G.R. No. 164337 ; June 27, 2006
VICENTE S. CENZON, Petitioner, vs. HON. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS as Acting Presiding Judge, RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, HON. ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ANDRES MARCOS in his capacity as Public Prosecutor of the City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati City and MARGARITA C. SIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente S. Cenzon filed criminal complaints against private respondent Margarita C. Sia for Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818, involving dishonored checks totaling over P107 million. The Department of Justice directed the filing of two informations for Estafa, and the City Prosecutor recommended “NO BAIL.” The cases were raffled to the RTC of Makati, which issued a warrant of arrest.
Subsequently, during a hearing, the public prosecutor moved to amend the informations from “NO BAIL RECOMMENDED” to “BAIL SET AT P60,000.00” for each count. This motion was based on DOJ Department Circular No. 74, issued pursuant to new jurisprudence. The RTC granted the motion. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment of the informations to set a bail amount for the accused charged with Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d), as amended by P.D. No. 818.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the correct interpretation of the penalty for Estafa under P.D. No. 818 when the amount of fraud exceeds P22,000.00. While the law states that the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua, it is crucial to distinguish between the prescribed penalty and the penalty actually imposed.
The prescribed penalty for the offense under the law is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. The clause “the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua” merely describes the nomenclature of the penalty actually imposed when, due to the application of the incremental penalty (adding one year for each additional P10,000), the total sentence reaches thirty years. This thirty-year penalty is called reclusion perpetua for purposes of the accessory penalties, but it is not the prescribed penalty for the offense itself. Since the constitutional right to bail is impaired only when the charge is for an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death as prescribed by law, and not merely as a term applied to a lengthy computed sentence, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Therefore, the amendment of the information to recommend a specific bail amount was proper and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence and DOJ guidelines.