ARTURO A. MEJORADA, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

CORTES, J.
June 30, 1987

Subject Matter:
Application and Computation of Penalties: Service of Sentence (Specific Rules)

FACTS:

Arturo Mejorada was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
3(E) of RA. 3019, aka Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mejorada was a right-
away agent whose duty was to process the claims for compensation of damages
of property owners affected by highway construction and improvements. He
required the claimants to sign blank copies of Sworn Statements and Agreements
to Demolish, where it appeared that the properties of the claimants have higher
values than the actual value being claimed by them. However, the claimants did
not bother reading through the paper because they very much interested in the
compensation of damages. After processing the claims, instead of giving to the
claimants the proper amount, Mejorada gave one of them Php 5,000 and the rest,
Php 1,000 each, saying that there are many who would share in said amounts.
The claimants weren’t able to complain because they were afraid of the accused
and his armed companion. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Mejorada 56 years and
8 years of imprisonment which is equivalent to the eight (8) penalties for the
eight (8) informations filed against him.

Contention of the State: Section 3 of RA 3019 states that Mejorada should be

punished with “imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years” as
stated in Sec 9 of the same Act. In this case, there are 8 charges against him and
each charge should be served with the penalty prescribed by the law.

Contention of the Accused: Mejorada states that the penalty imposed upon him is
contrary to the three-fold rule and states that the duration should not exceed 40
years. This is in accordance to Article 70 of the RPC.

ISSUE: WON the penalty imposed upon him violates the three-fold rule under
Article 70 of the RPC.

RULING:

The Court favors the State. Article 70 of the RPC does not state anything about
the “imposition of penalty”. It only explains the “service” of sentence, “duration”
of penalty and penalty “to be inflicted”. It should be interpreted that the accused
cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of these
penalties the maximum of which is forty (40) years. As stated in a previous case,
“The courts can still impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct
offenses committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding
penalty is prescribed by law.” With these reasons, Mejorada cannot correctly
contend that his penalty is excessive. There are eight charges against him and
each has an equivalent penalty as prescribed by RA 3019, thus, Sandiganbayan
has imposed the correct penalty.