Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 203 views

    People Vs Subido

    Uploaded by

    Manilyn Beronia Pascioles
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court has discretion to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both for the crime of libel, the accused in this case could not be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay the fine and indemnity due to an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Specifically: 1) The accused was found guilty of libel and sentenced to pay a fine and indemnity by the trial court, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent. 2) On appeal, the fine and indemnity amounts were reduced by the Court of Appeals. 3) The accused argued he could not be imprisoned if unable to pay, but the trial court disagreed. 4

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Subido

    Uploaded by

    Manilyn Beronia Pascioles
    203 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court has discretion to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both for the crime of libel, the accused in this case could not be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay the fine and indemnity due to an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Specifically: 1) The accused was found guilty of libel and sentenced to pay a fine and indemnity by the trial court, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent. 2) On appeal, the fine and indemnity amounts were reduced by the Court of Appeals. 3) The accused argued he could not be imprisoned if unable to pay, but the trial court disagreed. 4

    Original Description:

    People vs Subido

    Original Title

    People vs Subido

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court has discretion to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both for the crime of libel, the accused in this case could not be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay the fine and indemnity due to an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Specifically: 1) The accused was found guilty of libel and sentenced to pay a fine and indemnity by the trial court, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent. 2) On appeal, the fine and indemnity amounts were reduced by the Court of Appeals. 3) The accused argued he could not be imprisoned if unable to pay, but the trial court disagreed. 4

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    203 views2 pages

    People Vs Subido

    Uploaded by

    Manilyn Beronia Pascioles
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the trial court has discretion to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both for the crime of libel, the accused in this case could not be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failing to pay the fine and indemnity due to an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Specifically: 1) The accused was found guilty of libel and sentenced to pay a fine and indemnity by the trial court, with subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent. 2) On appeal, the fine and indemnity amounts were reduced by the Court of Appeals. 3) The accused argued he could not be imprisoned if unable to pay, but the trial court disagreed. 4

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-21734 September 5, 1975

    ISSUE

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.ABELARDO SUBlDO, defendantappellant.

    Whether the accused-appellant can be


    required to serve the fine and indemnity in form
    of subsidiary imprisonment in case of
    insolvency.
    HELD

    FACTS
    Yes
    The Court of First Instance (CFI) of
    Manila found Subido guilty of Libel, and
    sentenced him three (3) months of arresto
    mayor with the accessory penalties of the law,
    to pay a fine of five hundred (P500.00) pesos,
    to indemnify the offended party, Mayor Arsenio
    Lacson in the sum of ten thousand
    (P10,000.00)
    pesos,
    with
    subsidiary
    imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
    the costs.
    The defendant appealed to the Court of
    appeals (CA). The CA eliminated the penalty of
    arresto mayor, imposed a fine of Php500.00
    and reduced the indemnity to be paid by the
    defendant to the offended party from
    Php10,000.00 to Php5,000.00.
    The accused-appellant filed a motion
    with the trial court praying that: (1) the court
    enter of record that the judgment of the Court
    of Appeals has been promulgated and (2) that
    his appeal bond be cancelled. Accusedappellant argued that although he could not
    pay the fine and the indemnity prescribed in
    the judgment of the Court of Appeals, he could
    not be required to serve the amount of fine and
    indemnity in the form of subsidiary
    imprisonment because said judgment did not
    expressly and specifically provide that he
    should serve the fine and indemnity in form of
    subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
    The lower court denied the accusedappellant's motion and declared that the
    accused-appellant has to suffer subsidiary
    imprisonment in case he could not pay the fine
    and indemnity prescribed in the decision.
    Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration,
    but the same was denied. Hence, this appeal.

    Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code


    provides:
    "a libel committed by
    means of writing, printing,
    litography,
    engraving,
    radio,
    phonograph, paintings, theatrical
    exhibition,
    cinematographic
    exhibition or any similar means,
    shall be punished by prision
    correccional in its minimum and
    medium period or a fine ranging
    from 200 to 6000 pesos or both,
    in addition to the civil action
    which may be brought by the
    offended party".
    The trial court is given the discretion to
    impose the penalty of imprisonment or fine or
    both for the crime of libel.
    A careful scrutiny of the decision of the
    trial court reveals that the clause "with
    subsidiary
    imprisonment
    in
    case
    of
    insolvency" is separated by a comma (,) from
    the preceding clause "is hereby sentenced to
    three months of arresto mayor with the
    accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of
    five hundred (P500.00) pesos, to indemnify
    the offended party, Mayor Arsenio Lacson, in
    the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
    pesos." The use of a comma (,) in the part of
    the sentence is to make "the subsidiary
    imprisonment in case of insolvency" refer not
    only to non-payment of the indemnity, but also
    to non-payment of the fine.

    However, the accused-appellant is


    favored by the retroactive force of Article 39
    of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
    Republic Act No. 5465 which exempts an
    accused
    person
    from
    subsidiary
    imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay
    his civil liability.

    The Court ordered that the accusedappellant may no longer be required to suffer
    subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
    to pay the indemnity, the Orders of denying
    defendant-appellant's motion for cancellation of
    appeal bond and sentencing him to suffer the
    subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
    to pay the fine are hereby affirmed.

    You might also like