Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

201 Phil. 376:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-57601-06. July 30, 1982.]

LAZARO VENIEGAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

Aniano A. Albon for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of six (6) counts of malversation and six (6) counts of falsification. In this petition, he assailed the decision as violative of due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He alleged that he was convicted without evidence of his guilt; that having been convicted of malversation he should not be convicted of falsification; that he was made to answer several times for a single offense; and that for the twelve (12) convictions he would be made to serve ninety two (92) years of imprisonment. Petitioner further claimed that P. D. No. 1606 creating the Sandiganbayan is an ex-post facto legislation.

The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of due process of law is belied by the decision of the Sandiganbayan which states and analyzes the evidence against him, and which shows that the misappropriations could have been committed without resort to falsifications, and that the falsifications and misappropriations were committed by him separately; that the maximum duration of his sentence is that mandated by the provisions of Article 70, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code; and that in the case of Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan. G.R. Nos. 50581-50617, it has been resolved that P.D. No. 1606 is not an ex-post facto legislation.

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; DUE PROCESS OF LAW; CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION THEREOF BELIED BY ASSAILED DECISION IN CASE AT BAR. — The claim of the petitioner that he was deprived of due process of law for having been convicted without evidence of guilt is belied by the decision of the Sandiganbayan which states and analyzes the evidence against him. Further on due process, petitioner claims that having been convicted of malversation, he should not have been convicted anymore of falsification. But as the Sandiganbayan states in its decision, the public funds were already in petitioner’s possession and he could have misappropriated them without having to resort to falsification but which he did anyway. His other claim that he was made to answer several times for a single offense is baseless for the misappropriations and falsifications were committed by him separately.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; NINETY TWO (92) YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER IN CASE AT BAR SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 70, PARAGRAPH 4, REVISED PENAL CODE. — The claim that the decision imposed cruel and unusual punishment because for the twelve (12) convictions petitioner would be made to serve ninety two (92) years of imprisonment which is "shocking to the moral sense . . . an offense to the Constitution" is non-sense. The provisions of Art. 70, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that "the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him, and no other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period."


R E S O L U T I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Petitioner in seeking to set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting him of six (6) counts of malversation and six (6) counts of falsification assails the decision as violative of due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He also contends that P.D. No. 1606, which created the Sandiganbayan, is an ex-post facto legislation.

The petition must fail on all counts.

It is to be noted that it is the decision, not the statute, which petitioner assails as having violated the due process and the cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Constitution. He claims that he was deprived of due process of law for having been convicted without evidence of his guilt. This is belied by the decision of the Sandiganbayan which states and analyzes the evidence against him. Further on due process, petitioner claims that having been convicted of malversation, he should not have been convicted anymore of falsification. But as the Sandiganbayan states in its decision, the public funds were already in petitioner’s possession and he could have misappropriated them without having to resort to falsification but which he did anyway. His other claim that he was made to answer several times for a single offense is baseless for the misappropriations and falsifications were committed by him separately. Lastly, it is claimed that the decision imposed cruel and unusual punishment because for the twelve (12) convictions, he would be made to serve ninety two (92) years of imprisonment which is "shocking to the moral sense . . . an offense to the constitution." This is nonsense. Obviously, petitioner’s counsel has forgotten the provisions of Art. 70, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code which mandates:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

"Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the claim that P.D. No. 1606 is ex-post facto legislation, Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 50581-50617, says it is not so.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., I reiterate my concurrence with the grounds of Justice Makasiar’s dissent in G.R. Nos. 50581 & 50617 (Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan).

Makasiar, J., reiterates his concurrence and dissent in Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan (Nos. 50581-50617).

Ericta, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45245 July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO T. GABILAN

  • G.R. No. L-57573 July 5, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ERNESTO DATU

  • G.R. No. L-58268 July 5, 1982 - ENRIQUETA S. TY v. EUSTAQUIA ELALE

  • G.R. No. L-27546 July 16, 1982 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF SWEEPSTAKES STAFF PERSONNEL

  • G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982 - MAGDALENA S. JOSON v. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-32694 & L-33119 July 16, 1982 - FIDEL SILVESTRE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36094 July 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO DELASA

  • G.R. No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 - EPITACIO BUERANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-40432 July 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-41543 July 19, 1982 - LEANDRO SEDECO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51458 July 19, 1982 - MANUEL YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982 - JESUS B. PACQUING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1895-CFI July 20, 1982 - LAMBERTO MACIAS v. GIBSON ARAULA

  • A.C. No. 2160 July 20, 1982 - AVELINO FRAN v. JUANITO FUERTE

  • A.M. No. 2691-CFI July 20, 1982 - ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30201 July 20, 1982 - CARMEN P. URBANO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG

  • G.R. No. L-32661 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982 - MARIO RODIS MAGASPI v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-37751 July 20, 1982 - MANUEL LAPINIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38140 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO LABINIA

  • G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-41399 July 20, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. CESAR GUY

  • G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 - DONALD MEAD v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-42963 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REINO P. ROLL

  • G.R. No. L-46954 July 20, 1982 - ELPIDIO YABES, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON FLOJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982 - LIM PIN v. CONCHITA LIAO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-47953 July 20, 1982 - LILIA B. GALCERAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-50439 July 20, 1982 - ENRIQUE T. YUCHENGCO, INC. v. CONRADO M. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-52435 July 20, 1982 - ELIZABETH SINCLAIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56554 July 20, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56833 July 20, 1982 - RAMON V. MERANO v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. L-58011-12 July 20, 1982 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-58678 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. L-58973-76 July 20, 1982 - INOCENTES AMORA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59519 July 20, 1982 - ADELA FRANCISCO v. ALFREDO M. GORGONIO

  • G.R. No. L-35726 July 21, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982 - VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE

    201 Phil. 8

  • A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE

    201 Phil. 37

  • A.C. No. 906 July 30, 1982 - TERESITA B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

    201 Phil. 40

  • A.C. No. 1182 July 30, 1982 - ISABELO C. ORIJUELA v. TEMISTOCLES A. ROSARIO

    201 Phil. 45

  • A.C. No. 2343 July 30, 1982 - FACUNDO LUBIANO v. JOEL G. GORDOLLA

    201 Phil. 47

  • A.M. No. 2397-MJ July 30, 1982 - ERNESTO D. BONILLA v. LEONARDO AFABLE

    201 Phil. 52

  • A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    201 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. NG SAM

    201 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982 - CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

    201 Phil. 82

  • G.R. No. L-29376 July 30, 1982 - MARIANO WONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    201 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-30279 July 30, 1982 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)

    201 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982 - VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO CAVITE v. EMILIA S. BLAS

    201 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-30738 July 30, 1982 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. JOSE ZULUETA

    201 Phil. 131

  • G.R. No. L-31818 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GADIANO

    201 Phil. 143

  • G.R. Nos. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. MILFLORES

    201 Phil. 154

  • G.R. No. L-32463 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. BATOY

    201 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO PEDROSO

    201 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-33169 July 30, 1982 - GLICERIO JAVELLANA v. CESAR KINTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-33327 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ALMENDRAS

    201 Phil. 211

  • G.R. Nos. L-34527-28 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAGBANUA

    201 Phil. 219

  • G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 - JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD ZURBITO

    201 Phil. 256

  • G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

    201 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-37270 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    201 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

    201 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-38208 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENECITO VILLASON

    201 Phil. 298

  • G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982 - LUZ E. BALITAAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. L-38859 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VIZCARRA

    201 Phil. 326

  • G.R. No. L-39966 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO TABADERO

    201 Phil. 340

  • G.R. No. L-40494 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BURGOS

    201 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-49401 July 30, 1982 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. JOSE P. ARRO

    201 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-55687 July 30, 1982 - JUASING HARDWARE v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    201 Phil. 369

  • G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    201 Phil. 376

  • G.R. No. L-57841 July 30, 1982 - BERNARDO GALLEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-59283 July 30, 1982 - CRISANTO MOLINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    201 Phil. 385

  • G.R. No. L-60236 July 30, 1982 - DOMESTIC SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. MILAGROS VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA

    201 Phil. 390