Scribd
Upload
393 views1 page

People Vs Temporada G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 Facts: Ruling

The Supreme Court modified the penalties imposed on Beth Temporada for 5 counts of estafa (defrauding people). While the Indeterminate Sentence Law aims to benefit the accused by potentially reducing their prison time, it does not require penalties to always be exactly one degree apart. The Court affirmed Temporada's conviction but imposed indeterminate penalties with minimum and maximum terms closer together in consideration of the intent of the law.

Uploaded by

RNJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
393 views1 page

People Vs Temporada G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 Facts: Ruling

The Supreme Court modified the penalties imposed on Beth Temporada for 5 counts of estafa (defrauding people). While the Indeterminate Sentence Law aims to benefit the accused by potentially reducing their prison time, it does not require penalties to always be exactly one degree apart. The Court affirmed Temporada's conviction but imposed indeterminate penalties with minimum and maximum terms closer together in consideration of the intent of the law.

Uploaded by

RNJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs Temporada Whether or not the indeterminate penalties imposed for the five (5) counts of

estafa were proper.


G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008
RULING:
Facts:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is intended to favor the accused, particularly to
Beth Temporada is an accused for the crime of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
shorten his term of imprisonment. The reduction of his period of incarceration
in which the prosecution alleged that the accused recruited and promised reasonably helps "uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent
overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. as unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic
technician in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and usefulness." The law, being penal in character, must receive an interpretation
Dennis Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong. After collecting the alleged that benefits the accused. This Court already ruled that "in cases where the
placement fees amounting to P282,160, it was also noted that such placement application of the law on indeterminate sentence would be unfavorable to the
accused, resulting in the lengthening of his prison sentence, said law on
fees are in excess of or greater than that specified in the scheduled of allowable
indeterminate sentence should not be applied." In the same vein, if an
fees prescribed of the POEA and without reasons and without fault of the said interpretation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is unfavorable to the accused
complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse them the and will work to increase the term of his imprisonment, that interpretation should
expenses they incurred in connection with the documentation and processing of not be adopted. It is also for this reason that the claim that the power of this
their papers for purposes of their deployment. The accused-apellant now Court to lighten the penalty of lesser crimes carries with it the responsibility to
contends that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the offense impose a greater penalty for grave penalties is not only wrong but also
that were charged to them. dangerous.

RTC Judgment convicted the said accused, as principal of the offenses charged Nowhere does the Indeterminate Sentence Law prescribe that the minimum term
and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of of the penalty be no farther than one degree away from the maximum term.
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for illegal recruitment; and the Thus, while it may be true that the minimum term of the penalty in an
indeterminate sentence is generally one degree away from the maximum term,
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional the law does not mandate that its application be rigorously and narrowly limited
as minimum, to nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum for to that situation.
the estafa committed against complainant Rogelio A. Legaspi, Jr.; the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of Court of Appeals with the
as minimum to ten (10) years and one day of prision mayor as maximum each for following modifications:
the estafas committed against complainants, Dennis Dimaano, Soledad B. Atte
and Luz T. Minkay; and the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) (1) in Criminal Case No. 02-208372, the accused be sentenced to an
months of prision correctional as minimum, to eleven (11) years and one (1) day indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as
of prision mayor as maximum for the estafa committed against Evelyn Estacio. minimum, to 9 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor as
maximum;
CA Judgment affirmed with modification. Appellant is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as (2) in Criminal Case Nos. 02-208373, 02-208375, and 02-208376, the
minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as accused be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months and
maximum; and in Criminal Case No. 02-208374, she is sentenced to suffer the
21 days of prision mayor as maximum for each of the aforesaid three
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor estafa cases and
medium, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
minimum, as maximum. (3) in Criminal Case No. 02-208374, the accused be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as
ISSUE: minimum, to 12 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor as
maximum.

You might also like