Buiser v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Lucas Buiser was convicted of less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence by the Court of First Instance of Laguna. He was sentenced to two months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Damian Bautista in the amount of P500.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. 2. Procedural History: The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision dated May 14, 1970. Subsequently, petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari, raising two issues: that the lower court's decision was contrary to the evidence and that subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity was erroneously imposed. The Supreme Court gave due course only to the issue concerning subsidiary imprisonment. Petitioner argued that Republic Act No. 5465, which abolished subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency, should be applied retroactively to his case, as it became effective while his appeal was pending. The Solicitor General concurred with this contention.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 5465, which abolished subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, should be applied retroactively to the petitioner's case pending appeal. Whether the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was erroneous.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED insofar as the issue of subsidiary imprisonment is concerned. The judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals is deemed AMENDED by eliminating the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the indemnity of P500.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of retroactive application of Republic Act No. 5465: The Court held that Republic Act No. 5465, which took effect on April 21, 1969, abolished subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay indemnity. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this amendment because penal laws that are more favorable to the accused have retroactive effect, as provided by Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner was not shown to be a habitual criminal, thus excluding him from the exceptions to the retroactive application of penal laws. The Court cited its previous ruling in People vs. Doria which upheld the retroactive application of amendments to Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment, which was the law at the time of the original sentence, should be removed in light of the subsequent amendatory law that is more favorable to the accused. The Solicitor General concurred with this contention, finding it well-taken. The Court found that the abolition of subsidiary imprisonment is undeniably more favorable to the accused. On the erroneous imposition of subsidiary imprisonment: As a consequence of the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 5465, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was deemed erroneous. The original sentence of the Court of First Instance was correct based on the law then in force, but the subsequent amendment of the law during the pendency of the appeal mandates its application in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the subsidiary imprisonment was modified.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 5465, which abolished subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay indemnity, has retroactive effect and applies to cases pending appeal, consistent with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.