People v. Basalo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Francisco Basalo was charged with violation of Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly selling and disposing of eighty cavans of palay, which he had mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB), without the bank's knowledge and consent, to the prejudice of the bank in the sum of at least P280.00. Procedural History: The accused interposed the defense of prescription, arguing that more than five years had elapsed from the commission of the offense to the filing of the information on June 5, 1953. The prosecution countered that the bank discovered the offense only in 1953. The Appeal: The Government, through the Provincial Fiscal of Bataan, appealed the trial court's order dismissing the case on the ground of prescription. The trial court ruled that the PNB should have discovered the offense by September 1947, making the information filed on June 5, 1953, beyond the five-year prescriptive period. The trial court also held that even if the fine were considered, the subsidiary imprisonment would be six months, equivalent to arresto mayor, thus prescribing in five years.
Issue(s)
How should the period of prescription be determined for an offense under Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for an alternative penalty of "arresto mayor or a fine amounting to twice the value of all property"?
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court held that the offense prescribes in ten years, not five.
Ratio Decidendi
On the determination of the period of prescription for offenses with alternative penalties involving a fine: The Supreme Court definitively held that the trial court erred in converting the fine into a prison term, specifically subsidiary imprisonment, for the purpose of determining the period of prescription. It clarified that Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code expressly mandates that a fine, whether imposed as a single or an alternative penalty, should be considered afflictive, correctional, or light based on its monetary amount. In this specific case, the imposable fine was P640 (double the value of the P320 property), which falls within the classification of a "correctional penalty" under Article 26, as it does not exceed P6,000 but is not less than P200. Consequently, under Article 90, Paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, offenses punishable by a correctional penalty prescribe in ten years. The Court emphasized that there is no legal justification to reduce or convert the fine into a prison term; instead, its classification as a fine under Article 26 directly governs the prescriptive period. This ruling corrects the lower court's misapplication, ensuring that the longer, appropriate prescriptive period for the fine is recognized.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for crimes penalized with a fine, whether as a sole or alternative penalty, is determined by the classification of the fine under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code (afflictive, correctional, or light), and not by the subsidiary imprisonment that may be imposed in case of insolvency. Therefore, a fine classified as correctional, which ranges from P200 to P6,000, subjects the offense to a ten-year prescriptive period under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.