G.R. No. 247463 , April 17, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. AMELIA A. FABROS-CORPUZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC – MUNTINLUPA CITY, BRANCH 256, AND ANTHONY ARCHANGEL Y SY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On February 8, 2001, nine separate Criminal Informations charged private respondent Anthony Archangel y Sy with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code for issuing worthless bank checks. Five cases were dismissed, leaving four. After trial, Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City, in a Decision dated September 3, 2007, found Sy guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of Estafa (Criminal Case Nos. U-11223, U-11226, and U-11227) and acquitted him in one. The amounts involved were PHP 41,500.00, PHP 55,923.00, and PHP 34,909.00, respectively. For each count, the RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day to six years of prision mayor as minimum, to six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor as maximum. On December 22, 2018, Sy, through the Public Attorney’s Office, filed a “Petition to Adjust and Fix Penalty (With Urgent Motion to Release)” before the RTC of Muntinlupa City (Branch 256, presided by public respondent Judge Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz), praying for his immediate release. He argued that under Republic Act No. 10951 , which adjusted the penalties for certain crimes, his imposable penalty should be reduced, and he had already served more than the maximum of the adjusted penalty (having served 21 years, 10 months, and 14 days with earned good conduct time). In the assailed Resolution, the public respondent modified the original penalty, applied the provisions of Republic Act No. 10951 , and directed the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release Sy from the National Bilibid Prison. The adjusted penalties were: for Criminal Case Nos. U-11223 and U-11226 (PHP 41,500.00 and PHP 55,923.00), an indeterminate sentence of one year of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum as minimum, to one year and eight months of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum as maximum; and for Criminal Case No. U-11227 (PHP 34,909.00), an indeterminate sentence of two months of arresto mayor minimum and medium as minimum, to three months of arresto mayor minimum and medium as maximum. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed the present Petition for Certiorari, arguing the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent, Hon. Amelia A. Fabros-Corpuz, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in modifying the penalty imposed on private respondent Anthony Archangel y Sy for three counts of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and ordering his immediate release based on Republic Act No. 10951 .

RULING

Yes, the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the Petition, annulled and set aside the assailed Resolution of the RTC, and reinstated the original penalties imposed in the September 3, 2007 Decision of Branch 48, RTC, Urdaneta City. The Court held that the public respondent erroneously applied the penalty provisions. The applicable penalties for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) (for fraud committed through the issuance of worthless checks) are found in the second 4th and 5th paragraphs of Article 315, as amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951 , not the first 4th paragraph which the public respondent used. Under the correct provisions, the penalty for the amounts involved (PHP 34,909.00, PHP 41,500.00, and PHP 55,923.00, all exceeding PHP 40,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 1,200,000.00) is prision mayor in its minimum period (six years and one day to eight years). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (two years, four months, and one day to six years). The public respondent’s computation, which resulted in penalties of arresto mayor, was therefore a blatant misapplication of the law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court found that the public respondent acted without jurisdiction. The power to grant time allowances for good conduct is vested by law ( Republic Act No. 10592 ) in the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal, or city jail, not in the courts. The public respondent had no authority to compute and credit Sy’s good conduct time allowances; her role was limited to applying the adjusted penalties under Republic Act No. 10951 . By doing so, she encroached upon the executive function of prison authorities.