People vs. Alapan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

MARTIRES, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued 8 postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Salvador Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22 with a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued, the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

 The MTC denied the motion on the ground that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was not imposed in the judgment of conviction.

 Issue: Whether or not respondent may undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay fine.

 Ruling: Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction. Article 78 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed.  xxx xxx  

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby. 

Here, the judgment of conviction did not provide subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary imprisonment may not be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: No person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution, dated 22 November 2011, of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.