SC: Is there need to adjust estafa

penalty under 84-yr-old penal code?

By MARK D. MERUEAS, GMA NewsFebruary 26, 2014 3:53pm
23 22 0 384



Tags: Supreme Court
Should the penalty for money-related crimes like estafa under the country's 84-year-old Revised
Penal Code be updated based on inflation?

If the camp of estafa convict Lito Corpuz were to be asked, it should be.

On Tuesday, Mario Luza Bautista, legal counsel for Corpuz, faced Supreme Court magistrates - who
by their own initiative ordered oral debates to clear the matter, to convince them that the penalty for
property crimes should be adjusted to reflect the current value of money and not in the 1930s when
the RPC the countrys general criminal code was crafted.

"The [Revised Penal] Code has an underlying philosophy of proportional retribution," said Bautista,
adding that the high court should "harmonize" the peso value of today to its equivalent value in 1930.

Article 315 of the RPC imposes a maximum penalty based on the amount defrauded exceeding
P22,000.

If the money involved exceeds that amount, the RPC states that "the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000, but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed 20 years."

Corpuz was convicted over a P98,000 estafa case. The Court of Appeals then imposed a penalty on
him of from four years and two months (minimum) to 15 years (maximum) in prison.

But some sectors, including the camp of Corpuz, think the penalty provided under the RPC is now
considered as disproportionate and excessively harsh given that the value of money has declined
since the 1930s.

"The right to liberty is the cornerstone of all civil liberties. Without the right to liberty, all the other
rights, including the right to live, will suffer," stressed Bautista to stress the need to adjust the
penalties.

1:100 ratio

Asked by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta how best to "humanize" prices to be used in case a
modification is done, Bautista said that business experts can be tapped to determine the
comparative value between money today and in the 1930s.

Bautista claimed that the high court can decide on modifying the penalty for estafa without violating
the separation of powers, saying the high court is "equipped."

"Between Congress and the Supreme Court, I prefer the SC to do the job," he said.

Bautista suggested that the penalties for property crimes like estafa should be adjusted in the ratio
P100 now for every P1 in the 1930s (P1:P100).

Peralta, however expressed concerns that adjusting the penalty for estafa would affect not only
property crimes but also other crimes like malversation, meaning a higher amount would need to be
involved before an offender becomes liable for malversation.

"Are we giving premiums then to corrupt officials by modifying penalties," asked Peralta, to which
Bautista replied: "These exceptions may be carved out of the modification."

'Present value'

For his part, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stressed that the high court should not be "tied up to a
certain period like the 1930s."

The magistrate cited two recent Supreme Court cases that explained the economic concept of
"present value," which uses inflation rate to approximate the value of a certain property at a certain
time.

Also, Associate Justice Roberto Abad noted that the high court has had a long history of adjusting
amounts fixed by law to cope with inflation.

For his part, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio stressed that "a law may be constitutional
when enacted, but over the passage of time, it may become unconstitutional" or what Bautista noted
as "relative constitutionality."

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro said adjusting penalties would set a
"judicial precedent," that would result in the high court being swamped with petitions to adjust
penalties in past cases.

De Castro clarified however that she has nothing against correcting a specific provision, but merely
wanted the high court to be prepared for possible implications of such an adjustment.

Gov't defense

In defense of the RPC provision, Senior State Solicitor Florin Hilbay representing the government
said the definition of crimes and imposition of corresponding penalties should be left to the political
departments.

Hilbay said the "prudent and constitutional solution" to the high court's concern on inflation is to refer
the matter to the president.

Hilbay insisted that it is the legislature which determines penalties for crimes, and not the judiciary.
Hilbay added that Congress still considered the current penal scheme as "just."

'Friends' of SC

Valentina Santana-Cruz, Senate legal counsel who was invited as an amicus curiae (a friend of the
court), said the remedy was not adjustment based on inflation but a resort to Article 5 of the Revised
Penal Code on "excessive penalties."

Article 5 states: "[T]he 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."

Cruz also said there are currently 56 bills seeking to amend the Revised Penal Code but none to
particularly amend Article 315 on estafa.

Manuel "Chel" Diokno, dean of the De La Salle University-College of Law, meanwhile said he thinks
that the "incremental penalty rule" being observed in estafa cases "is not only absurd; it defeats the
purposes of criminal law."

Under the current penalty, a person who commits estafa in an amount exceeding P142,000 will
receive the same penalty as someone who commits estafa involving millions or hundreds of millions
of pesos.

"Is it reasonable that one who commits estafa involving billions of pesos will receive the same
amount of penalty as one who commits estafa involving P143,000 or higher," Diokno asked.

"Is it reasonable that a person who commits estafa or theft of over P142,000 will receive the same
penalty as one who commits homicide or direct assault," he added.

When asked by the justices, what penalty would be put in place in case the high court deems Article
315 of the RPC as unconstitutional, Diokno said: "If the Court should invalidate the incremental
penalty rule, the void as to what penalty should be imposed should be filled by Congress."

University of the Philippines Law professor Alfredo Tadiar, meanwhile, said adjusting the penalty for
estafa based on inflation is not within the power of the high court.

In April 2012, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima formed a committee to conduct a two-phase revision
of the Revised Penal Code because some of its provisions stem from an antiquated general penal
law enacted during the American occupation in 1932.

The new Criminal Code, of which the first of two books has already been written, is a priority project
of the Aquino administration.