Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180016 April 29, 2014
LITO CORPUZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
SERENO, CJ.:
The measure of a just society depends not only on how it apprehends and punishes the guilty. It also lies in the dignity and fairness it collectively accords convicted persons who, irrevocably, are still members of that society. The duty of the Court in this case is not only to dispense justice, but to actively prevent injustice wrought by inaction on the question of the continued justness of the penalties under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
I concur with the ponencia in affirming the conviction of petitioner but vote to apply the penalty for estafa adjusted to the present value of the thing subject of the offense. Considering that the penalty has remained untouched for eighty-three years, the Court cannot adhere to its literal imposition without first revisiting the assigned values on which such penalty was based. The Legislature of 1930 pegged the penalties at the prevailing value of money at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal Code. Apart from its representation as a basket of goods or as a means of exchange, money has no independent value by itself, and that is how the law has always seen it. Even this outlook must then necessarily affect our views regarding the liberty of persons and how money affects it.
My colleagues have presented differing approaches supported by equally keen arguments. However, were we to take the convenient route of mechanical application, we would be perpetuating an erroneous result from lamentable inaction. Would this Court abdicate its duty at the risk of endangering the right to liberty of the accused? In the past, the Court has never shirked from its role of interpreting the law, always with a careful consideration of its minimum burden: to prevent a result that is manifestly unjust. That the fundamental right to life and liberty is made to depend solely on Congress or the mere passage of time with respect to an omission is a result the Court should not be prepared to accept.
The legislative intent behind provisions of the Revised Penal Code is to create prison terms dependent upon the value of the property subject of the crime. A prison term is virtually monetized, while an individual’s life and well-being hang in the balance. It is incumbent upon the Court to preserve the intent of Congress while crucially ensuring that the individual’s liberty is not impinged upon any longer than necessary. This is distinct from the situation contemplated under Article 5, par. 2 of the Penal Code,1 in which the Court would need to delve into the wisdom of the law, i.e. the appropriateness of the penalty taking into account the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Thus, the crux of the present case is simple judicial application of the doctrines that in cases of doubt: 1) the law must be construed in favor of the accused, 2) it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. This duty of judicial construction is understood to permeate every corner where the Court exercises its adjudicative function, specifically in how it expounds on criminal rules. To assume that the Court would be changing the penalty imprudently leads to a misplaced apprehension that it dabbles in judicial legislation, when it is merely exercising its constitutional role of interpretation.
Adjusting the amounts to the
present value of money
recognizes that money is
simply an assigned
representation, similar to the
Court’s ruling in People v.
Pantoja.
Ruling in accordance with "felt necessities of the time"2 or in recognition of considerably changed circumstances is not a novel judicial approach. In Central Bank Employees v. BSP, the Court posed this question: Can a provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently unconstitutional on the ground that its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law? The Court thus considered the legal effect of the passage of time, stating:
Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions.
x x x.
In the Philippine setting, this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid law as unconstitutional as a "consequence of significant changes in circumstances." In Rutter v. Esteban, We upheld the constitutionality of the moratorium law – despite its enactment and operation being a valid exercise by the State of its police power – but also ruled that the continued enforcement of the otherwise valid law would be unreasonable and oppressive. The Court noted the subsequent changes in the country's business, industry and agriculture. Thus, the law was set aside because its continued operation would be grossly discriminatory and lead to the oppression of the creditors. "3
It is axiomatic that laws, customs, public policy and practice evolve with the passage of time; so too, does monetary valuation. Money has no value in and of itself except that which we assign, making it susceptible to construction and interpretation. Money is not real in the sense that it is capable of being indexed. Viewed in this way, human lives and liberty cannot be made dependent on a mere index of almost a century ago.
I submit that in the present case, the Court is not even delving into questions of validity of the substance of the statute. This is no different from the Court’s adjustment of indemnity in crimes against persons or the determination of valuation in expropriation cases. We have continually checked penalties in criminal cases, adjusted the amounts of damages and indemnities according to the appropriateness thereof in light of current times. We have done so with eyes open, knowing that the adjustments reflect a realization that the value of the peso has changed over time. If the purchasing power of the peso was accepted as a "judicially manageable standard" in those cases, there is no reason for the Court not to apply it in favor of the accused herein, especially because it is mandated to do so.
In People v. Pantoja, concerning compensatory damages for death, the Court explained this adjustment in uncomplicated terms:
In 1948, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso was one-third of its pre-war purchasing power. In 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, the minimum amount of compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict was fixed in Article 2206 of the Code at ₱3,000. The article repealed by implication Commonwealth Act No. 284. Hence, from the time the New Civil Code took effect, the Courts could properly have awarded ₱9,000 as compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi- delict. It is common knowledge that from 1948 to the present (1968), due to economic circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of exchange now in the free market is U.S. $1.00 to almost 4.00 Philippine pesos. This means that the present purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war purchasing power. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the amount of award of compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should now be ₱12,000."4
I agree with the view of Justice Roberto A. Abad that while Article 2206 of the Civil Code sets only a minimum amount, the Court since then has regularly increased amounts awarded by the lower courts. Tellingly, these decisions and resolutions are not mere suggestions or guidelines for the trial courts’ exercise of discretion, but are actual findings of error.5
Pantoja’s recognition of inflation as a reality – among other instances when the Court has acknowledged "changed conditions" – only shows that criminal rules, especially the implementation of penalties, must also evolve. As societies develop, become more enlightened, new truths are disclosed. The Court as an institution cannot ignore these truths to the detriment of basic rights. The reality is that property-related crimes are affected by external economic forces,6 rendering the penalties vulnerable to these forces.
It is a basic constitutional
doctrine that the slightest
doubt must be resolved in
favor of the accused.
The constitutional mandate is that the Court must construe criminal rules in favor of the accused. In fact, the slightest doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.7 This directive is moored on the equally vital doctrine of presumption of innocence.8 These principles call for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient.9 Time and again, courts harken back to the pro reo rule when observing leniency, explaining: "The scales of justice must hang equal and, in fact should be tipped in favor of the accused because of the constitutional presumption of innocence."10
This rule underpins the prospectivity of our penal laws (laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided) and its exception (laws have prospective application, unless they are favorable to the accused).11 The pro reo rule has been applied in the imposition of penalties, specifically the death penalty12 and more recently, the proper construction and application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The rationale behind the pro reo rule and other rules that favor the accused is anchored on the rehabilitative philosophy of our penal system. In People v. Ducosin, the Court explained that it is "necessary to consider the criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a member of society. This opens up an almost limitless field of investigation and study which it is the duty of the court to explore in each case as far as is humanly possible, with the end in view that penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is possible to the individual, with due regard to the imperative necessity of protecting the social order."13
Thus, with the same legislative intent to shorten a defendant’s term of imprisonment embodied in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, I believe the adjustment of penalties considered in the present case forwards the State’s concern "not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends."14 This approach would be more in accord with the pro reo rule and the overarching paradigm of our penal system.
In past instances, the Court
has not only laid down
guidelines but made actual
policy determinations for the
imposition of penalties.
Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law imposes the penalty of imprisonment of thirty days to one year OR a fine double the amount of the check, or both, at the court’s discretion. In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment meted out by the trial court and imposed only the penalty of fine, reasoning:
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by Section 1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. In this case, we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners.15
The Court did not expressly make a finding that the trial court erred in exercising its discretion, but stated that correcting the penalty would best serve the ends of criminal justice. This policy was applied in Lim v. People,16 which imposed only the fine under B.P. Blg. 22. The Court then issued Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which states:
All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the foregoing policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court Administrator shall cause the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular to all courts and judges concerned.
This Administrative Circular, referred to and approved by the Supreme Court en banc, shall take effect upon its issuance.17
Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 further clarifies that: "The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-₱2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22
xxx such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge."18
Hence, the imposition of a policy on penalties is not far removed from the judicial construction exercised in the present case. Establishing a policy or a rule of preference towards the unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness has always been within the scope of judicial power.
Article 10 of the Civil Code
mandates a presumption that
the lawmaking body intended
right and justice to prevail.
Article 10 of the Civil Code states: "In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail." The Code Commission found it necessary to include this provision to "strengthen the determination of the Court to avoid an injustice which may apparently be authorized in some way of interpreting the law."19
In Salvacion v. Central Bank, the Court warned: "In our predisposition to discover the "original intent" of a statute, courts become the unfeeling pillars of the status quo. Little do we realize that statutes or even constitutions are bundles of compromises thrown our way by their framers. Unless we exercise vigilance, the statute may already be out of tune and irrelevant to our day." Salvacion involved the rape of a minor by a foreign tourist and the execution of the final judgment in the case for damages on the tourist’s dollar deposit accounts. The Court refused to apply Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts foreign currency deposits from attachment, garnishment or any other order or process of any court, because "the law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the case before us."20 Applying Article 10, the Court held: "In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. x x x Simply stated, when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience."21
The majority view states that to embark on this formulation is dangerous, uncertain, or too taxing. Yet even counsel for the House of Representatives admits that inflation can be taken into consideration, and that the values to be used in the conversion are easily available. There is sufficient basis – through the efforts of the authorized statistical organizations22 and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, who collect data year to year – that viably establish the purchasing power of the peso.
More importantly, fear of clogged dockets and the inconvenience of a perceived distortion are operational concerns that are not sufficient justification to re-tilt the scales to the prejudice of the accused. It does not impact on the fact that by adjusting the questioned amounts to the present value of money, the Court would merely be following the mandate of Article 10 and fulfilling its proper constitutional role.
I therefore vote to affirm the conviction of petitioner, but to impose the penalty adjusted to present value, as proposed by Justice Abad.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 "In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense."
2 From the first of 12 Lowell Lectures delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes on November 23, 1880.
3 487 Phil. 531, 564 (2004).
4 134 Phil. 453 (1968).
5 Decision, p. 12.
6 Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, 30 September 2013.
7 People v. Milan, 370 Phil. 493, 506 (1999).
8 1987 Constitution Sec. 14(2) states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved."
9 Mediatrix Carungcong as Administratrix v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010, 612 SCRA 272.
10 People v. Opida, 226 Phil. 218, 226 (1986).
11 Boado, Leonor, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, p. 7, (2008).
12 For a crime committed in 1987, the Court refused to reimpose the death penalty under Republic Act 7659. (People v. Bracamonte 327 Phil. 160, (1996).
13 59 Phil. 109 (1933).
14 Id. at 117.
15 359 Phil. 187 (1998).
16 394 Phil. 844 (2000).
17 Issued on 21 November 2000.
18 The issuance of this Administrative Circular was authorized by the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC at its session on 13 February 2001.
19 Report of the Code Commission, p. 78.
20 343 Phil. 539 (1997).
21 Id., citing Padilla v. Padilla, 74 Phil. 377 (1943).
22 Pursuant to Republic Act 10625, the National Statistics Office is (NSO) now incorporated into the Philippine Statistical Authority, along with the National Statistical Coordination Board and other agencies.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
"Since we cannot change reality,
let us change the eyes which see reality."
Nikos Kazantzakis1
LEONEN, J.:
I concur with the ponencia of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in affirming the conviction of Lito Corpuz. However, I dissent on the penalty imposed by the majority. I do not agree that it is judicial legislation for us to reconsider the range of penalties created by Congress in 1932. The range of penalties for the crime of estafa should be recomputed based on present value.
Our duty is to intepret the law. It is a duty reposed on us by the Constitution. We provide meaning to law's language and make laws written in a different historical context relevant to present reality.2
The meanings of the text of the law limited by the facts presented in the cases that come to us are not arbitrarily determined. We arrive at such meanings as a collegial court aware that we should keep faith in the spirit that the laws have been promulgated. Our ideal should be that we can reflect the political consensus contained in the words approved by Congress and the President but always framed by the fundamental principles and values of our Constitution. Political consensus is not independent of reality. It is there to address that reality.
My sense of the law's spirit is that it is always motivated by what is relevant and what is just under the circumstances.
Viewed in this way, I must dissent in the penalty imposed upon the accused. The pecuniary values that provided the basis for the range of penalties for the crime of estafa (swindling) were the values in 1932. It is clear that the gravity of a crime where someone was defrauded of fifty pesos (₱50.00) of property in 1932 is not the same as the gravity of the same offense for property worth fifty pesos (₱50.00) in 2014. The purchasing power of the peso has significantly changed after eight decades, and it is time that we interpret the law the way it should be: to reflect the relative range of values it had when it was promulgated. In doing so, we are not rewriting the law, just construing what it actually means.
Of course, every interpretation we make on any provision of law occassioned by actual cases will have their own share of difficulties when implemented. This is true when we declare law relied upon by many as unconstitutional, or interpret the provisions of a tax code, or even when we clarify the requirements prescribed by the General Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM). We have always, however, proceeded with the right interpretation and dealt with the difficulties accordingly.
Definitely, an interpretation of a legal provision more beneficial to an accused or a person who is convicted will have a retroactive effect. This should be because such interpretation is corrective in nature. This should not present extremely debilitating difficulties, and we do not have to have special rules. The convicted prisoner could simply file habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy whenever he or she would have served more than what would be required based on our new interpretations. It is also possible for the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Corrections and Parole and Probation Administration to adopt its own guidelines on the release of prisoners. This difficulty is not insurmountable.
I disagree that it will be difficult to find the correct present value for the amounts involved. In Heirs of the Spouses Tria v. Land Bank of the Philippines3 and Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Spouses Tecson,4 we identified the correct formula in our concurring and dissenting opinions. The formula for present value is known and has been relied upon in the business community. Inflation rates may be discovered using the latest statistics extrapolating for the years when there had been no available values. I agree with the approach of Justice Roberto A. Abad in his dissenting opinion in approximating the value already so that we do not need to get unneccessarily entangled in the niceties of the science and art of determining inflation rates.
Even the inflation rate should not present an extraordinarily insurmountable problem even if it should be computed from 1932. Inflation is only the change in price of the same index from one year to the next. Price index is the "measure of the average level of prices,"5 while inflation is the "rise in the general level of prices."6 As long as there is a price index, inflation rate can be derived from comparing one year’s price index with another year’s price index.
The most commonly used price index is the Consumer Price Index. The Philippines began recording the Consumer Price Index in 1948, together with the creation of the Central Bank of the Philippines.7
However, even before the creation of the Central Bank, the Philippines had been recording other price indices that could be used to approximate inflation and give a more precise picture of the price level in 1930, the year the Revised Penal Code was approved. A sectoral price index can be used to substitute the consumer price index. A dominant sector in the Philippines, agriculture, has a price index which pre-dates World War I and covers the years 1902 until 1946.8 Hence, even before the war, for as long as the index compared with one from another is the same index, an inflation rate can be derived.
Law has never been a discipline too autonomous from the other disciplines.1âwphi1 The points of view of those that inhabit the world of economics and finance are not strange to lawyers. The eyes through which the law views reality should not be too parochial and too narrow. Our understanding should instead be open enough to allow us to see more by borrowing from other disciplines. Doing so enhances rather than weakens judicial rigor.
I am not convinced that a ruling that will affect penalties in other crimes where the gravity is measured in pesos will present difficulties too debilitating so as to amount to being unimplementable. I do not see why courts of law cannot simply adopt the universally acceptable formula for present value.
An interpretative methodology for penalties is proposed because of the extraordinary lapse of time from the date of promulgation of the law (1932) to the present. Definitely, we will not be recomputing the penalties for all statutes. I am of the view that the approach for computing the penalties in this case will only be applicable to statutes that have been promulgated and have not been amended for no less than the past eight decades. The world was very different then. A world war intervened. Four different Constitutions with their corresponding amendments were promulgated and took effect. There are now more types of property than could have been imagined at that time.
I hesitate to agree with Justice Carpio's approach to declare the incremental penalties as unconstitutional only because it violates the proscription against cruel and unusual punishments. The approach creatively addresses the unjustness of the present situation but does not have the same elegance of principle that is proposed in the dissent of Justice Abad. Both lead to pragmatic results, and I think that between these two possibilities, we should lean on that which is more consistent with the principle of reflecting the spirit of the law when it was promulgated.
A decision that re-computes penalties to account for present value should not be seen as a judgment of the achievements of Congress. That this was not its priority is a matter that should not concern us. Congress is an entirely separate and autonomous branch of government, and it would be violative of the constitutional fiat of separation of powers for us to imply that updating penal statutes should have been its priority.
Regardless, it is this actual case that confronts us. In my view, adjusting penalties to account for the purchasing power of the peso is entirely within our power. It is not judicial legislation, it is merely interpreting the word "peso" in these range of penalties. It is quintessentially a judicial activity to interpret. We should not default on this duty. We cannot wait another century before a just outcome is to be realized.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to affirm the conviction of the accused. However, I vote that the penalty imposed be two months of arresto mayor as minimum, to one year and eight months of prision correccional, as maximum, in accordance with the computation proposed by Justice Roberto Abad in his dissenting opinion.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Greek writer, poet, playwright, and philosopher, known for his novels such as Zorba the Greek (1946) and The Last Temptation of Christ (1953).
2 Ours is the duty to "interpret the law and apply it to breathe life to its language and give expression to its spirit in the context of real facts." (Emphasis supplied). Tecson v. COMELEC, 468 Phil. 421, 643 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc], dissenting opinion, J. Carpio Morales.
3 G.R. No. 170245, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 188, separate opinion, J. Leonen.
4 G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013, 700 SCRA 243, separate opinion, J. Leonen.
5 P. A. SAMUELSON AND W. D. NORDHAUS, ECONOMICS 439 (Eighteenth Edition).
6 Id.
7 The Central Bank was created by law under Republic Act No. 265 in 1949. Sections 22 to 24 refer to the Department of Economic Research in the Central Bank, mandated, among other responsibilities, to collect "statistics on the monthly movement of the money supply and of prices and other statistical series and economic studies useful for the formulation and analysis of monetary, banking and exchange policies." Because of this, the Central Bank started recording national income estimates in the 1948-1950 period. See K. Nozawa, History of the Philippine Statistical System <http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/Newsletter/No.13.english/Nozawa.html> (visited April 29, 2014).
8 Agricultural statistics are collected to monitor production volume and prices of agricultural products, among others. A statistics division was created for the Bureau of Agriculture as early as 1902. See K. Nozawa, History of the Philippine Statistical System <http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/Newsletter/No.13.english/Nozawa.html> (visited April 29, 2014).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.:
I vote to grant the petition in part by declaring unconstitutional that portion of the first paragraph of Article 315 of Act No. 3815, as amended (Code), mandating the imposition of maximum penalty based on the amount of the fraud exceeding ₱22,000. I do so on the ground that imposing the maximum period of the penalty prescribed in Article 3151 of the Code in such a manner, unadjusted to inflation, amounts to cruel punishment within the purview of Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution.2
Cruel Punishment Clause Bans
Odious and Disproportionate Punishments
The Cruel Punishment Clause first appeared in the English Bill of Rights of 16893 which mandated that "excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The prohibition restrained the King from punishing convicts in ways inconsistent with human dignity.4 Over a century later, the Americans adopted the Clause as the Eighth Amendment5 to their Bill of Rights of 1 791. When the United States acquired these Islands in 1898 under the Treaty of Paris (following the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War), the Eighth Amendment was extended to this jurisdiction, first under President McKinley’s Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission and later under the Organic Acts passed by the US Congress.6 The Clause was retained as part of the Bill of Rights of succeeding Philippine Constitutions during the Commonwealth and post-independence eras.
Early on, the question arose whether the Clause serves only to limit the legislature’s power to inflict certain forms of punishment (e.g., torture) or whether it also prohibits the legislature from imposing punishments whose extent is excessive or disproportionate to the crime.7 It did not take long for the US Supreme Court to settle the debate. In reviewing a 1902 ruling of this Court sentencing an accused to 15 years of cadena temporal with fine and accessory penalties8 for falsification of a public document, the US Supreme Court set aside the judgment, holding that the punishment was "cruel in its excess of imprisonment and that which accompanies and follows the imprisonment."9 In refusing to give a narrow interpretation to the Clause, that court observed that the "meaning and vitality of the Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive construction."10 Proportionality is now a staple analytical tool in the US jurisdiction to test claims of cruel punishment under penal statutes imposing the death penalty.11
Our own jurisprudence subscribe to such construction of the Cruel Punishment Clause. During the US colonial occupation, this Court was expectedly bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment as "the exact language of the Constitution of the United States [in the Eighth Amendment] is used in the Philippine Bill [of 1902]"12 and later, in the Autonomy Act of 1916. Hence, in its rulings interpreting the Clause, the Court read the provision as a limitation on the power of the colonial legislature not only on the form but also on the extent of punishments it can enact.13
During the Commonwealth period, the text of the Eighth Amendment was substantially adopted as Section 1(19), Article III of the 1935 Constitution.14 Owing in no small measure to the dearth of discussion on the meaning of the Clause during the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention, the Court saw no reason to deviate from its colonial-era jurisprudence.15
The 1973 Constitution, replacing the 1935 Charter, retained the Clause as part of the Bill of Rights.16 The Court, however, had no occasion to pass upon any matter calling for the interpretation of the Clause until after the new Constitution, which carried over the Clause as Section 19(1) of Article III, took effect in February 1987. In its post-1987 jurisprudence, the Court continued to rely on its rulings rendered under the 1935 Constitution.17
Clearly then, the proposition that the Cruel Punishment Clause limits the legislature’s power to inflict certain forms of punishments only, allowing it to impose penalties disproportionate to the offense committed, runs counter to the grain of decades-old jurisprudence here and abroad. Such interpretation, which rests on a strict originalist reading of the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution,18 never gained traction in the United States19 and it makes no sense to insist that such view applies in this jurisdiction.
In the first place, the US Constitution, unlike our present Constitution, has essentially remained unchanged since its adoption in 1787 (save for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and other later piecemeal amendments). The 1987 Constitution is already the third in the 20th century, following the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution and the 1973 Martial Law Constitution.20 When the present Constitution was ratified in 1987, nearly two millennia after the US adopted the Eighth Amendment, the Filipino people who voted for its approval could not have intended Section 19(1) of Article III to embody the US originalists’ interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. It is more consistent with reason and common sense to say that the Filipino people understood the Clause to embrace "cruel, degrading and inhuman" punishments in its 20th century, Filipino conception, grounded on their collective experiences and sense of humanity.
Indeed, the Filipino people who ratified the present Constitution could not have intended to limit the reach of the Cruel Punishment Clause to cover torture and other forms of odious punishments only because nearly four decades before the present Constitution took effect, the Philippine government joined the community of nations in approving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 which bans "torture or x x x cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."21 In 1986, shortly before the Constitution took effect, the Philippines ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) containing an identically worded prohibition.22 These international norms formed part of Philippine law as generally accepted principles of international law23 and binding treaty obligation, respectively.24
Standards to Determine Impermissible Disproportionality
This Court has had occasion to devise standards of disproportionality to set the threshold for the breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause. Punishments whose extent "shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people"25 or "[are] flagrantly and plainly oppressive"26 are considered violative of the Clause.27 Other than the cursory mention of these standards, however, we have made no attempt to explore their parameters to turn them into workable judicial tools to adjudicate claims of cruel punishment. Even if we did, it would have been well-nigh impossible to draw the line separating "cruel" from legitimate punishments simply because these standards are overly broad and highly subjective.28 As a result, they ratchet the bar for the breach of the Clause to unreasonably high levels. Unsurprisingly, no litigant has successfully mounted a challenge against statutes for violation of the Clause.29
Impermissible disproportionality is better gauged by testing punishments against the following alternative parameters: (1) whether more serious crimes are equally or less severely punished; or (2) whether the punishment reasonably advances the state interest behind the penalty.30 These parameters strike the proper balance of providing practical tools of adjudication to weigh claims of cruel punishment while at the same time affording Congress discretionary leeway to craft penal statutes addressing societal evils.
Value-based, Maximum Penalty Calibration Under Article 315
Disproportionate to the Crime of Estafa
More Serious Crimes
Equally Punished as Estafa
Article 315 of the Code calibrates the maximum penalty for estafa on an escalated basis once a threshold amount of fraud is crossed (₱22,000). The penalty escalates on a ratio of one year imprisonment for every ₱10,000 fraud, with 20 years as ceiling.31 Accordingly, for a fraud of ₱98,000, the trial court sentenced petitioner to a maximum term of 15 years.
This punishment, however, is within the range of the penalty imposable on petitioner under the Code had he "killed the [private complainant] jeweler in an angry confrontation."32 The same penalty would also be within the range prescribed by the Code had petitioner kidnapped the private complainant and kept him detained for three days.33 By any objective standard of comparison, crimes resulting in the deprivation of life or liberty are unquestionably more serious than crimes resulting in the deprivation of property.34 By imposing a level of punishment for estafa equal to more serious crimes such as homicide and kidnapping, Article 315’s system of calibrating the maximum penalty based on the amount of fraud is plainly arbitrary and disproportionate to the severity of the crime punished.
Maximum Penalty for Estafa
Unrelated to its Purpose
The felonies defined and penalized under Title 10, Book Two of the Code, as amended, as crimes against property, including estafa under Article 315, are legislative measures safeguarding the right to property of private individuals and the state.35 The penalties of imprisonment and/or fine attached to each crime are meant to deter and incapacitate criminals from infringing such right. The Cruel Punishment Clause ensures that the state interest is advanced without sacrificing proportionality between the crime and punishment. In short, the Clause acts as constitutional brake whenever Congress enacts punishment whose severity is gratuitous, wholly unconnected to the purpose of the law.
Of the more than two dozen crimes originally defined by Congress in Title 10, Book Two of the Code,36 only two crimes, estafa and theft, consider the amount of the property involved to calibrate the maximum range of the penalty. All the rest either impose penalties irrespective of the amount of the property involved37 or provide a threshold amount based on the property involved for the imposition of a straight (as opposed to calibrated) penalty.38 Crucially, the calibration does not take into account the real value of the peso.
Admittedly, Congress has ample discretion to fix penalties in the Code according to its best light. At the time the Code took effect in 1932, when US$1.00 was equivalent to ₱1.00, the system of calibrated penalty under Article 315 based on the amount appropriated arguably stayed clear of the Cruel Punishment Clause. After 82 years, however, when the real value of the peso has depreciated substantially with the current rate of US$1.00 to ₱40.00, an estafa of ₱142,000 in 1932, meriting a 20-year penalty, should today require ₱5.6 million to merit a 20-year penalty. Put differently, ₱142,000 in 1932 is worth only ₱3,55039 today, which should merit only a maximum penalty of six months and one day to two years and four months imprisonment.40 The enormous disparity in the values of fraud between these points in time (exceeding 100%) and the imposition of the same level of maximum punishment in both instances remove any semblance of reasonability in the manner by which the punishment is derived and its connection to the purpose of the law. The arbitrary differential treatment of estafa (and theft) crosses the line separating the exercise of valid legislative discretion and the Cruel Punishment Clause.
This conclusion stands notwithstanding our holding in People v. Tongko41 and Lim v. People42 that the system of calculating the maximum penalty under Article 315 does not offend the Cruel Punishment Clause. Those cases involved paragraph 2(d) of Article 315, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 (PD 818),43 penalizing as estafa the issuance of unfunded or underfunded checks (not paragraph 1(b), the provision violated by petitioner). Our conclusion in those cases was grounded on the fact that criminalizing the issuance of bouncing checks reasonably advances the state interest behind the law, that is, ensuring the stability of commercial and banking transactions.44 Such state interest is not implicated here. The clause in Article 315 petitioner violated, penalizing the failure to return property delivered in trust for disposition, secures the entirely different government interest of protecting private property. To consider Tongko and Lim as binding precedents, precluding a different conclusion, is to expand their ratio decidendi beyond the facts presented in those cases.
Penalty Imposable Under Article 315
The breach of the Cruel Punishment Clause by Article 315’s system of calculating the maximum penalty for estafa in excess of ₱22,000 means that only the minimum term of imprisonment provided under Article 315 for such crime can be imposed on petitioner, namely, prision correccional in its maximum period. This level of penalty is covered by the Indeterminate Sentence Law45 which renders the next lower penalty, namely, prision correccional in its medium period, as the minimum of the sentence.46 The entirety of the sentence will be anywhere within the range of these maximum and minimum penalties. Hence, petitioner’s term of imprisonment should be modified to three (3) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum.
The same range of penalty applies to all other persons found guilty of violating Article 315. Thus, whether an estafa involves money or property worth ₱22,000 or ₱1 million, the minimum term of imprisonment under Article 315 – prision correccional in its maximum period – will be imposed on the accused.
The penalty for the felony of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689 (PD 1689) is, however, an altogether different matter. PD 1689 amended Article 315 of the Code by adding a new mode of committing estafa47 and imposing the penalty of "life imprisonment to death" or "reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds ₱100,000." Unlike Article 315, PD 1689 does not calibrate the duration of the maximum range of imprisonment on a fixed time-to-peso ratio (1 year for every ₱10,000 in excess of ₱22,000), but rather provides a straight maximum penalty of death or reclusion perpetua. This places PD 1689 outside of the ambit of the proscription of the Cruel Punishment Clause on the imposition of prison terms calibrated based on the value of the money or property swindled, unadjusted to inflation.
Effect of Ruling on Convicts
Serving Time under Article 315
This opinion relieves petitioner of the harsh effect of the penalty for estafa under Article 315 by lowering the entire range of imprisonment and monetary liability of petitioner or imposing only the minimum range of imprisonment, respectively. It is akin to our 1956 ruling in People v. Hernandez48 decriminalizing rebellion complexed with ordinary crimes to the benefit not only of the accused in that case but also of those already serving time for rebellion complexed with other crimes.49 Hernandez and today’s ruling amount to laws favoring convicts, which, under Article 22 of the Code, have retroactive effect.50 Convicts benefitting from such ruling and falling within the terms of Article 22 may invoke it in their favor and, if proper, avail of remedies to secure their release from detention.
Conclusion not Precluded by Article 5 of the Code
Testing Article 315 against the Cruel Punishment Clause under the standards espoused in this opinion does not make a dead letter law of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Code. Such provision, mandating courts to recommend executive clemency – when a strict enforcement of the provisions of th[e] Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. (Emphasis supplied)
operates within the realm of criminal law, requiring fact-based judicial evaluation on the degree of malice of the accused and the injury sustained by the victim or his heirs. The Cruel Punishment Clause, on the other hand, is the constitutional yardstick against which penal statutes are measured using relevant standards unrelated to questions of criminal malice and injury. Far from overlapping, the conclusions yielded by analyses under these two rules are distinct – a penal statute may well avoid the taint of unconstitutionality under the Clause but, applying such statute under peculiar set of facts, may justify a recommendation for the grant of clemency.51
Legislative Review of Article 315 and Related Provisions Overdue
The constitutional infirmity not only of Article 315 but also of related provisions in the Code calls for a comprehensive review by Congress of such 82-year old legislation.52 Pending such congressional review, this Court should decline to enforce the incremental penalty in Article 315 because such continued enforcement of the incremental penalty violates the Cruel Punishment Clause.
Accordingly, I vote to (1) GRANT the petition in part by modifying the sentence imposed on petitioner Lito Corpuz to three (3) years, one (1) month and eleven ( 11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum; and (2) DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL that portion of the first paragraph of Article 315 of Act No. 3 815, as amended, mandating the imposition of maximum penalty based on the amount of the fraud exceeding ₱22,000, for being violative of Section 19(1 ), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 "Swindling (estafa) - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. 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.
x x x." (Emphasis supplied)
2 "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.xx x."
3 Enacted on 16 December 1689.
4 Thus, it is thought that "the principle it represents can be traced back to the Magna Carta." Trap v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958).
5 "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
6 The Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Autonomy Act of 1916.
7 For an exhaustive historical treatment of the subject, see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 258-269 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring).
8 Deprivation of civil rights during service of sentence and post-service perpetual deprivation of political rights.
9 Weems v. US, 217 U.S. 349, 377 (1910).
10 Id. at 373.
11 In the sense that aggravating circumstances (qualifying a class of criminals for the death penalty) and mitigating circumstances (tempering sentences) must be legislated and carefully weighed. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (Douglas, J., concurring) and progeny, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (plurality opinion); Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998).
12 US v. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 279, 286 (1923). In We e m s, the US Supreme Court was more direct to the point:
"[T]he provision of the Philippine bill of rights, prohibiting the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, was taken from the Constitution of the United States and must have the same meaning." Weems v. US, supra note 9 at 367.
13 US v. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 279 (1923); People v. Constantino, G.R. No. L-19290, 11 January 1923 (Unrep.); US v. Pico, 18 Phil. 386 (1911). Pico and Constantino dwelt on the question of extent (severity) of the punishment as criterion for breaching the Clause. After reviewing extant relevant authorities we observed in Borromeo:
In view of these authorities, and the fact that the legislature invariably endeavors to apportion a penalty commensurate with the offense, and that course, in the exercise of such discretion as is conferred upon them in fixing penalties within minimum and maximum degrees, adhere to the same rule, it seems to us that to assert, when the question assumes the dignity of a constitutional inquiry, that courts should not concern themselves with the relative magnitude of the crime and the penalty, is wrong, both in logic and in fact. A contrary view leads to the astounding result that it is impossible to impose a cruel and unusual punishment so long as none of the old and discarded modes of punishment are used; and that there is no restriction upon the power of the legislative department, for example, to prescribe the death penalty by hanging for misdemeanor, and that the courts would be compelled to impose the penalty. Yet such a punishment for such crime would be considered extremely cruel and unusual by all right-minded people. (US v. Borromeo, supra at 289 [emphasis supplied]).
14 "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
15 People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953); People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 (1953); People v. Dionisio, 131 Phil. 409 (1968). In his commentary on the 1935 Constitution, Dean Sinco considered the Clause as "fobid[ding] punishments greatly disproportionate to the offense." V. SINCO, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 674 (1954).
16 Under Section 21, Article III ("Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.").
17 Baylosis v. Chavez, 279 Phil. 448 (1991); People v. Tongko, 353 Phil. 37 (1998); and Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 744 (2002) all citing People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 (1953) and People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 (1953) (for Lim and To n g k o). Although these cases emphasize the "form only" school of thought, all relied on pre-1973 jurisprudence recognizing disproportionality as ground for breaching the Clause.
18 Adherents of this school of thought insist that the Eighth Amendment forbids only "those modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted" in 1791. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 339 (2002) (Scalia, J., dissenting). See also D. STRAUSS, THE LIVING CONSTITUTION (2010).
19 Consistent with its interpretative approach in We e m s, the US Supreme Court considers the Eighth Amendment to "draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, supra note 4 at 101.
20 At the close of the 19th century, the Philippine revolutionary government adopted the Malolos Constitution in 1899 which, however, was short-lived and largely symbolic.
21 Article 5 of the UDHR, approved by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948.
22 Article 7 of the ICCPR, ratified by the Philippines on 23 October 1986.
23 Although the UDHR is a non-binding instrument, this Court treated the UDHR as embodying generally accepted principles of international law, hence, forming part of the law of the land under the 1935 Constitution’s Incorporation Clause (Section 3, Article II of the 1935 Constitution, reiterated in Section 3, Article II of the 1973 Constitution). Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Borovsky v. Commissioner of Immigration, 90 Phil. 107 (1951); Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration, 90 Phil. 256 (1951). The provision was retained in the 1987 Constitution (Section 2, Article II).
24 These norms are buttressed by the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment or Punishment which entered into force on 26 June 1987 and to which the Philippines acceded on 18 June 1986. The Convention binds states parties to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction" (Article 2) and "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture" as defined in the Convention (Article 16).
25 Supra note 12 at 286. A variation sets the standard at disproportionality which "shock[s] the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances." (People v. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908 [1953], citing Am. Jur. 178) or which "shock[s] the moral sense of the community" (People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 [1953] [Res.] citing 24 C.J.S. 1187-1188).
26 People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 (1953) (Res.) citing 24 C.J.S. 1187-1188, cited in People v. Dionisio, 131 Phil. 409 (1968); Baylosis v. Chavez, 279 Phil. 448 (1991); People v. Tongko, 353 Phil. 37 (1998) and Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 749 (2002).
27 The following passage from Estoista, relying on the American legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum, has become the template for rejecting claims of cruel punishment using these standards:
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. "The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual." (24 C.J.S. 1187-1188.) Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, 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." (Idem.). Id.
28 The standard of public outrage ("shock[ing to the] public sentiment" or "shock[ing to the] moral sense of the community") is no different from that which "shocks the most fundamental instincts of civilized man." Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 473 [1947]) (Burton, J., dissenting) which "[invites] the danger of subjective judgment x x x acute[ly]," Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 279 (1972), (Brennan, J., concurring).
29 The following typifies the analysis for rejecting claims of cruel punishment using the standards laid down in Estoista and related cases:
Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute is not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. Based on this principle, the Court has consistently overruled contentions of the defense that the penalty of fine or imprisonment authorized by the statute involved is cruel and degrading. Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 749, 754 (2002) (internal citation omitted; emphasis supplied).
30 Save for some modification, these are drawn from the "principles" crafted by Mr. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. in his concurring opinion in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 274-277, 279-282 (1972), to aid in the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.
31 See note 1.
32 Decision, pp. 12-13. Under Article 249 of the Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal which ranges from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, with the medium term ranging from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
33 Under Article 268 of the Code, Slight Illegal Detention is also punishable by reclusion temporal.
34 This merely reflects the ordering of rights under our constitutional system with the right to life and liberty occupying a higher tier of protection than the right to property (thus claims of infringement of each right are subjected to different levels of scrutiny). See Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operations, Ass’n., Inc. v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila, 127 Phil. 306, 324 (1967).
35 Save for the crime of estafa by issuing underfunded or unfunded checks which has been recognized as serving to ensure the stability of commercial transactions and the banking system. People v. Tongko, 353 Phil. 37, 44 (1998); Lim v. People, 438 Phil. 749, 755 (2002).
36 The provisions relating to the crime of arson were superseded by Presidential Decree (PD) Nos. 1613 and 1744.
37 E.g. robbery and related crimes (Articles 294, 295, and 297); brigandage (Article 306) and arson and related crimes (Articles 320-323, as amended by PD 1613 and PD 1744).
38 E.g. occupation of real property (Article 312); swindling of a minor (Article 317); removal, sale, or pledge of mortgaged property (Article 319) and special cases of malicious mischief (Article 328).
39 ₱142,000÷40=₱3,550.
40 Article 315, paragraph 3.
41 353 Phil. 37 (1998).
42 438 Phil. 744 (2002).
43 Increasing the maximum penalty for such estafa to 30 years.
44 From Tongko:
The legislature was not thoughtless in imposing severe penalties for violation of par. 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The history of the law will show that the severe penalties were intended to stop the upsurge of swindling by issuance of bouncing checks. It was felt that unless aborted, this kind of estafa ". . . would erode the people’s confidence in the use of negotiable instruments as a medium of commercial transaction and consequently result in the retardation of trade and commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the country." [Citing the "Whereas" Clauses of PD 818]. People v. Tongko, supra note 41 at 44 (emphasis supplied).
From Lim:
Clearly, the increase in the penalty, far from being cruel and degrading, was motivated by a laudable purpose, namely, to effectuate the repression of an evil that undermines the country’s commercial and economic growth, and to serve as a necessary precaution to deter people from issuing bouncing checks. The fact that PD 818 did not increase the amounts corresponding to the new penalties only proves that the amount is immaterial and inconsequential. What the law sought to avert was the proliferation of estafa cases committed by means of bouncing checks. Taking into account the salutary purpose for which said law was decreed, we conclude that PD 818 does not violate Section 19 of Article III of the Constitution. Lim v. People, supra note 42 at 755 (emphasis supplied).
45 Republic Act No. 4103, as amended.
46 Article 61(2), Code.
47 "[B]y a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out" estafa involving "money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, ‘samahang nayon(s)’, or farmers association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public" (Section 1).
48 People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956); People v. Lava, 138 Phil. 77 (1969).
49 Gumabon v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362 (1971).
50 "Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same."
51 The Court made such recommendation in People v. Monleon (165 Phil. 863 [1976]) where the accused, while inebriated, unintentionally killed his wife in the course of disciplining their child. We explained: "[C]onsidering that Monleon had no intent to kill his wife and that her death might have been hastened by lack of appropriate medical attendance or her weak constitution, the penalty of reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive. A strict enforcement of the provisions of the Penal Code means the imposition of a draconian penalty on Monleon." Id. at 870. Under Article 246 of the Code, parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
52 The Code was approved on 8 December 1930 but took effect on 1 January 1932.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
The Court is apparently not prepared at this time to reexamine and change the existing practice of imposing the penalty for estafa based on the amount of the fraud committed in terms of the 1930 values of money and properties.
The Facts and the Case
On May 2, 1991 Danilo Tangcoy entrusted ₱98,000 worth of jewelry items to petitioner Lito Corpuz for the latter to sell on commission. If sold, Corpuz was to tum over the proceeds to Tangcoy and, if not, he was to return the items after 60 days. But Corpuz neither remitted the stated proceeds nor returned what he got. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor of Olongapo charged him with estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that city.1
On July 30, 2004 the RTC found Corpuz guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional in its medium period, as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as maximum.2
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed3 Corpuz's conviction but modified the penalty to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus incremental penalty of one year for each additional ₱10,000 for a total maximum of 15 years.4 Corpuz filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s Decision but the CA denied the same, thus, the present petition for review.
While the Court’s Third Division was deliberating on the case, the question of the continued validity of imposing on persons convicted of crimes involving property came up. The legislature apparently pegged these penalties to the value of money and property in 1930 when it enacted the Revised Penal Code.5 Since the members of the Division reached no unanimity on this question and since the issues are of first impression, they decided to refer the case to the Court En Banc for consideration and resolution.
In view of the far reaching effects of any ruling in the case and the great number of accused who may be affected by it,6 the Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and counsel for Corpuz to file their comments on the issues that the Court raised. Further, it invited a number of amici curiae for their views.
The following amici graciously submitted their papers: a) De La Salle University College of Law Dean and head of the Free Legal Assistance Group, Jose Manuel L. Diokno; b) Ateneo de Manila School of Law Dean, Sedfrey M. Candelaria; c) University of the Philippines Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar; d) the Senate President; and e) the Speaker of the House of Representatives.7 The Court heard the parties and the amici on oral arguments on February 19, 2014, with Atty. Mario L. Bautista, entering his appearance as counsel de officio for Corpuz, and arguing the case on the latter’s behalf.8
The Issues Presented
The issues may be summarized as follows:
1. Whether or not, procedurally, the Court may determine the constitutionality of the penalty that the CA imposed on Corpuz even when he did not raise such question in his petition for review;
2. Whether or not the penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 15 years that the CA imposed on Corpuz for a ₱98,000 fraud based on the penalty that the legislature pegged on the value of money or property in 1930 violates his constitutional right to equal protection of the law;
3. Whether or not that portion of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code that imposes on Corpuz in addition to the basic penalty of 8 years and 1 day of imprisonment an additional incremental penalty of 1 year for each additional ₱10,000 of the amount of fraud in excess of ₱22,000 violates his constitutional right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment; and
4. If the answers to the second or third issues are in the affirmative, whether or not, applying the rules of statutory construction, the Court may, rather than declare the relevant statutory penalties unconstitutional, determine the legislative intent with respect to them and, accordingly, adjust the amount of the present fraud to its 1932 equivalent and impose the proper penalty.
Discussion
1. Issues Raised Motu Proprio
The OSG points out that it is not right for the Court to decide the issue of the correctness of the penalty imposed on Corpuz since he did not raise such issue.9
But the Court, like the CA, has always regarded it as a duty to the accused in every criminal case that comes before it to review as a matter of course the correctness of the penalty imposed and rectify any error even when no question has been raised regarding the same.10 That the error may have a constitutional dimension cannot thwart the Court from performing such duty.
Besides, as Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, one of the amici, noted in his comment, the Court has in previous cases, when fundamental issues are involved, taken cognizance of the same despite lack of jurisprudential requirements for judicial review.11 Indeed, the Court said in People v. Hon. Judge Vera,12 that "courts in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented x x x [t]hus, in criminal cases, although there is a very sharp conflict of authorities, it is said that the question may be raised for the first time at any stage of the proceedings, either in the trial court or on appeal."13
In Government Service Insurance System, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros,14 while the respondent manifested loss of interest in pursuing the case, the Court through Justice Antonio T. Carpio, said, that "social justice and public interest demand that [x x x] the constitutionality of the proviso [be resolved]" since "the issue involves not only the claim of [respondent] but also that of other surviving spouses who are similarly situated and whose claims GSIS would also deny based on the proviso."15 To the same effect is the Court’s ruling in Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.16 Here in Corpuz, the ruling of the Court will affect thousands of persons who are presently charged or in the future may be charged with crimes the penalties for which are pegged to the value of the money or property involved.
Moreover, the Court has itself raised these issues because of their importance and has heard the parties both on written comments and on oral argument. The due process requirement for hearing and adjudicating the issues now before the Court has been met.
Now to address the substantive issues:
2. Criminal Penalties and Inflation
As a general principle, crimes found in the Revised Penal Code carry with them the same penalties whatever year the accused commits them. For example, one who mutilates a Philippine coin in 1932, when the code took effect, would go to jail for 2 years and 4 months maximum, exactly the same penalty that another who mutilates a coin in 2014 would get. The correspondence between the gravity of the offense and the severity of the penalty does not change with the passage of time.
But, unwittingly, the penalties for crimes involving property under the Revised Penal Code are in breach of that principle. Although these penalties are meant to be proportionate to the harm caused, they are not described in specific and constant terms like the number of days of incapacity for work of the offended party in physical injuries cases.
Rather, the harm done in property crimes are made to depend on the "amount of the fraud" committed,17 on the "value of the property taken,"18 on the "value of the thing or property stolen,"19 or on "the value of the damage caused."20 As it happens, money and property values are in a state of constant change, and sways with the wind of economic change, primarily with the rate of inflation from year to year. The objects of commerce like bread and fish do not change but their prices or monetary values change in the course of time.
For instance, in 1932 when the Revised Penal Code took effect, rice was priced at an average of ₱4.50 per cavan.21 If one steals a sack of rice in 1932, he would be imprisoned for 4 months maximum corresponding to the value of what he stole. At present, that sack of rice is priced at about ₱1,800.00 per cavan.22 If one steals a sack of rice today, he would be imprisoned for 4 years and 2 months maximum. In other words, in a crime involving property the penalty depends on when it is committed.
Since the price of rice in 1932 (₱4.50 per cavan) is a mere 0.25% of today’s price (₱1,800.00 per cavan), does this mean that the ₱100 today is the equivalent of only P0.25 in 1932? It is uncertain since the government did not yet conduct a statistical survey of the prices of key commodities in 1932 that would provide empirical support for such a conclusion.23 The first of such a statistical survey was made only in 1949, enabling the government after comparison with recent surveys to determine that the purchasing power of ₱1 in 1949 is the equivalent of about ₱100 today—₱1 is to ₱100.24
For want of reliable 1930 economic data, it will be assumed for the purpose of this discussion that the purchasing power of the peso then did not vary much from that of 1949 which, as already stated, has been officially established. This assumption is based on the Court’s own observation in the case of People v. Pantoja25 that the purchasing power of the peso in 1949 was "one-third of its pre-war purchasing power," meaning ₱1 as against ₱3. This currency movement is minimal and may, for convenience, be considered absorbed in the massive erosion of the purchasing power of the peso by about 100 times from 1949 to the present. Consequently, this discussion will use this reference rate—the ₱1 is to ₱100—in comparing the prices of the past (1930-1949) with the present.
3. Escalation of Penalties
and the Equal Protection Clause
The Revised Penal Code of 1930 pegs the penalties for estafa to the amount of fraud committed as follows:
| Amount of the Fraud |
Penalty |
| 1) ₱22,001 and above |
= |
8 yrs. & 1 day plus 1 year for every
additional ₱10,000.00 (but not more than 20 years) |
| 2) ₱12,001 to ₱22,000 |
= |
4 yrs., 2 mos. & 1 day to 8 yrs. |
| 3) ₱6,001 to ₱12,000 |
= |
6 mos. & 1 day to 4 yrs. & 2 mos. |
| 4) ₱201 to ₱6,000 |
= |
4 mos. & 1 day to 2 yrs. & 4 mos. |
| 5) ₱0.01 to ₱200 |
= |
4 mos. & 1 day to 6 mos. |
Unmindful of the immense erosion of the purchasing power of the peso, courts have persisted in literally applying the above table of penalties in fraud cases. As a result, they in effect mete out heavier penalties from year to year for the commission of exactly the same offense.
For instance, if the accused defrauds another of 79 cavans of rice in 1930-1949, then valued at only ₱1,422.00 (₱18.00 per cavan), she would be imprisoned for 2 years and 4 months maximum. This would cause her pain but tolerable pain. Yet, if another commits exactly the same fraud today when that 79 cavans of rice is now valued at ₱142,200.00 (₱1,800.00 per cavan), she would be committed to prison for 20 years maximum. She would leave prison an old woman, irreversibly deprived of the company of her family for the greater part of her life. This is a gross denial of her right to equal protection since the first offender got off after 2 years and 4 months whereas she got off after 20 years.
Her 20-year prison term is of course enormous because the penalty for fraud amounting to ₱22,000.00 is already 8 years and 1 day maximum but, since the amount of her fraud (₱142,200.00) exceeds that figure, she would suffer additional incremental imprisonment of 1 year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of the ₱22,000.00 for a total of 20 years.
This uneven treatment is true in Corpuz’s case. The ₱98,000.00 jewelry items subject of his offense would have a value of only ₱980 in 1932. Consequently, had he committed his crime that year, he would have been imprisoned for only 2 years and 4 months maximum. But since he committed it 43 years later in 1991 when the jewelry items are now valued at ₱98,000.00 due to inflation, he would be imprisoned for 15 years maximum—the same crime, the same law, yet a shockingly higher penalty. This result would undoubtedly deny Corpuz his constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
4. Incremental Penalty and the
Cruel, Unusual, and Degrading
Punishment Clause
Justice Antonio T. Carpio expressed the view, joined by Dean Diokno,26 that insofar as Article 315 imposes on Corpuz in addition to the basic penalty of 8 years and 1 day an additional incremental penalty of 1 year for each additional ₱10,000.00 of the amount of fraud in excess of ₱22,000.00, such law violates his constitutional right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment. Putting a price of ₱10,000.00, about the cost of five sacks of rice, for each additional year of imprisonment makes the penalty grossly disproportionate to the wrong committed. This view would thus have the incremental penalty voided. Professor Tadiar and Dean Diokno appear to be sympathetic to it.27
The incremental penalty is of course grossly disproportionate to the wrong committed. But that penalty would not have been regarded as such if the offense had been committed in 1932 when ₱10,000.00 was a hefty sum. Indeed, if it were to be adjusted for inflation, that ₱10,000.00 would be the equivalent of ₱1,000,000.00 today. An incremental penalty for each ₱1,000,000.00 would not have been that bad. Anyway, the point is that it is the curse of inflation, not the idea of an incremental penalty, which is the culprit.
If Justice Carpio’s view is adopted, the Court would annul the incremental penalty but maintain the validity of the basic penalties for fraud. But those penalties are just as disproportionate to the wrong committed.
For instance, half a gallon of coconut cooking oil would cost about ₱2.03 in 1930-1949. If Alex gives Ben ₱2.03 in 1949 to buy for him such half-gallon but Ben instead pockets the ₱2.03, he would be imprisoned 6 months maximum for estafa. On the other hand, if Carlos gives Dante ₱203 today to buy for him also a half-gallon of coconut cooking oil but Dante instead pockets the ₱203, he would be imprisoned for 2 years and 4 months maximum. To be imprisoned and separated from family for 2 years and 4 months for the taking of the price of a half-gallon cooking oil, what it will cost a hungry couple and their child their meal, is just as cruel, unusual, and degrading. It is an outrage to a democratic society even if no incremental penalty is involved.28
The harshness of this antiquated 1930 scheme for punishing criminal offenders is doubly magnified in qualified theft where the offender is a domestic helper or a trusted employee. Qualified theft is a grievous offense since its penalty is automatically raised two degrees higher than that usually imposed on simple theft. Thus, unadjusted for inflation, the domestic helper who steals from his employer would be meted out a maximum of:
a) 6 years in prison for a toothbrush worth ₱5;29
b) 12 years in prison for a lipstick worth ₱39;30
c) 14 years and 8 months in prison for a pair of female slippers worth ₱150;31
d) 20 years in prison for a wristwatch worth ₱19,000;32 or
e) 30 years in prison for a branded lady’s handbag worth ₱125,000.33
Unless checked, courts will impose 12 years maximum on the housemaid who steals a ₱39 lipstick from her employer. They will also impose on her 30 years maximum for stealing a pricy lady’s handbag. This of course is grossly obscene and unjust, even if the handbag is worth ₱125,000.00 since 30 years in prison is already the penalty for treason, for raping and killing an 8-year-old girl, for kidnapping a grade school student, for robbing a house and killing the entire family, and for a ₱50-million plunder.
It is not only the incremental penalty that violates the accused’s right against cruel, unusual, and degrading punishment. The axe casts its shadow across the board touching all property-related crimes. This injustice and inhumanity will go on as it has gone on for decades unless the Court acts to rein it in.
5. Judicial Construction of Statutes
But annulling Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code or portions of it slaps the hand of the legislature that enacted it in 1930 when the economy of the time warranted the amounts stated in those penalties. Allowing courts to adhere to that law but construe it instead in a way that would attain its purpose, an alternative based on long precedents, presents a more moderate remedy.
It may be assumed that those who enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930 did not foresee the onslaught of inflation in the second half of the century. They had an agricultural economy and, presumably, the purchasing power of the peso at that time had not changed perceptibly in the years that they had known. It would be imprudent to believe that, if those legislators had an inkling of the shape and value of money and things would take down the years to 2014, they would have still pegged those penalties to their 1930 economy. But they did. Clearly, they were uninformed and, therefore, their intent must have been to match the penalties written in the law to the values of money and property as they understood it at that time.
As it turned out, the passage of time altered what the 1930 legislature intended respecting those penalties. Time made those penalties toxic and this is exemplified in the case of Corpuz. On the one hand, if the Court were to adjust the penalty imposed on him to compensate for inflation, using the government’s ₱1 to ₱100 equation, Corpuz should be deemed to have defrauded Tangcoy of only ₱980 rather than ₱98,000. He would then be meted out a penalty of only 2 years and 4 months maximum. This is about the same penalty imposed for the crimes of offending religious feelings,34 tumultuous disturbance,35 and slander,36 which are correctional penalties.
On the other hand, if the amount of fraud is made to depend on the false assumption that the value of ₱1 in 1930-1949 is the same as the value of ₱1 today, Corpuz would be liable for fraud amounting to ₱98,000 and draw a penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 15 years maximum, an afflictive penalty. These 15 years would be within the range of the penalty for homicide37 or for intentional abortion thru violence against a pregnant woman,38 which means meting out to Corpuz a penalty equivalent to the taking of human life.
About seven years ago, a lawyer accused his houseboy, Reynaldo Bayon, of stealing from him watches and jewelry worth ₱540,000.00.39 For this, the trial court imposed on Bayon the penalty of imprisonment for 30 years maximum. Ironically, the trial court meted out to Bayon the same penalty that another trial court imposed on Ricardo Solangon and Apolonio Haniel who kidnapped Libertador Vidal and demanded ransom from his tormented family.40 After lengthy negotiations, they settled for ₱50,000.00, got the money, and killed their victim. Since the police recovered only his bones, no one knew just how much Libertador suffered before being killed.
Did Reynaldo, the houseboy, deserve the same severe penalty imposed on Ricardo and Apolonio for their brutal crime? Reynaldo did not rape his employer’s wife, torture his children, or murder any of them. If the prosecution were to be believed, his employer merely lost some of his collection of watches and jewelry. In the present case, the wealthy jeweler did not lose his life to Corpuz. All that he supposedly lost to him were a few jewelry worth ₱98,000.00 today, the equivalent of but ₱980.00 in 1930-1949. Still, the Court would, literally applying the law, sentence Corpuz to a maximum of 15 years in prison like he already killed the jeweler in an angry confrontation.
Again, the key to solving the problem that this case presents lies in ascertaining the will of the legislature that enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930 and give its language the construction that will honor that will. Some, like the Office of the Solicitor General, the Senate President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives hold the view that adjusting the penalties to compensate for inflation will amount to judicial legislation.41
But the Court need not rewrite the penalties that the law provides. Rather, the clear intent of the law can be given by, to borrow a phrase from Atty. Mario L. Bautista, counsel for Corpuz, "harmonizing" the law or "aligning the numerical figures"42 to the economic realities of the present. To put it another way, ascertaining the facts of the case in order to faithfully apply to it the law as the legislature intended it is a judicial function. Dean Candelaria of Ateneo shares this position.43
This would not have been the first time that the Court would have given a construction to the fixed monetary values set by law to take into account the problems caused by inflation. When the Code Commission drafted the Civil Code in 1949, it fixed the new minimum civil indemnity for death to ₱3,000.00.44 Article 2206 of the Code reads:
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.45
The Civil Code sets the minimum compensation for death at only ₱3,000.00. Ordinarily, this legislative judgment has to be obeyed no matter if it already becomes harsh or unfair to the victim’s heirs as inflation sets in. For the law is the law. Yet, following past precedents, the Court would, construing the law in the light of the inflationary movement of money values, set a new minimum of ₱6,000 in 1964,46 ₱12,000 in 1968,47 ₱30,000 in 1983,48 ₱50,000 in 1990,49 and most recently, ₱75,000 in 2009.50 It regarded as inequitable on account of inflation the award of a measly ₱3,000 to the victim’s heirs.
Justice Jose C. Vitug observed that the Court increases the minimum civil indemnity "to such amounts as the peso value might actually command at given times and circumstances."51 This is not judicial legislation but taking judicial notice of the relentless rise in money and property values over the years and construing the law in the light of such circumstances.
The Court emphasized in People v. Pantoja52 that these judicial adjustments are dictated by: "the difference between the value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing a minimum indemnity" was passed.53 Pantoja explained that, at its writing, "due to economic circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of exchange now in the free market is U.S. $1.00 to ₱4.00 Philippine pesos."54
None of the justices of the Court, which included renowned Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, Jose B.L. Reyes, Arsenio P. Dizon, Querube C. Makalintal, Fred Ruiz Castro, and Enrique M. Fernando, regarded as amounting to judicial legislation the decision interpreting the ₱3,000 minimum for death compensation established by law in 1949 as ₱12,000 in the economy of the late 60s. There is no record of Congress disagreeing with them. It makes no sense for the Court to refuse to use the same reasoning and not employ it to the judicial construction of the penalty provisions in crimes involving property.
It is of course said that Article 2206 of the Civil Code merely sets the minimum civil liability for death at ₱3,000, implying that courts are free to grant benefits to the victim’s heirs upwards of that minimum. This is true but the Court’s decisions were not in the nature of mere suggestions regarding how the courts below are to exercise their discretions when awarding such benefit. The Court has actually been raising the minimum civil liability for death. Proof of this is that when the trial court or the CA orders the payment of only ₱50,000 to the victim’s heirs, an amount already well above the minimum of ₱3,000 set by law, the Court would readily find the order erroneous and raise the award to ₱75,000.
Some would say that Article 2206 of the Civil Code merely governs civil indemnity whereas Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on penalties for estafa governs criminal liability, implying that the latter is quite different. But the Civil Code stands on the same footing as the Revised Penal Code in terms of force and effect. One is not superior to the other. The point is that prudent judicial construction works equally on both codes.
In any event, the rule is that in case of doubt the provisions of the Revised Penal Code are to be construed in favor of the accused.1âwphi1 What has happened, however, is that the Court has beginning in 1964 construed the minimum amount set in Article 2206 as subject to adjustment to cope with inflation although this worked against the accused in murder and homicide cases. The Court has not come around to give the same construction to the inflation-affected penalty provisions of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which would be favorable to him.
Incidentally, it is not the severity of the penalty written in the law that the Court has to adjust in order to compensate for inflation but the amount of the fraud or the damage that was proved at the trial. For instance, if an offender defrauds another of ₱20,000 worth of jewelry items today and he is found guilty, the trial court could make a finding that he had committed fraud in that amount. During sentencing, however, it would just determine, applying the ₱1 to ₱100 equation stated above, that such ₱20,000 is the equivalent of ₱200 in the economy of the 1930 table of penalties. The court would then apply the penalty provided by law for such reduced amount: 4 months and 1 day to 6 months. It would have been that simple.
It is pointed out that the Court’s remedy in Corpuz’s and similar cases lies in Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which provides:
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and injury caused by the offense.55
But the above applies to a specific case before the court that tried it where, "taking into consideration the degree of malice and injury caused by the offense,"56 the penalty to be imposed on the accused appears to be excessive. This is best exemplified in a case where the trial court regarded as excessive the lawful penalty it imposed on a father and his son who stole 10 tender coconut fruits from a plantation solely for the family’s consumption.57
Here, however, the penalty has become excessive, not because of the unusual circumstances of Corpuz’s case but because the penalty has become grossly iniquitous through time, affecting not just Corpuz but all those charged with crimes the penalties for which depend on the value of money or property involved.
It is said that this decision would cause numerous difficulties one of which is that the Court does not have the means for ascertaining the purchasing power of the peso at any given time.
But it has the means. The Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA), formerly the National Statistics Office is the "highest policy making body on statistical matters."58 It regularly gathers from the market place the average prices of a basket of consumer items like rice, sugar, fish, meat, school supplies, and other products.59 The PSA then determines based on these the purchasing power of the peso in a given year in relation to other years. "[O]nce the data generated by the PSA staff is approved and released by the National Statistician, it is deemed official and controlling statistics of the government."60 It is the PSA that provided the official finding that the ₱1 in 1949 is the equivalent of about ₱100 in 2013.61 This information is used by government planners, international rating agencies, economists, researchers, businessmen, academicians, and students. The rules allow the Court to take judicial notice of this fact.62
The OSG claims that there are many ways of determining the present value of money, not just through its purchasing power as the PSA determines. This may be true but it is presumed that the legislature intended the term "value" in reference to money based on how money is commonly understood, not on how it might be understood by theoreticians or moralists. Everyone knows that the value of money of any amount depends on what it can buy—its purchasing power. People do not earn and keep money for its own sake.
Another concern is that if the Court adjusts the penalty to cope with inflation, such adjustments may have unintended effects on other crimes where the penalties depend on the value of the damage caused or the property unlawfully taken. Any adjustment of penalty in Corpuz would of course directly affect most of these crimes. That is inevitable if justice is to be served in those other cases as well since the same reasoning applies to them.
For instance, if a poor woman steals four small cans of corned beef from the supermarket worth ₱280, which would be only ₱2.80 in 1932, she will be jailed for 4 years and 2 months maximum. If a poor employee pockets ₱250 in government money entrusted to him, which would be only ₱2.50 in 1932, he will be jailed for 10 years maximum. If one armed with a knife but commits no violence or intimidation robs a public building by forcibly opening a window and stealing two brooms worth ₱300, which would be only ₱3.00 in 1932, he will be jailed for a maximum of 20 years. The absurdity in the literal application of the 1932 penalties equally applies to these crimes.
The uniform adjustment in the base amounts using the PSA formula of ₱1 to ₱100 will maintain uniform levels of legislative indignation or outrage over the wrongs committed in these crimes. The harshness of the incremental penalty of one year imprisonment for every ₱10,000.00 would be obviated since the adjustment would make that one year imprisonment for every ₱1,000,000.00 illegally taken, which would be quite reasonable already. For this reason, no distortion can ever result in the application of the decision in similar cases.
To repeat, from this dissent's point of view, it is the amount of money or value of the thing defrauded, taken, malversed, or damaged that undergoes adjustment or correction resulting from a realistic appreciation of the facts of the case. The law is not amended or changed.
Finally, there is concern that if this dissent were to be adopted, the same would result in the lowering of the penalties that courts have these past years been meting out for crimes involving property. It is pointed out that the ruling fails to take into account its effect on the victims.
But the dissent is not advocating the lowering of the penalties for those crimes; it merely seeks the restoration of the correct penalties. The adjustments sought would merely compensate for inflation in order to accomplice what the legislature intends regarding those crimes. The victims of crimes today are not entitled to retributions that are harsher than what the law provides. They have no right to exact more blood than the victims of yesterday.
For all the above reasons, I vote to AFFIRM Lito Corpuz's conviction with MODIFICATION of the indeterminate penalty to 2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional, as maximum, entitling him to probation under the ruling laid down in Colinares v. People.63
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Docketed as Criminal Case 665-91.
2 Rollo, p. 52.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now also a member of the Court) and Rodrigo V. Cosico.
4 Rollo, p. 40.
5 An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act 3815 (1932).
6 As of 2014, 6509 people have been convicted of and are serving sentence for estafa, qualified theft, theft, robbery, arson, and malicious mischief. Out of this population, 4480 are slated to spend half a decade or more in prison. (Nora Corazon T. Padiernos, Chief of Planning and Management Division, Bureau of Corrections, Statistics on Crimes Against Property, February 14, 2014) These people are just some of those who would have been affected by this decision. There is an overwhelming number of detainees around the country with similar fates. Manila City Jail alone has 630 men in detention for robbery and 249 for theft. (Manila City Jail, February 2014) To say that they are living in cramped quarters is a great understatement. See Maria Luisa Isabel L. Rosales, Cruel Detentions: Subhuman Prison Conditions – A Form of Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 54 Ateneo L.J. 568 (2009).
7 The Court also invited the Dean and some professors of the University of the Philippines School of Economics and the President of the Philippine Judges Association to submit their views but they opted not to.
8 Corpuz v. People of the Philippines (Minute Resolution), G.R. No. 180016, February 25, 2014, p. 382.
9 Office of the Solicitor General, Oral Arguments, TSN.
10 See Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010, 626 SCRA 48, 49; People v. Laguerta, 398 Phil. 370, 375 (2000), citing People v. Balacano, 391 Phil. 509, 525-526 (2000).
11 Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, p. 3 (September 30, 2013).
12 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
13 Id. at 88.
14 478 Phil. 573 (2004).
15 Id. at 580.
16 487 Phil. 531 (2004).
17 The term used in the REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 315.
18 Id., Arts. 299 and 302.
19 Id., Arts. 309 and 310.
20 Id., Art. 328.
21 I cavan is equivalent to 25 gantas (See Barreto v. Reyes, 10 Phil. 489, 491 [1908]). A ganta of rice is approximately 2.5 kilos when computed at 3 quarts to a ganta. (See United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, World Weights and Measures, Handbook for Statisticians, Statistical Papers, Series M No. 21 Revision 1 [ST/STAT/SER.M/21/rev.1] New York: United Nations [1966]); Wordnik, Ganta available at http://www.wordnik.com/words/ganta (last accessed April 23, 2012).
22 Updates on Palay, Rice, and Corn Prices, Vol. 4, No. 34 (August 2012), available at http://www.bas.gov.ph/?ids=amsad_prices.
23 Carmen N. Ericta, OIC National Statistician, Philippine Statistics Authority, SUBJECT: Update on the Value of the Present Day Peso as Compared to its Prevailing Value in 1932 (February 10, 2014).
24 Id., citing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (formerly known as Central Bank of the Philippines), Statistical Bulletin, Vol. IX, No. 4.
25 134 Phil. 453 (1968).
26 Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, Comment (September 21, 2013).
27 "Section 5 of the Revised Penal Code x x x violates the bedrock principle of a democratic and republican government x x x [and] may outrightly be struck down as unconstitutional in the present petition by the power of judicial review. x x x Article 39 x x x must be struck down as unconstitutional for its imposition of a cruel punishment that has long been outdated by currency devaluation. Thus, the condition for the exercise of the power of judicial review is that the questionable statute must be closely intertwined with the principal issue of the case, that is the disproportionateness of the penalty imposed based on a devalued currency. x x x Thus, it is imperative for this Supreme Court to declare through its power of judicial review that these statutory provisions are unconstitutional." (Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar, Constitutional Challenge in the Sentencing Process, pp. 14-16, August 16, 2013).
28 Prof. Tadiar agreed to this statement.
29 Angola Toothbrush available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/ANGOLA-Toothbrush-/221195152522?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item3380422c8a (last accessed March 6, 2014).
30 Taupe Lipstick available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/taupe-lipstick-/271167294212?pt=LH_Default Domain_211&hash=item3f22d48b04 (last accessed March 6, 2014).
31 Authentic Brand New Old Navy Slippers available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/Authentic-Brand-New-OLD-NAVY-Womens-Lippers-Size-7-Color-White-/261178377863?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item3ccf71c687 (last accessed March 6, 2014).
32 Auth Philip Stein Large Black Calfskin Strap Brandnew available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/AUTH-Philip-Stein-Large-Black-Calfskin-Strap-Brand-New-/261176803770?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item3ccf59c1ba (last accessed March 6, 2014).
33 Authentic Louis Vuitton Lumineuse available at http://www.ebay.ph/itm/BNEW-Authentic-Louis-Vuitton-LV-Lumineuse-PM-Aube-140923515015?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_211&hash=item20cfb23087 (last accessed March 6, 2014).
34 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 133.
35 Id., Art.153.
36 Id., Art. 174.
37 Id., Art. 249.
38 Id., Art. 256.
39 People v. Bayon, G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 702.
40 People v. Solangon, 563 Phil. 316 (2007).
41 Office of the Solicitor General, Supplemental Comment (August 22, 2013); Senate President, Memorandum (September 26, 2013); and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Memorandum (October 21, 2013).
42 Mario L. Bautista, Compliance 2 (March 12, 2014).
43 "Applied to the present case, while Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code appears on its face as constitutionally valid, the manner by which it is applied by the Court of Appeals to petitioner’s case will result into an unreasonable consequence for the petitioner. Instead of being qualified for probation based on an interpretation that takes into account adjustment for inflation, petitioner would be made to suffer the penalty of from four (4) years and two (2) months as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum. This interpretation is plainly discriminatory, unreasonable and oppressive. x x x The mechanism suggested by the undersigned through judicial interpretation is not antithetical to the established rule that this Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review cannot encroach upon the power of the Legislature." (Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Comment, pp. 4, 11-12 [September 30, 2013]).
"It is well settled that a court may consider the spirit and reason of a statute, and even resort to extrinsic aids, when its literal application would lead to absurdity, contradiction, impossibility, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the law makers. x x x This Court, therefore, can go outside the four corners of the law to give it meaning." (Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno, Free Legal Assistance Group, De La Salle University College of Law, Comment, p. 3 [September 21, 2013]).
44 An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act 386, Art. 2206 (1950).
45 Id., Art. 2206.
46 M. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 120 Phil. 102, 106 (1964).
47 People v. Pantoja, supra note 25, at 458.
48 People v. Dela Fuente, 211 Phil. 650, 656 (1983).
49 Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, Minutes (August 30, 1990).
50 People v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 213; People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434, 454 (2006).
51 Justice Jose C. Vitug, 4 Civil Law, 2nd ed. 2006.
52 Supra note 25.
53 Id. at 457-458.
54 Id. at 458.
55 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 5.
56 Id.
57 People v. Montano and Cabagsang, 57 Phil. 598 (1932); People v. Canja, 86 Phil. 518 (1950), (see Dissenting Opinion of J. Montemayor, pp. 522-523).
58 Arsenio M. Balisacan, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary and Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority (April 23, 2014).
59 National Statistics Office, Consumer Price Index Primer available at http://www.census.gov.ph/old/data/technotes/Primer%20on%20Consumer%20Price%20Index.pdf (last accessed March 21, 2014); Philippine Satistics Authority, Consumer Price Index for Bottom 30% Income Households , Reference No. 2014-005 (January 30, 2014).
60 Balisacan, supra note 58.
61 Ericta, supra note 23.
62 Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of government. It may also take judicial notice as provided in Section 2 of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Indeed, the Court has in the past consistently taken note of and acted on the inflationary movement of the purchasing power of the peso.
63 G.R.No.182748,Decemberl3,2011,662SCRA266.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
CONCURRING OPINION
BRION, J.:
I agree with the ponencia 's conclusion that Lito Corpuz is guilty of the crime of Estafa as the facts and the evidence sufficiently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
I also support the majority's decision not to "judicially interpret" the penalties imposed under Article 217 (Malversation of Public Funds or Property), Articles 299-303 (Robbery), Articles 308-309 (Simple Theft), Article 310 (Qualified Theft), Articles 315-318 (Estafa and other forms of Swindling), Articles 320-325 (Arson), and Articles 327-329 (Mischiefs) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), by adjusting, for inflation, the value of the money or property (subject of the crime) to its 1930 value. My reasons for supporting the ponencia are as follows:
First, the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of imposing the penalties prescribed under the other crimes in the RPC.
Second, modifying the penalties, as several of my esteemed colleagues have proposed, is not judicial interpretation that simply looks at the letter and spirit of the law; it is judicial legislation that unconstitutionally (and thus, illegally) breached the doctrine of separation of powers.
Third, the present day application of the 1930 values will not result in the denial of Corpuz' s right to equal protection of the law.
Fourth, the constitutionally and legally permissible solution to the perceived disparity between the prescribed penalty and the crime in light of he present values of money and property is the grant, by the President of the Philippines, of executive clemency through pardon or parole.
Fifth, the minority's position can, in effect, lead to repercussions that could potentially destabilize the application of our penal laws and jurisprudence, as well as further clog the Court's already congested dockets.
Lastly, I cannot agree with the expressed opinion that the incremental penalty imposed on estafa is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment; like the rest of the majority, I believe that no such effect occurs under the present law and its application.
I. The Court has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of imposing the penalties prescribed under other crimes in the RPC.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Abad, as supported by several other justices, sought to adjust for inflation the amounts involved in estafa; by so doing, he also sought to 'judicially interpret" the subject matter of the crimes of malversation, theft, qualified theft, arson and mischiefs.
In my view, what they propose to do involves an undue and unwarranted invocation of the Court's judicial power - an act that cannot be done without violating the due process rights of the Republic. Notably, the Republic focused solely and was heard only on the matter of estafa. In fact, the present case is only about estafa, not any other crime. To touch these other crimes in the present case likewise involves acts of policy determination on the substance of the law by the Judiciary - a violation of the highest order of the limits imposed on us by the Constitution.
I am not unaware that an appeal in criminal cases throws the case wide open for review, and allows the reviewing tribunal the power to correct errors or to reverse the trial court's decisions on the grounds other than those raised by the parties as errors.1 In reviewing criminal cases, we recognize our duty to correct errors as may be found in the judgment appealed regardless of whether they had been made the subject of assignments of error or not.
This discretion, however, is limited to situations where the Court intends to correct the trial court's errors in applying the law and appreciating the facts. A quick survey of jurisprudence shows that this includes re-evaluating factual questions presented before the trial court,2 weighing the credibility of witnesses and other pieces of evidence presented before the trial court,3 or applying the proper penalty.4
Thus, at most, the Supreme Court's wide discretion in reviewing criminal cases allows it to motu proprio provide a proper interpretation of the penal law being applied. This discretion, however, does not extend to the power to adjust the penalty defined in the law, based on the monetary value of the property involved in the crime of estafa.
More than this, the Court's discretion does not allow it to similarly adjust the penalties defined in other crimes, similarly based on the monetary values of the property involved in these other crimes, as these other crimes are not involved in the present case. These crimes and their penalties have neither been adjudicated upon by the trial court nor by the CA; neither is the "judicial interpretation" of their penalties necessary to determine whether Corpuz committed the crime of estafa in the present case.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, the validity of Justice Abad's arguments regarding the disproportionality of the penalties defined in these crimes (as the intrinsic value of the money in properties involved have significantly dropped), we still cannot ipso facto apply the adjustments he seeks in the present estafa case, to the other crimes. The proportionality issue in estafa is different from the proportionality issue in these other crimes, as each crime is different from another.
Let me point out that there are considerations in determining whether a penalty is proportional to crimes other than the monetary value of the property involved. The perpetration of fraud, the key element in estafa, is not present in theft or arson, while the abuse of public office is a unique key element in malversation. We cannot make a uniform ruling adjusting the amounts involved in these crimes simply based on inflation and without considering the other factors that Congress considered in imposing the values of the property involved in these crimes. This conundrum again shows that the judicial interpretation espoused by the minority is actually a judicial usurpation of Congress' prerogative to define crimes and to determine their penalties.
II. The enduring constitutional and jurisprudential imperative upholding the separation of powers completely abhors any unwarranted intrusion and impermissible usurpation of the authority and functions of a co-equal branch
A characteristic and cardinal principle that governs our constitutional system is the separation of powers.5 The Constitution does not expressly provide for the principle of separation of powers. Instead, it divides the governmental powers among the three branches - the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Under this framework, the Constitution confers on the Legislature the duty to make the law (and/or alter and repeal it), on the Executive the duty to execute the law, and on the Judiciary the duty to construe and apply the law.6
Underlying the doctrine of separation of powers is the general proposition that the whole power of one department should not be exercised by the same hands that possess the whole power of the other departments.7 Within their respective spheres of influence, each department is supreme and the exercise of its powers to the full extent cannot be questioned by another department. Outside of their defined spheres of action, none of the great governmental departments has any power, and nor may any of them validly exercise the powers conferred upon the others.8
Section 1, paragraph 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that "judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law." Simply stated, what the Constitution confers on the Court is only "judicial power" and it is this judicial power that serves as the measure of the permissible reach of the Court's action.9 In short, the Judiciary can neither make the law nor execute it, as its power is strictly confined to the law's interpretation and application, i.e., to what is aptly termed "judicial" power.
II.A. Judicial power; its scope and limitations
Section 1, paragraph 2, Article VIII of the Constitution states that judicial power "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," as well as to "determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Traditionally, judicial power has been defined as "the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction."10 It is "the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights."11
In this light, no court can exercise judicial power unless real parties come before it for the settlement of actual controversy and unless the controversy is of the nature that can be settled in a manner that binds the parties through the application of existing laws.12 This traditional concept of judicial power, as the application of law to actual controversies, reflects the constitutional imperative of upholding the principle of separation of powers, such that the Judiciary has no power to entertain litigations involving the legality, wisdom, or the propriety of the conduct of the Executive; neither has it the power to enlarge, alter or repeal laws or to question the wisdom, propriety, appropriateness, necessity, policy or expediency of the laws.13
While the Constitution has now extended the scope of judicial power beyond the mere application of law and the settling of disputes (as it now includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government), this expanded scope does not still permit any inquiry into the conduct or act of either of the executive or the legislative branch other than to determine whether either branch violated the Constitution or gravely abused its discretion in a manner amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
II.B. The power to define crimes and their
penalties lies in the legislature as an
imperative of the principle of separation of
powers
On the legislature's exclusive domain, through lawmaking, lies the authority to define what constitutes a particular crime in this jurisdiction. It is the legislature, as representative of the sovereign people, that determines which acts or combination of acts is criminal and what the ordained punishments shall be.14 Judicial interpretation of penal laws should be aligned with the evident legislative intent, as expressed primarily in the language of the law as it defines the crime.15
As the Constitution vests the power to enact laws on the legislature, the courts cannot arrogate the power to enlarge the scope of the crime, introduce matters that the legislature clearly did not intend, redefine a crime in a manner that does not hew to the statutory language,16 or modify the penalty to conform to the courts' notion (out of the innumerable number of notions) of justice and fairness. A becoming regard for the prerogative of Congress in defining crimes/felonies should prevent the Court from making any broad interpretation of penal laws where a "narrow interpretation" is appropriate.17
"The Court must take heed to language, legislative history and purpose, in order to strictly determine the wrath and breath of the conduct the law forbids."18
II. C. "Plain meaning rule" in statutory
construction should be applied in reading
Article 315 of the RPC
The cardinal canon in statutory construction - the plain meaning rule or verba legis - requires that "the meaning of a statute should, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed; if the language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms."19 In interpreting any statute in the exercise of its judicial power of applying the law, the Court should always turn to this cardinal canon before all others. "Courts should always presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there,"20 and that the legislature knows "the meaning of the words, to have used them advisedly, and to have expressed the intent by use of such words as are found in the statute."21
Thus, when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,22 and does not yield absurd and unworkable results,23 the duty of interpretation, more so of construction, does not arise;24 the Court should resort to the canons of statutory construction only when the statute is ambiguous.25
Interpretation, as understood in the rules of statutory construction, refers to the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words, or the sense which their author intended to convey.26 Construction, on the other hand, refers to the art of drawing conclusions from matters beyond the direct expressions of text, from elements known from and given in the text, or conclusions that are in spirit, but not within the text,27 where the intention is rendered doubtful, among others, because the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law28 or because the words used are obscure or susceptible to numerous interpretations. Both these two terms, however, have no place in the present case as the meaning of the penalties imposed is clear and needs neither construction nor interpretation.
11.D. The ''plain meaning rule" and the principle
of separation of powers prevent this Court
from modifying, by adjusting for inflation,
the penalties under Article 315 of the RPC
The language of the penalty clauses of Article 315 of the RPC is plain and clear; no reservation, condition or qualification, particularly on the need for adjustment for inflation, can be read from the law, whether by express provision or by implication. The clear legislative intention to penalize estafa according to the "amount of fraud" as enumerated in the law, therefore, should be deemed complete - Article 315 embodies all that the legislature intended when the law was crafted.
As the words of Article 315 are clear, the Court cannot and should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the law or from legislative history,29 i.e., to remedy the perceived grossly unfair practice of continuing to impose on persons found guilty of estafa the penalties that the RPC Commission pegged on the value of money and property in 1930.
Notably, in his approach in the present case, Justice Abad labors under the presumption that the RPC Commission intended that the penalties under Article 315 of the RPC should adopt and reflect the values of money and property prevailing at the time of the commission of the crime; hence, his position that the "amount of fraud" should be adjusted for inflation.
I find this approach and the resulting position manifestly flawed; Justice Abad effectively posits that the "amount of fraud" as the basis of the penalty will significantly vary at each instance as this will depend on such factors as the kind or type of the thing or property subject of the crime, and its corresponding monetary value at the time of the commission of the crime. The monetary value, in turn, will depend on several variables affecting the economy. To my mind, these are clearly matters of fact and policy determination that are far beyond the scope of judicial power.
In fact, a review of several amendatory statutes of Article 315 of the RPC reveals a legislative intent contrary to Justice Abad's proposition that the RPC Commission intended that the "amount of fraud" as basis for the penalties should account for the inflation.
In point are the following: (1) Presidential Decree No. 818 (enacted in October 22, 1975) increased the penalties in cases of estafa resulting from bouncing checks under Article 315(2)(d); and (2) Presidential Decree No. 1689 (enacted on April 6, 1980) increased the penalty for certain forms of estafa under Articles 315 and 316. These statutes increased the penalties for estafa under certain conditions despite the then already declining monetary value on account of inflation.
Arguably, the Court had in the past (as in the cases cited by Justice Abad) resorted to interpretation of monetary values to cope with inflation. These instances, however, concerned awards of civil liability and moral damages for death.30 These cases involved civil damages awards that are in stark contrast with the penalty issue that faces this Court in the present petition. In fact, the Historical Notes of the RPC Commission31 shows the law's concern for the heirs of the deceased (victim) as the force that impelled the legislature to increase the civil indemnity by statute;32 the Court simply took judicial notice of this concern in interpreting the monetary values in the cited cases.
Moreover, Justice Abad's presumption patently deviates from the rule of progressive interpretation that "extends by construction the application of a statute to all subjects or conditions within its general purpose or scope that come into existence subsequent to its passage[.]"33 The rule requires that "a word of general signification employed in a statute should be construed, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, to comprehend not only peculiar conditions obtaining at the time of its enactment but those that may normally arise after its approval as well."34
Thus, Article 315 of the RPC should be understood as embracing all things and property that may be subject of the crime of estafa regardless of the changes in their monetary value, and that the "amount of fraud" as basis for the penalty (and as enumerated under Article 315) should be applied without reference to these changes.
Then, too, Justice Abad's position departs from the theory of originalism that he used as supporting argument.
Originalism is generally employed in relation with the Constitution and has its roots in the "original" intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is a theory or a framework of principles used in interpreting and understanding the texts of the Constitution. It is premised on the idea that the original meaning of the Constitution is relatively fixed, and the originalist enterprise is fundamentally committed to discerning the fixed meaning the framers gave to the Constitution.35
Originalism, as a theory of constitutional interpretation, has so far evolved into numerous versions, the more common of which are original understanding and original intent.36
Originalism as original understanding seeks the meaning of the words themselves as understood at the time,37 or the meaning of the words to the society that adopted it - regardless of what the framers might secretly have intended.38 In contrast, originalism as original intent seeks the meaning of the words according to what the framers had in mind39 or the meaning that the framers attached to the words that they employed in the Constitution.40
As a theory of constitutional interpretation, I submit that originalism cannot properly be applied to interpret and modify Article 315 of the RPC because this is a statute, not a constitutional provision to which the theory of originalism generally applies.
Granting that originalism can be permissibly adopted to interpret statutes, the theory - whether viewed as original understanding or original intent - commands that Article 315 be read and interpreted according to its fixed and original meaning. Thus, in the same manner that the rule of progressive interpretation bars reference to the changes in the monetary values of the things and property subject of the crime, under the theory of originalism, the "amount of fraud" as basis for the penalty (as enumerated under Article 315), should likewise be applied without reference to the changes in the monetary values.
Accordingly, I find Justice Abad's proposition in this case to be improper and inappropriate because: (1) the modification of the penalty transgressed the clear intent of the legislature as the adjustment for inflation is not supported by the letter of Article 315 of the RPC nor by its intent; (2) in adjusting for inflation the monetary values to modify the penalties under
Article 315, the Court resorted to construction that the law and the circumstances clearly did not require; and (3) in modifying the penalty by construction, the Court manifestly usurped, by judicial legislation, the power that rightfully belongs to the legislature.
III. The application of the penalties prescribed under Article 315 of the RPC, as written, would not violate Corpuz's right to equal protection of the law
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently provides: "nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like circumstances.41 It demands that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to the rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.42
The equal protection, however, does not demand absolute equality under all circumstances. The protection recognizes that persons are not born equal and have varying handicaps that society has no power to abolish.43 Thus, the equal protection clause permits reasonable classifications provided that the classification: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane to he purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class.44
The application of the penalties under Article 315 of the RPC, as written, to the present situation does not violate Corpuz's right to the equal protection of the law. The circumstances prevailing when the RPC Commission fixed the penalties for estafa in 1930, vis-a-vis . the circumstances presently obtaining, hardly differ, and the considerations that impelled the RPC Commission in fixing the mode and duration of these penalties persist and continue to justify their application to the present conditions.
The key element in estafa is the fraudulent act committed that has caused harm to others. Estafa penalizes the fraudulent act. I submit that there has been no change in the way the RPC defines fraud and, hence, there should be no reason for a change in the way a fraudulent act is penalized.
A fraud committed in the 1930s should be punished in the same manner as a fraud committed in the present day. That the consequences of the fraudulent act constituted the basis for determining the gradation of penalties was a policy decision that Congress had the prerogative to make. This included the value behind each threshold and its corresponding penalty. What was true then is still true today.
Thus, the disparity between the monetary values of things and property in the 1930s and the prevailing monetary values of like things and property do not amount to distinctions so substantial that they would require this Court to treat and classify Corpuz differently from persons who committed estafa in 1930.
In fact, the converse proposition, i.e., to treat Corpuz and others who will, from here on, commit the crime of estafa differently from those who committed the same crime in the 1930s up to and prior to the decision in this case, by modifying the penalty according to what it perceived as the correct inflation rate, will inevitably violate the constitutional right of the latter group of persons to the equal protection of the law.
This modification of the penalty effectively dictates a classification that does not rest on substantial distinctions; is irrelevant to the purpose of the law punishing estafa, i.e., to punish and discourage dishonesty and unfaithfulness in the administration or care of money, goods or other personal property received for the purpose;45 and applies only to those who commit the crime subsequent to the decision.
IV. The grant, by the President of the Philippines, of executive clemency through pardon or parole, when warranted, would sufficiently address the perceived disparity, in the context of the present values of money and property, between the prescribed penalty and the crime committed
I further submit that the law, in its wisdom, already provides a constitutionally and legally permissible solution to what Justice Abad perceived as the "grossly unfair practice of continuing to impose on persons found guilty of certain crimes the penalties [that had been] pegged on the value of money and property more than 80 years ago in 1930."
These solutions are the exercise, by the President of the Philippines of his clemency powers under Section 19, Article VIII of the Constitution,46 and the exercise by this Court of its recommending power under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the RPC.
Article 5, paragraph 2, of the RPC states that when the strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, considering the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense, "the [C]ourt shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper[.]"
The factual and legal conditions that some members of this Court feel badly about can be addressed through the exercise of this recommendatory power. This course of action may adequately address whatever perceived disparity there might be, created by inflation, between the crime and the penalty while preserving and upholding, at the same time, the cardinal principle of the separation of powers. The Court is not likewise barred from calling the attention of Congress to the perceived disparity so that any problem there can be addressed through legislation.
In sum, even granting arguendo that the penalty the CA imposed on Corpuz is "grossly unfair" from the economic and pragmatic point of view (as Justice Abad has carefully crafted), the solution to this "gross unfairness" is not for this Court, by itself, to provide. Article 315 of the RPC is plain and unambiguous and Corpuz's case falls clearly within its provisions. Hence, under the circumstances and within the context of this case, the Court's duty is simply to apply the law. Resorting to judicial legislation by construction encroaches into the exclusive domain of the legislature - a course that clearly violated the constitutional separation of powers principle.
V. The effect of Justice Abad's "judicial interpretation" could have destabilizing repercussions on the application of our penal laws and jurisprudence. It will as well further clog the Court's already congested dockets.
I believe that Justice Abad's proposition, while grounded on noble intentions, could destabilize the application of our penal laws. I submit the following practical considerations against it:
First, Justice Abad's proposal, in effect, postulates that the monetary value of the money and property subject of the crime should be kept at its value at the time the crime was legislated. This prompted his demand to adjust the present day values of the amounts involved in distinguishing the penalties for estafa, qualified theft, malversation, among others, to keep their values at the 1930's level. This argument applies not just to the crimes it has enumerated, but to other crimes which use the value of the property involved in the criminal act as an element of the crime, or as a standard for determining the penalty of the crime.
Examples of these offenses include plunder47 (which includes as an element of the crime the acquisition of at least PSO million in ill-gotten wealth) and the failure by a covered institution to report covered transactions as defined in the Anti-Money Laundering Act.48
Should the amounts involved in these crimes be automatically adjusted now, to keep them within their value at the time the crimes were defined and penalized? Both the crimes of plunder and money-laundering, for instance, are of relatively recent enactment. The Act Defining the Crime of Plunder was passed in 1991 and the Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2001.
When do we adjust the value of these amounts so that they would remain in keeping with the intent of Congress at the time of its enactment? Do we adjust these for inflation every year, from the time of enactment, or after ten, or twenty years when the value of the peso has significantly changed?
The lack of any specific answer to these questions reaffirms that the prerogative to value the money or property involved in a crime lies with Congress and is not for the courts to make through "judicial interpretation."
Second, the proposition would open the floodgates for habeas corpus petitions for the adjustment of the penalties imposed on convicts now in prison for estafa. These petitions would be based on equal protection grounds, swamping the courts with pleas for the reduction of sentences. Significantly, in undertaking adjustments, it would be inaccurate to apply the 1: 100 adjustment ratio that Justice Abad uses as base because these convicts committed their respective crimes in different years. Effectively, all these petitions would be resolved on a case-to-case basis as proper proportionality would have to be determined based on inflation in these different years.
VI. The penalties in estaf a do not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
I cannot agree that the disproportionality in terms of the length of imprisonment and the amount involved in the estafa is within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishments.
First, I submit that the issue of a statute's constitutionality, including those of criminal statutes, should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The ponencia 's summation of the case's antecedents does not show that the constitutionality of the estafa's penalty had been raised in the trial court, or in the CA, and even in the present petition in the Supreme Court.
As I earlier discussed, we have a wide latitude of discretion in reviewing criminal cases, especially in comparison to our approach in reviewing the civil and labor cases appealed before us. But this wide latitude, to my mind, does not authorize us to disregard the requirements of constitutional litigation.
Even assuming that the Court may, on its own, raise the issue of constitutionality of the penalty of estafa, the principle of stare decisis bars us from relitigating an issue that has already been decided.
The Court has had, on two occasions, upheld the constitutionality of the penalty imposed on estafa. In Lim v. People,49 the Court en banc reiterated a prior ruling by the Court's Second Division in People v. Tongko,50 which ruled that the increase in the penalty for estafa, committed through bouncing checks under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 818, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
The petitioners in Lim argued that PD No. 818 is a cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment for the following reasons: first, the penalty of reclusion perpetua under PD No. 818 for estafa involving the amount of:₱365,750.00 is too disproportionate to the crime it punishes; and second, the penalties for estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts (committed through bouncing checks) increased without a corresponding increase in the original amounts for estafa defined in the RPC, when these amounts have become negligible and insignificant compared to the present value of the peso.
The Court in Lim held that the increase in penalties provided by PD No. 818 is neither the cruel nor degrading punishment that the Constitution contemplates. Affirming this ruling in Tongko, the Court held that "the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount[.]"51
According to Lim v. People,52 "It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution." The impugned penalty must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community."53
The Court also noted that while PD No. 818 makes the penalties for estafa more severe, this severity alone does not make it the cruel or degrading punishment that the Constitution prohibits. The Court observed that the increase of the penalties is not without justification: the increase in penalty was intended to repress the crime of swindling through bouncing checks, as it erodes the people's confidence in using negotiable instruments and results in the "retardation of trade and commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the country."54
The present case involves arguments similar to those the Lim petitioners presented, and I find that no basis exists for the Court to deviate from its earlier ruling. Notably, the Court en bane arrived at this ruling without any reservations or dissenting opinions.
I submit that the Court should respect and recognize the principle of stare deeisis in this case, as Lim stands as precedent against the arguments raised in the current case. They both involve the same issues and arguments; the penalty imposed by PD No. 818, which was contested in Lim and Tongko, was even higher than the penalties contested in the current case (which involves estafa without the qualifying circumstance of having been committed through bouncing checks).
These considerations, to my mind, effectively refute the arguments regarding the severity and disproportionality of the penalties under estafa presented in the current case. If we have twice respected and recognized the legislative's prerogative to increase the penalty of estafa committed through PD No. 818, why should we now deny them this prerogative and assert for ourselves the authority to determine the penalty of estafa itself?
Neither is a perceived disproportionality in the penalties and its comparison with the penalties of other crimes sufficient to establish the questioned penalty as cruel or degrading.
In Baylosis v. Hon. Chavez, Jr.,55 the Court en banc upheld the constitutionality of Section 1 of PD No. 1866, which penalizes with reclusion perpetua "any person who shall unlawfully manufacturer, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm," "in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion."
The petitioners in Baylosis questioned the constitutionality of the penalty, pointing out, among other arguments, that the crime of possessing a firearm in furtherance of rebellion is even more severe than the crime of rebellion itself.
The Court in Baylosis interestingly ruled that the difference in the penalty between PD No. 1866 and the RPC does not necessarily establish that the heavier penalty under PD No. 1866 is excessive, disproportionate, or cruel or unusual. The Court noted that it could be argued the other way around - that the penalty of the crime of rebellion is too light; and that the remedy for this situation is through law, and not judicial interpretation.
Thus, Baylosis established that in determining the severity and disproportionality of a penalty, the Court should look only at the crime and penalty in question and avoid its comparison with other crimes. And in determining whether a penalty is wholly disproportional to the crime it punishes (so that it shocks the community's moral standards), we must examine whether the penalty imposed is justified by the evil sought to be prevented by Congress in penalizing the crime.
In this case, the Solicitor General has adequately provided the reason for the penalties behind the estafa, i.e., to protect and encourage the growth of commerce in the country and to protect the public from fraud. This reason, to my mind, is sufficient to justify the penalties for estafa. That the amount taken from the private injured party has grown negligible through inflation does not ipso facto make the penalty wholly disproportional. In determining whether a penalty is cruel or unusual, we have considered not just the amount taken from the private injured party, but also considered the crime's impact on national policy and order.56 It cannot be gainsaid that the perpetuation of fraud adversely impacts on the public's confidence in our financial system and hinders as well the growth of commerce.
As a final point, I note that the 1987 Constitution has changed the language of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions to "cruel, degrading or inhuman." This change of wording is not without reason - it was designed to give Congress more leeway in formulating the penalties it deems fit to the crimes that it may decide to penalize in the future.
As explained by Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J., who sponsored the draft Bill of Rights, the word unusual was replaced with the words "degrading or inhuman" because Congress, in the future, may create a penalty not yet known or imposed; and the fact of its novelty should not be a ground to question its constitutionality.57
I submit that we, as interpreters and enforcers of the Constitution, should not go against the general spirit and intent of the Constitution to recognize the prerogative of Congress to create penalties. Immediately equating disproportionality and severity to a cruel, degrading punishment unduly limits this prerogative, as it would open the floodgates for the review of penalties on the mere contention or belief that the imprisonment imposed is too long or that the fines assessed are too high. These, to me, are policy questions that should be best addressed by the political branches of government, not by the Supreme Court.
In these lights, I fully concur with and join the ponencia of Justice Peralta.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 People of the Philippines v. Salva, 424 Phil. 63, 75 (2002).
2 Obosa v. CA, 334 Phil. 253, 272 (1997).
3 Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650, 663 (2004).
4 Quemuel v. CA, et al., 130 Phil. 33, 35-36 (1968).
5 See I Defensor-Santiago, M., Constitutional Law, Text and Cases (2000), p. 163.
6 Id. at 169-170, citing US. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1 (1922).
7 Id. at 164.
8 Id. at 194, citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936).
9 Bernas, S. J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, (2009), p. 946.
10 Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, (2009), p. 946, quoting Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).
11 Id. at 946, quoting Lopez v. Roxas, 17 SCRA 756, 761 (1966).
12 Id. at 946-947.
13 See I Defensor-Santiago, M., Constitutional Law, Text and Cases (2000), pp. 586-587.
14 See Valenzuela v. People, 552 Phil. 381, 414 (2007); and Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, 518 Phil. 409, 432-433 (2006).
15 Valenzuela v. People, supra, at 414.
16 Id. at 414-415.
17 Id. at 415.
18 Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, supra note 14, at 433, citing Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985); and Valenzuela v. People, supra note 14, at 415.
19 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).
20 Connecticut Nat'! Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, (1992); and Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Hon. Inciong, etc., et al., 217 Phil. 629, 642 -643 (1984).
21 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction, Incorporated (PEJI), G.R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 658, 665.
22 Cebu Portland Cement Company v. Municipality ofNaga, Cebu, et al., 133 Phil. 695, 699 (1968).
23 Dennis B. Funa, Canons of Statutory Construction (2011), p. 215, citing CONN. GEN. STAT. Par. l-2z, 2007.
24 See Catiis v. Court of Appeals (17th Division), 517 Phil. 294, 303 - 304 (2006).
25 Dennis B. Funa, Canons of Statutory Construction (2011), pp. 214-215, citing CONN. GEN. STAT. Par. l-2z, 2007.
26 Id. at 4-5, citing Henry Campbell Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws (1896). See also Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth edition), p. 734.
27 Dennis B. Funa, Canons of Statutory Construction (2011), pp. 4-5, citing Henry Campbell Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws (1896). See also Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth edition), p. 283.
28 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Palomar, No. L-19650, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 247, 256.
29 See Burden v. Snowden, 2 Cal. 4th 556 (1992).
30 Justice Abad cited the following cases to support its position: People v. Amanses, 80 Phil. 424, 435 (1948); M Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 120 Phil. 102, 106 (1964); People v. Pantoja, 134 Phil. 453, 458 (1968); People v. Dela Fuente, 211 Phil. 650, 656 (1983); People v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 213; and People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434, 454 (2006).
Note that all of these cases involve the award of civil indemnity and moral damages for crimes and quasi-delicts resulting in death. In these cases, what the Court increased, through interpretation of the monetary values, was the civil indemnity awarded to the victim of the crime and not the penalty imposed on the offender.
31 See Ernesto L. Pineda, Torts and Damages (2004), p. 139. As quoted:
"Human life has heretofore been very cheap, in law and the practice thereunder. Before the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 284 in June 1938 the practice was to allow P 1,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased in case of death caused by crime. Later, by virtue of that special law, a minimum of ₱2,000.00 was fixed, but the court usually awarded only the minimum, without taking the trouble to inquire into the earning capacity of the victim, and regardless of aggravating circumstances."
32 Referring to Commonwealth Act No. 284.
33 Orceo v. Commission on Elections, Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Brion, G.R. No. 190779, March 26, 20 I 0, 616 SCRA 684, 703, citing Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 177-178 (2003).
34 Ibid.
35 See Keith E. Whittington, Originalism 2.0: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium On Law And Public Policy -- 20 I 0: I. Originalism: A Rationalization For Conservativism Or A Principled Theory Of Interpretation?: Is Originalism Too Conservative?, Copyright (c) 2011 Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 29. (www.lexisnexis.com)
See also Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239. (www.lexisnexis.com)
36 See Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, living Originalism. 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L..I. 239. (www.lexisnexis.com)
37 See Keith E. Whittington, Originalism 2.0: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium On Law And Public Policy -- 2010: I. Original ism: A Rationalization For Conservativism Or A Principled Theory Of Interpretation?: ls Originalism Too Conservative?, Copyright (c) 2011 Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 29. (www.lexisnexis.com)
38 See Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith, living Originalism, 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239. (www.lexisnexis.com)
39 Ibid.
40 See Thomas B. Colby and Peter J. Smith. living Originalism, 2009 Duke law Journal, 59 Duke L.J. 239. (www.lexisnexis.com)
41 City of Manila v. Hon. laguio, Jr., 495 Phil. 289, 326-327 (2005).
42 Ibid. See also Rega/av. Sandiganbayan, 330 Phil. 678, 719 (1996), citing Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971).
43 People of the Philippines v. Ching Kuan, 74 Phil. 23, 24 (1942).
44 Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 560 - 561 (2004); and Quinto v. Commbsion on Efoctions, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, 606 SCRA 258, 291.
45 Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review (2008), p. 953.
46 Section 19, Article VIII of the Constitution pertinently reads:
Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
47 Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (₱50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
48 Section 3 Definitions - xxx
(b) "Covered transaction" is a single, series, or combination of transactions involving a total amount in excess of Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in foreign currency based on the prevailing exchange rate within five (5) consecutive banking days except those between a covered institution and a person who, at the time of the transaction was a properly identified client and the amount is commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client; or those with an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or economic justification.
It likewise refers to a single, series or combination or pattern of unusually large and complex transactions in excess of Four million Philippine pesos (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits and investments having no credible purpose or origin, underlying trade obligation or contract.
SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping.
xxx
(c) Reporting of Covered Transactions. - Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority concerned prescribes a longer period not exceeding ten ( 10) working days.
SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. - Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
xxx
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
49 438 Phil. 749 (2002).
50 353 Phil. 37, 43-44 (1998).
51 Id. at 43.
52 Supra note 47, at 754.
53 Ibid.
54 Supra note 47, at 755.
55 279 Phil. 448, 455 (1991).
56 See Lim v. People, supra note 47, at 755; People v. Tongko, supra note 48, at 44; and Baylosis v. Hon. Chavez, Jr., supra, at 458, 465-466.
57 During the Constitutional Commission's deliberations on the Bill of Rights, Commissioner Maambong noted the change in language of the draft Constitution from "cruel, degrading or inhuman" to "cruel and unusual," thus:
MR. MAAMBONG: I will just ask one more question, Mr. Presiding Officer. On Section 22, the original phrase used in the 1935 Constitution was "cruel and unusual punishment."
FR. BERNAS: Yes. MR. MAAMBONG: In the configuration of the 1973 Constitution, the phrase became "cruel or unusual punishment."
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the United States Constitution as it stands now, it is still "cruel and unusual punishment." But now in the present submission that we are going over, it is "cruel or inhuman."
FR. BERNAS: "Cruel, degrading or inhuman."
MR. MAAMBONG: I just want to find out, Mr. Presiding Officer, why the Committee changed the word "unusual" to "inhuman."
FR. BERNAS: The reason for the change, Mr. Presiding Officer, is this: We avoided the use of the word "unusual" because it tended to give the interpretation that one cannot innovate therefore as far as penology is concerned - that, if a penalty is something that was never used before, then it would be invalid. So, in order to allow for the development of penology we decided that we should not prohibit unusual punishments in the sense that they are new or novel. Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Vol. I, Jul. 17, 1986, R.C.C. No. 32.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
