CORPUZ v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Lito Corpuz, and private complainant, Danilo Tangcoy were collecting

agents of Antonio Balajadia. Balajadia was engaged in financing business of extending

loans to Subic Base employees. For every collection they made, they earned

commission. According to Tangcoy, Corpuz approached him on May 2, 1991 to forge an

agreement on the jewelries Tangcoy was selling. The agreement was Corpuz shall remit

the proceeds of the sale of his 18 karat diamond ring for men, a women’s and a man’s

bracelets, and a men’s necklace but if unsold, will be returned within sixty (60) days.

Tangcoy issued a receipt to Corpuz amounting to Php 98,000 which was the total cost

of the jewelries. The 60-day period expired. Tangcoy met up with Corpuz and the latter

promised that he would pay him, but to no avail. Tangcoy, then filed a case of estafa

against him with the trial court. Corpuz pleaded not guilty and denied having any

transactions with Tangcoy. According to him, he obtained a loan from Balajadia in 1989

where he was made to sign a blank receipt and that same receipt was used as a piece

of evidence against him. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found Corpuz guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-

paragraph b of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUES:

a) Whether or not the evidence against the petitioner is sufficient to convict him

guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt

b) Whether or not the penalty imposed is in accordance to the crime committed at

the present context

RULING:

a) Yes. The pieces of evidence presented were properly admitted by the petitioner

and there was no violation of best evidence rule. The gravamen of estafa is the

appropriation of money or property received to the prejudice of the offender. The

date of the commission is not essential.

b) There is a necessity to construe and interpret the penalty to be imposed since

the amount is beyond the scope of the Revised Penal Code. In the present

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, there are two (2) periods only from prison

mayor to prison correccional with money involved amounting to Php 12,000.00 to

Php 22,000.00 with additional one (1) year for every Php 10,000.00 but will not

exceed twenty (20) years. Article 65 of the same code divides time wherein Php

98,000.00 is Php 76,000.00 bigger than the Php 22,000.00 ceiling set by the law.

Therefore, the maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years of

prison mayor will be increased by 7 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence

Law, the maximum indeterminate penalty is fifteen (15) years. This will be copy

furnished to the President through the Department of Justice, to the Senate

President, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

STATUTORY PRINCIPLE APPLIED:

Statute as a whole is applied. In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that

every part be given effect

Company

 About Us

 StuDocu World University Ranking 2021

 Doing Good

 Academic Integrity

 Jobs

 Dutch Website

Contact & Help

 F.A.Q.

 Contact

Legal

 Terms
  Privacy Policy

 Cookie Statement

Social

 Facebook

 Twitter

 Instagram

 YouTube

 TikTok

 Blog

Get the App

Copyright © 2021 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW:
NL852321363B01
1

out