Title
People vs. Celorio
Case
G.R. No. 226335
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2021
SSS member fraudulently claimed disability benefits using fake documents, convicted under Social Security Law; Supreme Court reversed RTC’s void decision, imposed correct penalty, and invalidated probation and liability offset.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233988)

Facts of the Case

Lilame V. Celorio, a member of the SSS, filed a claim for disability benefits on May 26, 2004, citing Pulmonary Tuberculosis as the basis for her request. An investigation revealed that the supporting documents submitted were fraudulent, leading the SSS to demand the return of the disbursed benefits totaling P93,948.80. When she failed to comply, the SSS filed a criminal complaint against her. The RTC found her guilty on April 23, 2013, sentencing her to an erroneous term of one year imprisonment and a fine of P5,000, despite the law mandating a minimum of six years and one day for the offenses charged.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC concluded, in its amended decision, that Celorio was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 28(a) and (b) of the amended Social Security Law and imposed a light penalty inconsistent with statutory requirements. Importantly, the RTC ordered the offsetting of Celorio's civil liability against her SSS contributions, which evoked further legal debates.

Appeal and Decisions of the Court of Appeals

Petitioners sought relief through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in both the penalty imposed and the incorrect offsetting of civil obligations. However, the Court of Appeals held that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal, not certiorari, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive review of the case, determining that the RTC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion by imposing an illegal sentence based on outdated provisions of law. This legal misstep rendered Celorio's punishment invalid, which permitted the prosecution to challenge the decision despite the procedural bars often associated with applications for probation.

Legal Principles Addressed

The Court asserted the distinction between grave abuse of discretion, which allows for certiorari, and errors of judgment, which do not. It reiterated that a proper imposition of sentence is a core function of the trial

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.