Ajeno v. Inserto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ludovico Ajeno charged respondent Judge Sancho Y. Inserto with ignorance of the law for sentencing him to suffer four (4) months of arresto mayor, to indemnify Solomon Banagua, Jr. in the sum of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. Complainant argued that the subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity violated the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Procedural History: The respondent Judge admitted his error in imposing subsidiary imprisonment for the indemnity, realizing the oversight when the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. He claimed it was not his intention to oppress anyone and that he relied on the doctrine that the constitutional prohibition applies only to debts arising from ex contractu and not ex delictu. The Petition: Complainant prayed for the removal of the respondent Judge for incompetence and lack of intellectual responsibility and integrity.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge can be administratively held liable for imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity. Whether the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for indemnity arising from a crime violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.
Ruling
The respondent Judge is admonished to be more cautious in the application of the law, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense will be severely dealt with. The complaint is dismissed for lack of merit to remove the judge from office.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent Judge can be administratively held liable for imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity: The Court found that the respondent Judge committed an error in imposing subsidiary imprisonment for the P200.00 indemnity. Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5465, clearly states that subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the sentence nor more than one year at the amended rate of one day for each P8.00 fine. Crucially, the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 5465 limits subsidiary imprisonment to the non-payment of a fine, not for indemnity to the offended party. The respondent Judge's failure to observe this amendatory law constituted negligence, as he failed to exercise the diligence expected of judges to determine the applicability of laws and recent amendments. This negligence caused the complainant trouble and expense in pursuing appellate remedies. On whether the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for indemnity arising from a crime violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt: The Court clarified that the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt refers only to obligations arising from contracts (ex contractu) and does not extend to obligations arising from crimes (ex delictu). Therefore, the complainant's obligation to pay the P200.00 indemnity, which arose from a crime, was not covered by the constitutional provision. The respondent Judge's reliance on the doctrine established in People vs. Cara was correct in principle regarding the scope of the constitutional prohibition. However, his error stemmed not from a misunderstanding of this principle, but from his failure to apply the specific amendment brought about by Republic Act No. 5465, which altered the application of subsidiary imprisonment in criminal cases, restricting it to non-payment of fines.
Main Doctrine
A judge may be admonished for an honest error of judgment in imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity arising from a crime, not due to ignorance of the law prohibiting imprisonment for debt, but due to failure to observe the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 5465, which limits subsidiary imprisonment to non-payment of fine.