Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

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.

Top of Page