03 CORPUZ V PEOPLE
G.R. No. 180016 | 29 APRIL 2014| PERALTA | DELFIN
TOPIC: ARTICLE 5
DOCTRINE:
ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. -
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision,
and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the
reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
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.
Under the provisions of this article the Court cannot suspend the execution of a
sentence on the ground that the strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would cause excessive or harsh penalty. All that the Court could do in
such eventuality is to report the matter to the Chief Executive with a
recommendation for an amendment or modification of the legal provisions
which it believes to be harsh.
ER:
Corpuz was charged with estafa for not being able to return r pay the vaule of
jewelry belonging to Tangcoy as stipulated in their agreement. The court found
him guilty and sentenced him according to Art 315 of the RPC. The penalty
provided in the code was thought to be excessive and cruel since it imposes 1
year of imprisonment for an excess of P10k over P22k making his prison term
15yrs max for P98K.
FACTS:
1. Private Complainant Danilo Tangcoy is engaged in the business of lending
money to casino players. Lito Corpuz upon learning that Tangcoy had
pieces of jewelry for sale, offered to sell them on commission basis.
2. Tangcoy turned over pieces of jewelry to Corpuz amounting to P98k
evidenced by a receipt. The terms of the agreement states that Corpuz will
remit proceeds if sold, or if unsold return the same items within 60 days.
3. The period expired but Corpuz did not return the jewelry of remitted
proceeds. Tangcoy demanded for payment of the entire P98K but Corpuz
failed to pay.
4. An information for estafa was filed against Corpuz. Corpuz plead not guilty.
RTC found Corpuz guilty of Estafa. He was sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of:
Miminum of 4 yrs 2 mos of Prison Correccional Medium to Maximum of
14 yrs and 8mos of Reclusion Temporal Minimum as well as to pay
Tangcoy the 98K and damages.
5. CA affirmed the RTC decision on appeal. However, it modified the
imposition of prison term to:
Minimum of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to Maximum
of 8 years of prision mayor, plus 1 year for each additional ₱10,000.00,
or a total of 7 years.
6. The penalty as modified by the CA was based from the value of money
and property in 1930 when the RPC:
“The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter
amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of
the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.”
7. Corpuz filed for a MR but was denied.
ISSUE/S:
W/N the penalty imposed by the court was correct? – YES but the
computation was wrong.
HELD/RULING;
 The court held that although there seems to be a perceived injustice by the
range of penalties since the amount of damage is measure by the value of
money in 1932, it cannot modify the range of penalties because it would
constitute judicial legislation.
 However, such is not without remedy because by virtue of Article 5, the
court may submit to the Chief executive if it thinks the strict implementation
of the code will result to clear excessive penalty.
 Thus, the remedy is not to suspend the execution of the sentence but to
submit to the Chief Executive the reasons why the court considers the said
penalty to be non-commensurate with the act committed.
 The court affirmed the decision of the CA but again modified the penalty
as below:
Indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 3yrs, 2mos,
11days of prision correccional, as minimum, 15 yrs of reclusion temporal
as maximum.
 The penalty prescribed by Article 315 is composed of only two, not three
periods, in which case, Article 65 requires the division of the time included
 in the penalty into three equal portions of time forming one period of each
of the three portions as below:
Maximum = 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years
Medium = 5 years, 5 months, 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days
Minimum = 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, 10 days
 This is computed as below:
₱98,000.00 - ₱22,000.00 = P76,000.00
Amount of jewelry ceiling set by law
Add 1 year for each additional ₱10,000.00 = 7 years (for the 76K)
Taking the maximum of the prescribed penalty, which is 8 years, plus an
additional 7 years, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is 15
years.

 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since the penalty prescribed by

law for the estafa is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods. The minimum term of the indeterminate
sentence should be anywhere from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2
months.