched yearning to recodify the eight-decade-old statute. Part of the
Page 4 of 5

bills key feature is the tabular scale of principal, alternative and accessory
penalties as well as restorative justice measures. This, among others, will
address archaic and redundant provisions. If this bill will be passed by 2015
as projected, a decision favoring the petitioner may very well be of little
value as peso value adjustments, through the proposed legislation, will be in
order. Following, petitioners recommended conversion formula of P1.00 in
1932 to P100.00 in 2013, it is assumed that the amount he swindled will then
be valued at P980.00 and the penalty should be lowered to 2 years and 4
months maximum. If this Court would agree with the petitioner his longest
duration of imprisonment will be two years. If this Court will pass upon
judging the constitutionality of the code and let the Congress pass the law
revising the penal statute, his longest duration of imprisonment will still be
two years. But, the latter alternative frees this Court from the risk of judicial
legislation.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully submitted that
the Petition dated November 5, 2007 be denied.
Bacolod City for Manila, 12 March 2014
1350017
Amicus Curiae

Page 5 of 5