Case Digest (G.R. No. 183891)
Facts:
Romarico J. Mendoza, petitioner, was convicted by both trial and appellate courts for failing to remit Social Security System (SSS) contributions of his employees from August 1998 to July 1999, totaling Php 239,756.80, which with penalties amounted to Php 421,151.09. Mendoza, proprietor of Summa Alta Tierra Industries, Inc., admitted non-remittance but claimed the company had shut down due to economic decline. He argued lack of criminal intent and good faith, but these defenses were rejected. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated August 3, 2010. Mendoza contested his criminal liability as a "proprietor," arguing he was not among corporate officers liable under Section 28(f) of RA 8282, but the Court rejected this, ruling that the use of managerial titles cannot be a shield against liability. Mendoza later paid the unpaid contributions in 2007 and filed a motion for reconsideration invoking RA No. 9903 (Social Security Condonation Law of 2009) whichCase Digest (G.R. No. 183891)
Facts:
- Parties and Case Background
- Petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza was convicted for failure to remit the Social Security System (SSS) contributions of his employees for the period August 1998 to July 1999.
- The amount unremitted was P239,756.80; penalties increased this to P421,151.09.
- The petitioner was convicted under Section 22(a) and (d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997).
- Trial and Appellate Court Findings
- The petitioner admitted non-remittance but claimed that the company shut down due to economic decline.
- Defenses of good faith and lack of criminal intent were disbelieved by the trial court.
- The petitioner argued he was a "proprietor" and thus not liable, an argument rejected by the Court citing Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection.
- Previous Supreme Court Decision (August 3, 2010)
- Affirmed the conviction with modification of penalty to an indeterminate term of four years and two months to twenty years.
- The ruling emphasized the mandatory nature of remittance and that failure to remit is malum prohibitum, making criminal intent immaterial.
- Present Motion for Reconsideration
- Petitioner contended inclusion under RA No. 9903 (Social Security Condonation Law of 2009), which condones delinquent contributions if paid within six months of law's effectivity.
- He voluntarily paid the delinquent amount in 2007 but outside the six-month period specified by RA No. 9903.
- Petitioner invoked the equal protection clause, claiming he should be acquitted due to payment.
- Alternatively, he argued prosecution did not prove all elements of the crime and requested imposition of fine instead of imprisonment.
- Government's Position
- The Solicitor General recognized RA No. 9903 as a supervening event but denied its applicability to the petitioner’s acquittal.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s voluntary payment of delinquent SSS contributions outside the six-month period under RA No. 9903 entitles him to acquittal or condonation.
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to remit SSS contributions was established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the Court may impose a fine instead of imprisonment.
- Whether the equal protection clause supports the petitioner’s claim for dismissal or acquittal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)