Chapter 16

Non-Imprisonment for the Debt

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non payment of a poll tax

General Rule

The term Debt as used in the provision refers to any civil obligation arising from contract, expressed
or implied. Also it includes even debts obtained through fraud since no distinction is made in the
Constitution. On the otherhand, poll tax refers to specific fixed sum levied upon every person
belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation. The provision means that
failure to pay a debt or a poll tax cannot be declared a crime.

Exception

Although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished
in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud. In such case, the act for which he is
penalized is the deception he employed in securing the debt, not his default in paying it.

In Ganaway vs. Quillen, 42 Phil 805, the petitioner prayed for his release from imprisonment which
resulted from the non-payment of debt. It was held that the defendant, one predicated on an
obligation arising upon a contract cannot be imprisoned because it is in contravention of organic law.

In US vs Cara, 41 Phil 826, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of estafa, not because
Juana Juan could not get possession of the land that he had offered as security for the payment of his
debt as incorrectly stated in the second assignment of error by the defense, for, as already stated,
there was no such debt or any security for it but because, according to the facts proven at the trial,
the defendant pretended to be the owner and possessor of the land described in the deed Exhibit A,
when in fact such land did not exist, deceived said Juana Juan in order to obtain from her P327 and
the 6 cavanes of rice which were delivered to him by her, and to her prejudice, appropriated to
himself said money and rice.

In Serafin vs. Lindayag, 67 SCRA 166, the respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest against the
accused who with the intent to gain did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously owe the
sum of P1,500.00 on January 28, 1971, and failed to settle the obligation. The Supreme Court
annulled this act, declaring it to be violative of the prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

In Ajeno vs Inserto, the complainant charged the respondent judge for ignorance of the law by
sentencing complainant "to suffer an imprisonment of 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 the cost of the suit." Complainant claims that the indemnity of Two Hundred
(P200.00) Pesos is a civil liability and to order his imprisonment for non-payment thereof is in
violation of the constitutional provision that "no person shall be imprisoned for debt."

Prepared by: Zhaira Louise L. Ona, JD101