Except in cases of impeachment, The RTC rendered a Decision dated August 20,
or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the 2001, finding petitioner Grace San Diego find her
President may grant reprieves, commutations guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after qualified theft. Accordingly, sentences her to
conviction by final judgment. suffer the penalty of reclusion Perpetua for forty
years without pardon before the lapse of 40 years
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty and with the accessory penalties of death under
with the concurrence of a majority of all the Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, and to
Members of the Congress. indemnify the Obando Fisherman's Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, Inc., in the amount of
DIEGOvs. Php6,016,084.26.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Due to the nature of the judgment, petitioner filed
Petitioner Grace San Diego had been the her appeal with this Court. The CA then affirmed
the decision of the RTC, with modification that
accountant of Obando Fisherman's Multi-
she indemnify the Obando Fisherman's Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OFMPCI). She also
Purpose Cooperative, Inc. in the amount of
recorded and reported the cash in bank
Php2,080,000.00.
transactions and summarized the bank
transactions for the day and was also entrusted
with a set of blank checks pre-signed and was Issue:
authorized to fill up the checks, particularly the
date, the amount in words and in figures, and the WON THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE
payee. COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN
THE MATTER OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED?
That from November 18, 1996 to January 6,
1997, petitioner acted as cashier when Teresita Ruling:
Gonzales was on maternity leave and acted as
teller from January 13- 30, 1997 when Flordeliza The CA did not err when it ruled that the proof
Ocampo was on her honeymoon. She then, on adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove
both occasions, had complete access to the cash petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
vaults and filing cabinets of the cooperative prosecution presented the testimony of its expert
where its documents were kept. witness, Alfonso Piscasio, the cooperative's
independent auditor since 1992. He stated that
On March 12, 1997, petitioner stopped reporting his audit was based on standard and generally
for work. Narciso Correa, the General Manager of accepted auditing procedures. The audit report,
the cooperative, then instructed the bookkeeper, duly offered and presented in the trial, was
to prepare bank book balance based on the cash supported by certifications by several depository
transactions during the day at the office. They banks of the cooperative indicating its balance on
tried to establish the accountability of San Diego its account.
by comparing the cash position she prepared and
certified as correct against the balances of the Petitioner's own expert witness, Criselda
bank. Sarmiento Oplas, failed to dispute the audit report
presented. She admitted to focusing her review
They discovered the discrepancies in petitioner's on bank reconciliation made by Piscasio. It was
report. The audited figure showed the cash on only upon cross-examination that she saw the
hand in bank to be Php3,712,442.80 as of March daily cash flow that petitioner prepared and
11, 1997.However, petitioner reported and certified.
certified the cash on hand of the cooperative with
the total amount of Php9,590,455.17 to be Petitioner also asserts that the People did not
correct. It was then that they decided to file a present any witness who categorically testified
criminal complaint against San Diego. that petitioner ran away with the supposed
missing funds. She claimed that the
Thus, an Information was filed against petitioner demonstration that some checks of varying
for the crime of qualified theft. amounts not recorded in petitioner's books
notwithstanding their return or dishonor, only RTC and modified by the CA is ₱2,080,000.00.
proved her incompetence in the performance of Deducting ₱22,000.00 to the amount, the
her assigned task and not necessarily criminal difference of ₱2,058,000.00 will then be divided
authorship. by ₱10,000.00, disregarding any amount less
than ₱10,000.00, we will have two hundred five
This Court does not agree. It was held in People (205). Thus, 205 years is the incremental penalty.
v. Ragon that resort to circumstantial evidence is Since the imposable penalty for qualified theft is
inevitable when there are no eyewitnesses to a reclusion temporalin its medium and maximum
crime. Direct evidence of the commission of a periods to be imposed in its maximum period
crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court which is eighteen (18) years, two (2) months, and
may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The twenty-one (21) days to twenty (20) years, if we
courts are allowed to rule on the bases of add the incremental penalty of two hundred five
circumstantial evidence if the following requisites (205) years, then the range of the penalty is two
concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance, hundred twenty-three (223) years, two (2)
(2) the facts from which the inferences are months, and twenty-one (21) days to two hundred
derived are proven, and (3) the combination of all twenty-five (225) years. However, such penalty
the circumstances is such as to produce a cannot be imposed because the maximum
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty that can be imposed is only up to 40
corollary rule is that the circumstances years, which is the maximum period of reclusion
established must constitute an unbroken chain perpetua.
which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the Unlike in Simple Theft where the maximum
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years, in
Qualified Theft such limitation does not
The penalty of prison mayor in its minimum and exist.1âwphi1 Nonetheless, inasmuch as the
medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is penalty imposable in the case at bar exceeds
more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed twenty (20) years, logically, the penalty that
22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen should be imposed is reclusion Perpetua, which
exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be is the penalty one degree higher than reclusion
the maximum period of the one prescribed in this temporal.
paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which There is now a need to modify the penalty
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. imposed by the lower court and affirmed by the
In such cases, and in connection with the CA. Verily, the proper penalty imposable is,
accessory penalties which may be imposed and thus, the penalty of reclusion Perpetua, but it
for the purpose of the other provisions of this was incorrect for the RTC to sentence the
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor accused to the penalty of reclusion Perpetua
or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. From for forty (40) years without pardon because
the provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, that would be a limitation on the part of the
the penalty that is two (2) degrees higher than power of the Chief Executive. The exercise of
prison mayor in its minimum and medium periods the pardoning power is discretionary in the
is reclusion temporalin its medium and maximum President and may not be controlled by the
periods. In view, however, of the incremental legislature or reversed by the court, save only
penalty in simple theft under Article 309 of the when it contravenes the limitations set forth by
RPC, which is likewise applicable to the crime of the Constitution. Interest at the rate of six percent
qualified theft, when the value of the thing stolen (6%) per annum is likewise imposed from date of
is more than ₱22,000.00, the penalty shall be finality of this Decision until full payment pursuant
imposed in its maximum period with an additional to Nacar v. Gallery Frames.
period of one (1) year for every ₱10,000.00 in
excess of ₱22,000.00. In the case at bar, the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
value of the property stolen as determined by the
CRISTOBAL, vs. And consequently, whether or not the pardoning
ALEJO LABRADOR & TEOFILO SANTOS power exercised here would amount to an
unlawful exercise of the President of a legislative
DOCTRINE: function?
ISSUE:
Whether or not the pardoning power of the
President applies to legislative prohibitions?
WILFREDO TORRES vs. trial and conviction for the offense for which he
HON. NEPTALI A. GONZALES was conditionally pardoned, Section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code is not afflicted with
FACTS a constitutional vice.
In 1978, Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa. In proceeding against a convict who has been
In 1979, he was pardoned by the president with conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to
the condition that he shall not violate any penal have breached the conditions of his pardon, the
laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with Executive Department has two options: (i) to
multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986, then Chairman proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code; or (ii) to proceed
of the Board of Paroles Neptali Gonzales
against him under Article 159 of the RPC which
petitioned for the cancellation of Torres’ pardon. imposes the penalty of prision correccional,
Hence, the president cancelled the pardon. minimum period, upon a convict who “having
Torres appealed the issue before the Supreme been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Court averring that the Executive Department Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of
erred in convicting him for violating the conditions such pardon.” Here, the President has chosen to
of his pardon because the estafa charges against proceed against the petitioner under Section 64
him were not yet final and executory as they were (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That
still on appeal. choice is an exercise of the President’s executive
prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny
ISSUE:
RULING: