GR 183891; (October, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183891; October 19, 2011
ROMARICO J. MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza was convicted for violating Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282 (the Social Security Act of 1997) for failing to remit the SSS contributions of his employees at Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc. from August 1998 to July 1999, amounting to ₱239,756.80 (₱421,151.09 inclusive of penalties). He admitted the non-remittance but pleaded good faith and lack of criminal intent, citing the company’s shutdown due to economic decline. The trial and appellate courts convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in its August 3, 2010 Decision, which modified his penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court rejected his defense that as a “proprietor,” he was not among the corporate officers criminally liable under RA No. 8282. Pending appeal, the petitioner voluntarily paid the delinquent contributions (₱239,756.80) in 2007. He filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the passage of RA No. 9903 (the Social Security Condonation Law of 2009) during the pendency of his case was a supervening event entitling him to acquittal, as he had settled his delinquency. He invoked the equal protection clause, contending he was similarly situated to employers who could avail of condonation under RA No. 9903. Alternatively, he argued the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime and prayed for a fine instead of imprisonment. The Solicitor General supported acquittal based on RA No. 9903 as a supervening event.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to acquittal or condonation under RA No. 9903.
2. Whether the petitioner’s conviction violates the equal protection clause.
3. Whether the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime.
4. Whether a fine may be imposed in lieu of imprisonment.
RULING
1. The petitioner is not entitled to acquittal or condonation under RA No. 9903. The law condones only employers who pay their delinquent contributions within six months from its effectivity. The petitioner paid in 2007, outside this availment period. RA No. 9903’s terms are strict and construed strictly against applicants; it does not apply to those who settled before its effectivity. Thus, it does not operate as a supervening event warranting acquittal.
2. The equal protection clause is not violated. RA No. 9903 creates a reasonable classification: (1) delinquent employers who pay within the six-month period, and (2) those who pay outside it. The classification rests on substantial distinctions (timeliness of payment) germane to the law’s purpose (to encourage prompt settlement of delinquencies). The law legitimately limits benefits to the first class. The Court cannot extend the law’s coverage via the equal protection clause, as that would constitute judicial legislation.
3. The petitioner’s criminal liability is settled. The Court affirmed his conviction based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. His admission of non-remittance established the offense, which is malum prohibitum; thus, good faith and lack of criminal intent are immaterial. The prosecution sufficiently proved all elements.
4. A fine cannot be imposed in lieu of imprisonment. Neither RA No. 8282 nor RA No. 9903 authorizes the Court to impose a fine as an alternative penalty. The penalty prescribed by law must be applied.
5. However, the accrued penalties on the delinquent contributions are waived. Applying Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code suppletorily (as neither RA No. 8282 nor RA No. 9903 prohibits it), and considering the Solicitor General’s manifestation supporting waiver, the Court deemed it proper to waive the accrued penalties. The petitioner had already paid the principal delinquency, and strict enforcement would result in an excessive penalty. Thus, while the conviction and prison sentence stand, the monetary liability is limited to the principal amount of ₱239,756.80 already paid.