8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

1/13

LITO CORPUZ,

-versus-

. , , , 1 , i ~ , . ''\'\'l\ 111 . f ' 1 f ' . ~ r ~ t r , 1 ~ ~ \ J , t : i i J : ( . ~ J J . . : / . t 1 . ~ r i:lt.1t1r ~ > l l ' . , , .ta:...::;;: ,\111l)REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESnY:_ .----..--- .---SUPREME COURT 20111 JAN 17 l\M 8: 52Manila

N B NC

Petitioner

G.R.No.180016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent

0 SUPRF.ME COURTF'FIOEOFTHE CLEHKOFCOURTN BANC RECEIVED

B ~ ~ : / : =T I M E ; ; : : - ' i i t / : T / ~ ~ ~ - A - - . - - -x _ = ~ x,n,;,;-"'l'co j_...::S . ..T '-l ' ~ . . ~"'1 ' (f ' 1. f\,l wt i ~ ~ ~ ~ i . 1 , , , ' - MEMORANDUM' t"'(WJ\l'.'.: j\ fir_.; L \nit

t ~ )~ J \ \ l Tliesp a er of the House of Representatives (HREP), Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.,in accordance with the Honorable Court s request in its 16 July 2013 Resolution,respectfully submits - by way of this Memorandum - his expert opinion on theissues and questions raised by the Court.

PRELIMINARIES1. On 16 July 2013, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution

directing/inviting the respective parties in Lito Corpuz vs People of thPhllippines along with several amici curiae to address questionsbrought about by conflicting views stated therein by way of filing aComment/ Memorandum;

2. The undersigned, as Speaker of the HREP, was among those invited tosubmit his views on the matter;

3.BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

Lita Corpuz (Corpuz) and Danilo Tangcoy (Tangcoy) were bothcollection agents of JBL, Incorporated. Aside from being a collectionagent, Tangcoy was also engaged in the business of buying and sellingjewelry;

4. On 2 May 1991, Corpuz informed Tangcoy that he was interested inselling some jewelry. Tangcoy agreed and entrusted to Corpuz ninetyeight thousand pesos(Php98,000.00) vvorth of jewelry to be sold on

-

..

A 1{. I~ \ ..\ , . ~~ i i

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

2/13

emorandumorpuz vs People

G R No 18 16

2

commission within sixty (60) days - after which Corpuz would have toremit the sale proceeds or, in case of failure to sell, return the jewelry;

5 At the end of the sixty-day 60) period, Tangcoy waited in vain forCorpuz to remit the proceeds of the sale or return the jewelry. It tooktwo 2) months for Tangcoy to finally locate Corpuz, who thenpromised to pay for the jewelry;

6 Corpuz failed to pay as promised. He was then charged before theRegional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo City with the crime of estafa

7 On 30 July 2004, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt andsentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 4 yearsto 2 months of prision correctional in its medium period - as minimum- to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period- as maximum;

8. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modifiedthe penalty to 4 years and 2 months prision correctional - as minimum- to 8 years of prision mayor - as maximum - plus incremental penaltyof 1 year for each additional ten thousand pesos (Phpl0,000.00) for atotal of 15 years.

9. A Motion for Reconsideration has been denied and a Petition forReview is now with this Court;

10. Corpuz posits that the penalty as provided in the Revised Penal Code isdisproportionate and excessively harsh considering that the value ofthe peso has enormously deteriorated since 1932 - when thelegislature codified the Penal Code. He requests that the Supreme Courtapply the inflation rate to arrive at the subject value s 1932 prices - inwhich case, Corpuz would seem to have defrauded Tangcoy of onlynine hundred eighty pesos (Php980.00). Consequently, he can bemeted out a significantly lower penalty;

11. Presented with conflicting views on the matter, the Supreme Courtissued its 16 July 2013 Resolution directing/inviting the respectiveparties and amici curiae to provide their arguments/expert opinions;

ISSU S

The following issues were presented:I Whether or not the penalty imposed on Corpuz should be modified by

considering the present value of the thing subject to his offense adjusted to1932 prices, considering that the legislature decided the amounts subject tothese penalties in 1932; and

II Whether or not that portion of Article 315 that imposes a maximum penaltybased on the amount of the fraud exceeding P22,000 should be declared

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

3/13

Memorandum orpuz vs PeopleG.R. No. 180016

3

unconstitutional and void for being disproportionate and excessively harsh inview of the decline of the value of money since 1932.In addition, the Supreme Court requested that the following questions be

answered:a. Procedurally, may the Court exercise the power of judicial review even when

the petition fails to raise any constitutional challenge? Under whatcircumstances if any) can such exercise be done?

b. May a mode or duration of penalty violate the Equal Protection Clause or theUnusual Punishment Clause? f yes, what standards must be met before apenal law or parts of it can be declared unconstitutional on either of those 2grounds?

c. Applying such standards, does Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code violatethe Equal Protection Clause or the Unusual Punishment Clause?

M NIFEST TION

On 26 July 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III directed therecodification of laws - one of which is the Revised Penal Code - to ensureconsistency. As a result, the Department of Justice formed the Criminal CodeCommittee CCC) through Department Circular No. 19 dated 20 April 2011.

For the past two years, activities such as - but not limited to - expert groupmeetings, special lectures, study visits, high level presentations, focus groupdiscussions, study programs, and a National Justice Summit were held with the aimof achieving a new Criminal Code that:

1. Is simple, modern, organic and truly Filipino;2. ls inclusive, consultative and democratic;3. Is multi-disciplinary, not narrowly legalistic;4. Is systemic perspective - that is, approaching issues from the point of view

of all stakeholders of the criminal justice system; and5. Is not constrained by existing frameworks and adoptive of innovative

solutions tabula rasa approach).

Composed of the Senate, the House of representatives, the Supreme Court, the Philippinejudicial Academy, the Philippine judges Association, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,the Philippine Bar Association, the Philippine National Police, the Chief ProsecutorsAssociation, the Regional Prosecutors Council, the Philippine Association of Law Schools,the Transparency International, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau ofImmigration, the Board of Pardons and Parole, the Bureau of Corrections, the Parole andProbation Administration, the Public Attorney s Office, the Office of the Solicitor General,the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, and the Presidential Commission on GoodGovernment.

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

4/13

emorandumorpuz vs eople

G R No 18 16

4

On 5 August 2013, the House of Representatives launched the New CriminalCode Bill - a prodact of Congressman Neil Tupas efforts for reform together withthe help of the Department of Justice and in partnership with the Hanns SeidelFoundation. It will amend Book 1 of the Revised Penal Code and is currentlyscheduled for deliberations. Its passage into Jaw is targeted on or before 2016.

Taking into consideration the ever-changing moral concepts, scientific andtechnical reforms continuing technological advances, and innovative schemes ofoffenders/syndicates, at the same time respecting existing constitutional provisionsthe key features of the New Criminal Code Bill include the/a:

1 Definjtion of terms;2. Change from territorial to universal jurisdiction application;3. Conduct based approach to criminalization;4. Simplified categorization of crimes - removal of frustrated stages and

accomplices;5. Lowering of criminal age of responsibility subject to rules on suspension

of sentence or application of diversion programs ;

6. Criminal liability of corporations;7. Consolidated criminal and civil actions;8. Tabular scale of principal alternative and accessory penalties as well as

restorative justice measures (please see Annex A ;9. Rationalized rule of Double Jeopardy; and10. Generic modifying circumstances.Meanwhile drafting of a bill to amend Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code is

currently in the process.This recodification of our Revised Penal Code by Congress - with help and

recommendations from various sectors of the government and our society - is asignificant step towards updating archaic terms; deleting superseded and redundantregulations; and settling once and for all conflicting issues brought about byantiquated provisions. As it bears on the present controversy, no longer will theCourt be plagued and accused with application of outdated laws and harsh penalties.

DIS USSION

The pen lty imposed on orpuz shouldnot be modified by considering the

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

5/13

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

6/13

Memorandumorpuz vs People

G.R. No. 1800166

principles where none exists.4 They are decisions that construe away themeaning of statutes or find meanings that the legislature never intended. 5

Thus, arguably, the application of a mathematical formula to arrive atthe 1932 value of the amount involved could be allowed. In doing so, theCourt would not be adding words that do not exist nor would it be exercisingarbitrary discretion. It would merely compute based on acceptedmathematical standards and widely recognized variables.

However, as already mentioned, this Honorable Court is called tomake a decision neither from a purely economic point of view nor for apurely economic purpose. Numerous jurisprudence dictate strictconstruction of criminal laws and further an interpretation that wouldharmonize all provisions - within the subject legislation itself as well as tothe Constitution.

The penalties imposed in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code areclear and do not leave anything which would require interpretation by thejudiciary, When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, thereis no room for construction or interpretation.6 The Courts have no othercourse but to apply the clear provisions of the law.

Further, consideration of all provisions - particularly Article 5 7 of theRevised Penal Code - dictate that this Honorable Court apply Article 315 tothe letter and refer the case to the President for executive clemency.

The Court cannot exercise the power ofjudicial review where the petition fails toraise any constitutional challenge

Judicial review is the Supreme Court s power to declare a treaty,international or. executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,

4 Vidal, . Myrna Dimaranan judicial Legislation: Dissected.http: 11ca.judiciary.gov ph lindex.ph p?action=m n uactual co nten ts@ap=j 60 2OO p =y Iastaccessed August 7, 2013.5 Bouvier s Law Dictionary cited in judicial Legislation in New York, Yale Law journalVolume 14 No. 6, April 6, 1905.6 Manuel G. ABello, Jose C Concepcion, Teodoro D. Regala, Avelino V. Cruz vs. Commissionerof Internal Revenue and Court of Appeals, G.R.No.120721 (February 23, 2005).7 Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which arenot covered y the law nd in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledgeof any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shallrender the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Departmentof Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made thesubject of legislatjon.in the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department ofjustice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of thesentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in theimposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice andthe injury caused by the offense.

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

7/13

Memorandumorpuz vs. People

G.R. No. 1800167

instruction, ord1nance, or regulation unconstitutional.8 It is rooted in the grant ofjudicial power of the Court to settle actual controversies between real conflictingparties through the application of a law9 - whether it be a statute or a constitutionalprecept, the latter situation possibly entailing the rendering a part or the whole of astatute unconstitutional.

Significantly, this power of the Court to review is not without limitation. Itsexercise requires the following requirements 10 :

a. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise ofjudicial power (Actual Case/Ripeness ;

b. The person challenging the act must have a personal and substantial interestin the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a resultof an act or issuance's enforcement (Standing12 ;

c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity;andd. The issue of constitutionality must be the very is mot of the case. (emphasis

supplied)Specifically now in question is whether the Court may exercise this power of

judicial review even when the petition fails to raise any constitutional challenge. Theabovementioned requirements clearly prevent the Courts to raise constitutionalissues on its own - either party to a case before the Court must be the one to do so.As neither party to the case at hand raised the issue of constitutionality of thepenalties of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, there is no reason for the Courtsto delve into the same.

Significantly, even assuming that the issue of constitutionality of thepenalties of Arti.cle 315 of the Revised Penal Code was raised, the Court is to refrainfrom touching the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is thevery is mot or crux of the controversy. 13 Lis mot literally means the cause of thesuit or action." This last requisite of judicial review is an offshoot of the presumptionof validity accorded the executive and legislative acts of our co-equal branches of thegovernment. It is rooted in the principle of separation of powers. Given thepresumed validity of another branch's act, the petitioner who claims otherwise hasthe burden of showing first that the case cannot be resolved unless theconstitutional question he raised is determined by the Court. 14

8 Bernas S.J. Joaquin G. The 1987 Constitution of The Republic of the Philippines: ACommentary, Rex Bookstore, Inc. (Quezon City: 2003) at page 935.9 bid at page 936-937.10 Louis "Barok" c; Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935(December 7 2010).11 A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act beingchallenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. Supra note 8 citpage 938.12 A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has a personal andsubstantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury cis iresult of its enforcement. bid at page 939-940.13 Spouses Carlo S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Rornualdez vs. Commission on Elections andDennis Garay, G.R.No. 167011, (April 30, 2008).14 Hon. Luis Mario M. General vs. Hon. Alejandro S. Urro, G.R.No.191560, (March 29, 2011).

1iiI

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

8/13

MemorandumCorpuz vs. PeopleG R No. 180016

8

t has been the practice of the Courts to avoid adjudication of issuesassailing constitutionality of governmental acts whenever possible Wherethere are other grounds upon which the Court may settle the controversy thatcourse will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left forconsideration until another case arises in which a decision upon suchquestion will be unavoidable 1s The Court should not be overly eager to brandishits power to judicial review where there are other available grounds that wouldavoid a constitutional clash (with the other branches of the Government). 16

mode or duration of penalty may violatethe Equal Protection Clause or theUnusual unishment ClauseEqual Protection Ciause -

Article I l l ill ofRights. Section o person shall be deprivedof life liberty or property without due process of law norshall ny person be denied the equal protection of he laws.

Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution consists of two constitutionalprecepts - due process of law and equal protection. In issue is equal protection,which guarantees the equality of all persons before the law.17 t demands that therebe no undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discriminationor the oppression of inequality. However, that being said, it does not demandabsolute equality among residents.18 It recognizes that human beings are not bornequal and do not all start in life from scratch; many have handicaps - material,physical, or intellectual - that are not within the power of society to abolish. All itcan do by way of remedy is to endeavor to afford everybody equal opportunity. 11Thus, this right only requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under likecircumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilitiesenforced.20

Consequently, it does not deny the State the power to recognize and act uponfactual differences between individuals and classes. It recognizes that in Congresspower to legislate, classification is inevitable. As such, the problem is in determining

15 Dante V Liban, Reynaldo M Bernardo and Salvador M Viari vs. Richard J Gordon,G.R.No.175352, (January 18, 2011).16 Justice Sereno Dissenting Opinion Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated, Luisita Industrial ParkCorporation and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Presidential Agrarian ReformCouncil, Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ngHacienda Luisita, Rene Galang, Noel Mallari and Julio Suniga and his Supervisory Group ofthe Hacienda Luisita, Inc. and Windsor Andaya, G R No. 171101, (July 5, 2011).17 Supra note 8 at page 124.18 Rodolfo C Farinas, Manuel M.Garcia, Francis G Escudero, and Agapito A Aquino vs. TheExecutive Secretary, COMELEC, Hon. Feliciano R Belmonte, Jr., Secretary of the Interior andLocal Government, Secretary of the Senate, and Secretary General of the House ofRepresentatives, G R No. 147387, (December 10, 2003) and Cong. Gerry A Salapuddin vs.COMELEC, G R No. 152161, (December 10, 2003).19 People of the Philippines vs. Ching Kuan, 74 Phil. 23, 24, (1942).20 Supra note 18.

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

9/13

emorandumCorpuz vs PeopleG R No 180016

9

the validity of any classification that may be crafted by Jegislation. 2 People of thePhilippines vs Cayat provided the standards for such, thus:

It is an estabhshed principle of constitutional law that theguaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violatedby a legislation based on reasonable classification. nd theclassification, to be reasonable, 1 J must rest onsubstantial distinctions: 2} must be germane to thepurpose of the law; 3] must not be limited to existingconditions only; and 4] must apply equally to allmembers of he same class.

However, equal protection may be violated by more than an actual denial ofequality (as based on standards set in Cayat). Equal protection may also be violatedby creating a system that can foster inequality - as in the Hong I

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

10/13

MemorandumCorpuz vs PeopleG R No 180016

10

violation of the constitutional prohibition on the mere basis of a disproportionbetween punishment and crime.26

This stand has been overturned in People of the Philippines vs. AlbertoEstoista 7 where an excessive penalty was upheld as constitutional and, thereafter,imposed on the convicted party. Justice Tuason applied Article 5 of the RevisedPenal Code and recommended executive clemency:

If imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out ofproportion to thepresent case in view of certain c i r c u m s t a n c e ~ the law is notto be declared unconstitutional for this reason. Theconstitution lity of n ct of the legisl ture is not to bejudged in the light of exceptional cases. Smalltransgressors for which the heavy net was not spread arelike small fishes, bound to be caught, and it is to meet such asitu tion s this th t courts re dvised to m ke arecommend tion to the Chief Executive for clemency orreduction of he penalty.

Significantly the Court - in overturning its previous decisions - did not ruleout the possibility that a mode or duration may violate the Constitution. In the samecase of Estoista, the Court gave the standard by which the violation may occur:

It t kes more th n merely being harsh, excessive, out ofproportion, or severe for a pen lty to be obnoxious to theConstitution. The fact that the punishment authorized bythe statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual.Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come underthe ban the punishment must be flagrantlv nd plainlyoppressive, wholly disproportion te to the n ture of theoffense s to shock the mor l sense of the community.(emphasis supplied)

However, Article 315 of the Revised PenalCode does not violate the Equal ProtectionClause or the Unusual Punishment Clause.

Article 315 o f the Revised Penal Code provides:Revised Penal Code. Article 3 5 Swindling (estafa) - Anyperson who shall defraud another by any of the meansmentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximumperiod to prision mayor in its minimum period, if he amountof the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000pesos; and if such mount exceeds the l tter sum, the

2 Jbid at page 551-552.z 93 Phil. 647 1953).

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

11/13

Memora 11C o r p u z , . ~ ~ f r i e o t .G.R. NoF i 8oo11 :. :-------- - - ~ : F ~ C J ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ , ; : . L------

' ~ f i : a f i j . p r o v i d e d in ihis paragraph shall be imposed in : ; i1''.f ,}ximum period, adding one year for each additional.::p .. .1-f,: 5 ,. :i:;,.i :, :',;,,,\1:1::" '.Uf(j;poopesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed

' ; , , ; / ' ) 1 ) i f f i ~ { l ' ; ; n o t exceed twenty years. In such cases, and ini i . : : , : c a ' h ' f i ' ~ c t i o n with the accessory penalties which may be

. ' ' t ) i i ; , i ~ p o ~ e d and for the purpose of the other provisions of this. : ' / : < r ; o f l ~ , the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion

tefnporal, as the case may be;: . ::. :,'.A\.: :; : } ~ . : : .:, .

' . \ . : 2 ~ . d . ; t h e penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and' ' ' r r i ~ d i u m periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000

< ' " p e ~ d s but does not exceed 12,000 pesos; / ,, . . .,.

] ; ~ r T h e penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period toprision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is; over200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

. 4t11. BJ arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if suchamount does not exceed 200 pesos provided that in the four casesmentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

xxxAs mentioned, for violation of the Constitutional prov1s1ons on Equal

Protection a'nd Unusual Punishment to take place, the following standards shouldhave been ignored:

Equal ProtectionStandard/s1 Reasonable classification:

a. Must rest on substantial distinctions;b. Must be germane to the purpose of the law;c. Must not be limited to existing conditions only; and

Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

12/13

emorandumorpuz vs People

G R No. 18 16Submitted 21 October 2013.

12

SpeakerHouse of Representati ves

Copy furnished:ATTY NINI D CRUZCounsel for the petitionerMezzanine Viacrusis Bldg.,Rizal Avenue 2200 Olongapo CityFREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP x)c/o Dean Jose Manuel L DioknoDe La Salle University College of LawBr. Andrew Gonzales HallDe La Salle University2401 Taft Ave., ManilaDEAN SEDFREY M CANDELARIA

JUDGE FRANKLIN T DEMONTEVERDEPresident Philippine Judges Association3rc1 Floor Villareal Bldg.,1193 Ma. Orosa St., Malate, ManilaTHE SOLICITOR GENERALOffice of the Solicitor General134 Amorsolo St. Legazpi Village1229 Makati CityHON SENATE PRESIDENTSenate of the PhilippinesGSIS Bldg., Financial CenterRoxas Blvd., 1300 Pasay CityPROFESSOR ALFREDO F TADIARNo. 1 Dona FelicidadDon Antonio Heights Quezon City

. R ~ b t s ~ f u a P TBAlASANG PAlvlf:lMISA POST OFFICEPost fflce

R E t . 9 ~ ~ r l ~ v .BAT/\SANG PAi Mi1INS1; POST OFFICEPost Office

, .

Lett r/Package No _ _ : . ~ h T l l . . 1 . : : - . - . . : - - -

8/12/2019 180016 Belmonte

13/13