G.R. No. L-16945; August 31, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JESUS L. CRISOSTOMO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The accused, Jesus L. Crisostomo, was charged with estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on September 16, 1945, he sold a parcel of land to spouses Teodoro Faustino and Regina Pangan for P15,000.00, falsely representing in the deed that the property was free from liens. In truth, the land was mortgaged to Antonio Villarama, a fact the spouses discovered only in 1953. The property was later foreclosed and sold at public auction, causing damage to the spouses.
The accused moved to quash the information on the ground of prescription. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. It ruled that the prescriptive period should be based solely on the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, a correctional penalty prescribing in five years. The court held that the alternative fine imposable under the article, which could be afflictive due to its amount, should not be considered for prescription because it is imposed in conjunction with imprisonment, not as an alternative penalty. The prosecution appealed.

ISSUE

What is the prescriptive period for the crime of estafa under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes a penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value?

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and held that the offense prescribes in fifteen years. The legal logic is anchored on Articles 26 and 90 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 26 classifies a fine as an afflictive, correctional, or light penalty based on its amount. Article 90 provides that prescription of penalties shall be computed based on the penalty prescribed by law. The Court clarified that when a law imposes a penalty consisting of imprisonment and a fine, the fine is not a subordinate or additional penalty but a principal penalty in conjunction with imprisonment. Therefore, to determine the prescriptive period, the court must consider whichever penalty is higher.
In this case, the imposable fine, being from P15,000.00 to P45,000.00, is an afflictive penalty under Article 26, prescribing in fifteen years per Article 90. The penalty of arresto mayor is merely correctional, prescribing in five years. Since the afflictive fine is the higher penalty, it serves as the basis for computing prescription. Consequently, whether prescription is counted from the date of the fraudulent sale (1945) or from the discovery of the fraud (1953), the fifteen-year period had not lapsed when the information was filed in 1959. The case was remanded for trial.