Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; View that in reviewing criminal cases, we

recognize our duty to correct errors as may be found in the judgment appealed raised by the
parties as errors, regardless of whether they had been made the subject of assignments of error
or not.—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. 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 reevaluating factual questions presented
before the trial court, weighing the credibility of witnesses and other pieces of evidence
presented before the trial court, or applying the proper penalty.
Same; Same; Same; View that 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.—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