PENALTIES FOR SIMPLE THEFT WITH AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING P22,000.00 - 10 PJP 21 (2024)
It cannot be that such value is based merely on the criminal information or on the uncorroborated testimonies presented by the prosecution. For example, in one case, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reduced the value of the stolen jewelry from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00 on the basis of the complainant's social standing. This, the Supreme Court found to be devoid of evidentiary basis.[2]
In that case, the High Court, citing People v. Paraiso,[3] People v. Marcos,[4] and Francisco v. People,[5] that the testimony of an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry. Worse, courts cannot take judicial notice of the value of properties because it is "not a matter of public knowledge or unquestionable demonstration." The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and, in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution, an award of reparation for the stolen jewelry should not be granted.
Under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the penalty against an accused found guilty of simple theftwhen the value of the stolen property does not exceed P22,000.00 is set at:
Article 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does
not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceed the latter amount, the penalty
shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one
year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.[6]
Thus, the minimum, medium, and maximum periods of the penalty prescribed are:
- Minimum: six years and one day to seven years and four months;
- Medium: seven years, four months and one day to eight years and eight months; and
- Maximum: eight years, eight months and one day to ten years.[7]
The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime.[8] In the example above, the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, or anywhere from two years, four months and one day to six years.
Considering that the law usually moves slower than the economy, it is respectfully submitted that the penalty should not be fixed by statute as it would require a legislative amendment to fit the same into existing economic and other social conditions. To ensure that the penalty will depend on existing circumstances, Congress should make it dependent on the existing minimum wage in the region where the crime was committed. For example, in the Second Administrative Region, the present minimum wage is P450.00. Thus, instead of fixing the maximum amount at P22,000.00, the law could be amended to say: "if the value of the thing stolen is more than 25 times the minimum wage of the region where the crime was committed but does not exceed 50 times the said amount..."
Such an amendment would provide convenience as there would be no need for Congress to enact a law from time to time to make the necessary adjustment. Additionally, the penalty can be said to be patterned after the existing economic conditions of the accused and the private complaining party.
[1] CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE, 749 Phil. 517 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[2] PEOPLE v. MEJARES, 823 Phil. 459 (G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]
[3] 377 Phil. 445 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[4] 368 Phil. 143 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[5] 478 Phil. 167 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
[6] Emphasis supplied.
[7] MEDINA v. PEOPLE, 760 Phil. 729, (G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
[8] Ibid.