Comments on the constitutionality of the section in the RPC

concerning property (Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines)

Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines (G.R. 180016)
(What if we don't make parts of the RPC unconstitutional)



After hearing the oral arguments in the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of certain sections
of the RPC (Penal Laws) concerning property crimes (e.g. estafa, theft) I would have to say that these
laws are relativity unconstitutional.


I. When congress enacted the RPC on property it was written in 1930's and operational starting
1932. The amounts thereof listed in the RPC in those times was just and equitable.

I remembered my dad saying that 1 peso can buy you a coke and merinda, and at the same time have
enough money to be able to commute. That is just at the time of my dad, imagine how much inflation has
change the value of the peso. One of the speaker in the oral arguments even said that legislation never
imagined millions or billions of pesos, even jurisprudence at that time rarely sees even a million pesos let
alone a billion.
Although I do not agree with the suggestions of the speakers during the oral arguments that the amount
should be peg at the dollar or 100 to 1, I do agree that economic, social, and political value of the peso
throughout the times must be consulted. The NSO, NEDA, BSP have the capabilities to gather and
interpret inflation rates and other factors that may help the Supreme Court in determining the scaling of
the amounts if ever they follow through.


II. Although property crimes are mala in se (bad in itself crimes), these crimes must be distinguish
from other mala in se crimes which do not change over time.

The shock value in property crimes is not dependent on the sheer amount that is stolen or swindled but
on the perception on how much that amount can buy, or how much its worth. In which the people then
weigh the gravity of the crime afterwards

Hypothetical Hard Case Example!

If I steal 10 BILLION ZWD ( a currency) the initial perception is that I should get the death penalty, yet the
realty is that the Zimbabwean dollar rate vs the US dollar is so high that you have to use an exponent to
even show how much ZWD you need to buy a dollar (10 raised to 32 ) In this case stealing a handful of
dirt has more value than stealing 10 billion ZWD.

The shock value in other crimes is dependent on the gravity of the perversity and no other factors are
needed.
If I kill a child in 1930, the reaction of the people is that I should get the death penalty, yet even after 80
years If I kill a child now the reaction still is I should get the death penalty.

III. Unjust and Inhumane punishment.

In the oral arguments the Senate representive and the OSG states that fines and imprisonment not matter
how harsh is not unconstitutional. Although the court in numerous cases states that he harass or
excessiveness of a punishment those not run a foul to constitution (i.e. 40 years imprisonment or death
penalty for heinous crimes) , in the case of Ajendaro, My analysis is that the court did not mean that fines
and imprisonment is always constitutional. But it has to be " flagrantly and plainly oppressive" and "wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community"

"If the legislation states that jaywalking is punishable with 100,000 pesos and jail time of 20 years, with
extra jail time in case of failure to pay the fine. The Supreme Court I think would not even think twice that
such legislation is unconstitutional for unjust and inhumane punishment."

Hypothetical Hard Case Examples !

Think twice from stealing a lollipop (6 pesos worth) from a baby since it can land you 4 months in jail for a
.. yes 4 months ! If you steal an artisan candy (worth 51 pesos) then be prepared for a jail term of 6
months. Want to steal your best-friends' KFC double down meal ? well be prepared to stay in jail for 3
years.

If I steal a 5 fallen coconuts (lets estimate the value at 60 pesos) which fell due to Yolanda from a coconut
farm, to fed my starving children, not only do I get punished with theft, but I get punished with qualified
theft aggravated by using the disaster as a means to get the coconuts. Which means that I get punished
with theft with plus 3 degrees higher punishment, using the RPC rates of 60 pesos, which would land me
an estimated jail time of 10-20 years. But using the 1930's rate its safe to assume that it won't go beyond
5 pesos. Thus computing it again would result at most a Destierro (something like a restraining order)...
See the difference that inflation makes...

If you apply the case of (People v, Espino, et al., CA-G.R. No. 14029-R, February 20, 1956) you wont get
4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 3 years, six months and 21 days of prision correccional for
stealing 10 coconut tenders from a coconut farm. (If a price of a single buko from a farm is 10 pesos per
piece in today's value, then the total amount would be 100 pesos) using the RPC 310 the punishment
would be prison mayor in its minimum (6 years and 1 day) to prison mayor in its medium (10 years)

Stealing a single carp (which can be worth more than 6 thousand pesos) in a fish farm would warrant the
person the death penalty.

Even the court now could have not have imagine such punishment for such crimes.

Using the above example technically Tacloban right now is home to thousands of hard core criminals that
should be convicted of grave crimes (since things stolen at that time can range from anything, but lets
assume they stole more than 200 pesos worth of goods). Yet the prosecutors turn a blind eye to those
who deserve punishment.