Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982
LAZARO VENIEGAS, petitioner, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
Aniano A. Albon for petitioner.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Asst. Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno, Asst. Solicitor General Octavio R. Ramirez and Solicitor Mariano M. Martinez for respondents.
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:
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.
As to the claim that P.D. No. 1606 is ex-post facto legisglation, Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 50581-5,0617, 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.
Ericta, J., took no part.
Separate Opinions
TEEHAANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:
I reiterate my concurrence with the grounds of Justice Makasiar's dissent in G.R. Nos. 50581 & 50617 (Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan).
MAKASIAR, J., concurring and dissenting:
Reiterates his concurrence and dissent in Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan (Nos. 50581-50617).
Separate Opinions
TEEHAANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:
I reiterate my concurrence with the grounds of Justice Makasiar's dissent in G.R. Nos. 50581 & 50617 (Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan).
MAKASIAR, J., concurring and dissenting:
Reiterates his concurrence and dissent in Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan (Nos. 50581-50617).
Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines
This is a criminal case, Lazaro Veniegas v. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 30, 1982. Veniegas was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of six counts of malversation and six counts of falsification. He assailed the decision, arguing that it violated due process, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and that it was an ex-post facto legislation. The Supreme Court rejected all his arguments and affirmed his conviction. It noted that the decision, not the statute, was being assailed as violative of due process, and that there was evidence of his guilt. It also held that the imposition of ninety-two years of imprisonment was not cruel and unusual punishment, as it did not shock the moral sense or offend the Constitution. Lastly, it held that P.D. No. 1606 was not an ex-post facto legislation. The case highlights the legal issue of whether a criminal conviction can be assailed as violative of due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and as an ex-post facto legislation. The Supreme Court held that it cannot, and affirmed the conviction of Veniegas.
Quick Answers
- What is Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines about?
- This is a criminal case, Lazaro Veniegas v. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 30, 1982. Veniegas was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of six counts of malversation and six counts of falsification. He assailed the decision, arguing that it violated due process, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and that it was an ex-post facto legislation. The Supreme Court rejected all his arguments and affirmed his conviction. It noted that the decision, not the statute, was being assailed as violative of due process, and that there was evidence of his guilt. It also held that the imposition of ninety-two years of imprisonment was not cruel and unusual punishment, as it did not shock the moral sense or offend the Constitution. Lastly, it held that P.D. No. 1606 was not an ex-post facto legislation. The case highlights the legal issue of whether a criminal conviction can be assailed as violative of due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and as an ex-post facto legislation. The Supreme Court held that it cannot, and affirmed the conviction of Veniegas.
- Which court decided Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines?
- Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines decided?
- Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-57601-06) was decided on Jul 30, 1982.
- What is the citation for Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines?
- Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-57601-06, Jul 30, 1982 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- G.R. No. L-57601-06
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-57601-06, Jul 30, 1982 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1982). Lazaro Veniegas vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-57601-06). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/lazaro-veniegas-vs-people-of-the-philippines
Related Cases
- Veniegas v. PeopleG.R. Nos. L-57601-06 (Resolution) • Jul 30, 1982
- Rural Bank of Toboso, Inc. vs. Jean veniegas Agtoto/Jean Veniegas Agtoto vs. Rural Bank of Toboso, Inc., et al.G.R. No. 175697/G.R. No. 176103 • Mar 23, 2011
- People v. Navarro, Jr.G.R. No. 132218 • Jul 24, 2003
- Lazaro v. PeopleG.R. No. 230018 • Jun 23, 2021
- People v. LazaroG.R. No. 186379 • Aug 19, 2009
- Philippine National Bank v. TriaG.R. No. 193250 • Apr 25, 2012
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case