Imprisonment exceeding maximum penalty is cruel, inhumane — SC

MANILA, Philippines — Detaining individuals beyond the maximum penalty imposed is cruel and inhumane, the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

In a decision promulgated by the court's Second Division in March 2023 but only released on Thursday, November 7, it upheld a woman’s conviction for qualified theft but ordered her immediate release, as she had already served more time than the maximum penalty allowed.

The woman had been sentenced to reclusion perpetua, or 20 to 40 years of imprisonment, and was committed to the Correctional Institution for Women in 2011.

The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction in 2014. However, the Supreme Court in this case reduced her sentence to prison terms, which the high court said could carry a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years and eight months.

Given that the woman had already been imprisoned for more than 10 years, the Supreme Court ruled that she had been detained beyond the maximum imposed penalty. As a result, the high court concluded that her criminal liability had been extinguished, noting that one of the factors in extinguishing criminal liability is the service of the sentence.

The Supreme Court also cited the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, in its decision.

“Purposes of a sentence of imprisonment or similar measures deprivative of a person’s liberty are primarily to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism. Those purposes can be achieved only if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life,” the court, citing the Nelson Mandela Rules.

The case

The woman, along with another co-accused, were accused of unlawfully taking money from their employer, GQ Pawnshop. 

As the pawnshop's secretary, the woman was responsible for verifying the authenticity of pawned items.

According to the court, she used individuals to pawn fake items, ultimately leading to the release of a total of P585,250 in appraised value to the pawners.

The lower courts found the woman and her co-accused guilty and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, which led to the current petition.

However, the co-accused passed away due to multiple organ failure while being detained at the Correctional Institution for Women. The high court cited the Revised Penal Code, stating that the death of an individual effectively extinguishes criminal liability.

Meanwhile, the high court upheld the woman’s conviction for qualified theft, citing the circumstance of “abuse of trust,” which aggravated her criminal liability.

“The Court now determines [the woman’s] criminal liability. The crime of theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter's consent,” the court’s decision read.

The high court also enumerated the requisites for a crime to be considered qualified theft:

“ (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, ie., with grave abuse of confidence.”

The court also reevaluated the appropriate penalty for the offense. Based on the amount stolen, the woman’s crime warranted the penalty of prisión mayor, which carries a maximum imprisonment period of up to 10 years and 8 months.

“Qualified theft is punished by penalties next higher by two degrees than those prescribed for simple theft. In this case, the prosecution proved that the money stolen is P585,250.00 and not P666,600.00 as alleged in the Information,” the court’s decision read.