CASE: LITO CORPUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.

180016 April 29, 2014

FACTS: Information was filed against Lito Corpuz for the crime of estafa, wherein said Danilo Tangcoy is
engaged in the business of lending money to casino players, that on May 2, 1991 petitioner Lito Corpuz
approached him and offered to sell his jewellery pieces in a commission basis in which Danilo Tangcoy
agreed. He then gave Lito Corpuz several jewelleries that has an aggregate value of P98,000 as evidence
by a receipt. Both agreed that within sixty days Lito Corpuz shall remit the proceeds of the sale or if
unsold shall return the same. Lito Corpuz then promised to pay the value of the said items. On the
information filed by Danilo Tangcoy it was said that Lito corpuz with intent to defraud said Tangcoy
misappropriated, misapply and convert such jewelleries into his personal used. Herein, Lito Corpuz filed
a not guilty plea but the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Tangcoy and sentenced Corpuz guilty of
the crime of estafa and to suffer the penalty of imprisonment under the indeterminate sentence law of
4yrs and 2mons to 14yrs and 8mons. Lito Corpuz appealed to the Court of Appeals where it denied the
appeal and ruled the same, Corpuz then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in their ruling and that the penalty imposed is excessive.

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that indeed the petitioner Lito Corpuz was guilty of the crime of
estafa. In its decision about the punishment the Supreme Court stated that there seems to be a
perceived injustice brought by the range of penalties, but the high court said that they modify the
penalties for that would constitute judicial legislation and that such duty does not belong to the court
but to the legislature. Other Justices has their own opinion as to the punishment, some concurs with the
ponente, others invoked the art 5 of the RPC that in cases of excessive penalties the court shall render
the proper decision and shall report to the chief executive the reasons that such said act should be
made subject of legislation and without suspending the sentence. Justice Carpio in his dissenting opinion
said that the first paragraph of article 315 should be held unconstitutional as it is against article 19(1) of
the Constitution and that according to the universal declaration of human rights "torture, cruel,
degrading and inhuman punishment should be ban", the Philippines was one of the approving
State/community during the UDHR and although is a non-binding instrument, such UDHR forms part of
the Philippine law for it is a generally accepted principle of international law. There seems to be a
perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on
crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of
money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because
that would constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature's perceived failure in amending the
penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court's decisions, as that
would be encroaching upon the power of another branch of the government. This, however, does not
render the whole situation without any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the framers of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including Article 5. This provision is based
under the legal maxim "nullum crimen, nulla poena sige lege," that is, that there can exist no punishable
act except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute. No matter how reprehensible
an act is, if the law-making body does not deem it necessary to prohibit its perpetration with penal
sanction, the Court of justice will be entirely powerless to punish such act. Under the provisions of this
article the Court cannot suspend the execution of a sentence on the ground that the strict enforcement
of the provisions of this Code would cause excessive or harsh penalty. All that the Court could do in such
eventuality is to report the matter to the Chief Executive with a recommendation for an amendment or
modification of the legal provisions which it believes to be harsh.