GR 162371; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162371 . August 25, 2005. MARY HELEN ESTRADA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mary Helen Estrada was charged with estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. The prosecution established that she collected ₱68,700.00 from Junimar and Rosalie Bermundo under false pretenses of securing employment in Japan, which she failed to deliver and failed to return. During trial, petitioner jumped bail. Consequently, the RTC, in an Order dated May 14, 1997, considered her to have waived her right to present evidence. The court proceeded to render a judgment of conviction based solely on prosecution evidence, sentencing her under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor maximum as minimum to twenty-four (24) years as maximum.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC decision as null and void for alleged violations of her constitutional rights to be heard and to counsel. The CA dismissed the petition. Petitioner subsequently filed a letter with the Supreme Court, treated as a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the penalty imposed by the RTC was erroneous and excessive.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty imposed by the RTC on petitioner for estafa is correct and lawful.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for habeas corpus but partly granted the petition for review solely for the purpose of correcting the penalty. The Court held that the RTC erred in imposing the penalty. For estafa involving ₱68,700.00, the penalty prescribed by Article 315 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, which is arresto mayor minimum to medium. The maximum term should be within the range of the proper penalty, considering any modifying circumstances.
The Court, citing People v. Barro, Sr., ruled that even if the accused did not initially appeal the penalty, a void or unlawful penalty can and must be corrected by the Court to make it conform to law, as such a penalty never becomes final and executory. It is the Court’s duty and inherent power to ensure penalties are lawful. Consequently, the Court modified the sentence. Finding no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, petitioner was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to eleven (11) years of prision mayor as maximum.