People v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pascual Fajardo was convicted of damage to property through reckless imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of P270.10 and costs. He appealed, but his appeal was dismissed for failure to submit a brief. Judgment was entered, and upon attempted execution, the sheriff found the accused insolvent. Procedural History: The provincial fiscal insisted that the accused should suffer subsidiary imprisonment despite not being sentenced to it in the judgment. The clerk of court reported the matter, and the court ordered that subsidiary imprisonment could not be compelled as it was not stated in the judgment. The fiscal appealed this order. The Petition: The Solicitor-General maintained that subsidiary imprisonment need not be imposed in the judgment and could be automatically served if the offender is found insolvent, citing Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether an accused sentenced only to pay a fine may be compelled to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, if not explicitly imposed in the judgment. Whether subsidiary imprisonment can be automatically served without being stated in the final judgment.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that an accused sentenced only to pay a fine, who is found to be insolvent and unable to pay the fine, cannot be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment if it was not explicitly imposed in the final judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether an accused sentenced only to pay a fine may be compelled to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, if not explicitly imposed in the judgment: The Court held that subsidiary imprisonment cannot be compelled if it was not explicitly stated in the judgment. Article 78 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that no penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment and in the form prescribed by law. Since the judgment finding the accused guilty did not include a sentence for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the court could not legally compel him to serve it. This principle is rooted in the constitutional guarantee of due process, ensuring that no person is deprived of liberty without due process of law. On whether subsidiary imprisonment can be automatically served without being stated in the final judgment: The Court disagreed with the contention that subsidiary imprisonment could be automatically served. Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code provides for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to satisfy pecuniary liabilities, but Article 78 clearly states that penalties must be executed by virtue of a final judgment. The absence of subsidiary imprisonment in the judgment itself prevents its automatic imposition and execution. The Court reiterated that such automatic imposition would violate the aforementioned legal provisions and established jurisprudence, citing United States vs. Miranda which noted an error in a judgment for failing to impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Main Doctrine
An accused sentenced only to pay a fine, who is found to be insolvent and unable to pay the fine, cannot be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment if the judgment does not explicitly impose it.