Criminal Law – Article 39 (Subsidiary Penalty)

People v. Alapan

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

• There is not a single provision in the Code from which it may be logically inferred that an accused may automatically be
made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in a case where he has been sentenced merely to pay a fine and has been found to
be insolvent.

• An accused who has been sentenced by final judgment to pay a fine only and is found to be insolvent and
could not pay the fine for this reason, cannot be compelled to serve the subsidiary imprisonment
provided for in Article 39.

FACTS

1. Spouses Salvador and Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. 22 after issuing 8 postdated checks to
secure their indebtedness amounting to 400,000 from Brian Victor Britchford. Upon maturity, Brian deposited the checks
to PNB but was informed a week later that the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account against which the
checks were drawn was closed. The spouses interposed the defense that because they suffered business reverses, their
account was closed. However, they manifested that they were willing to settle the monetary obligation.

2. MTC acquitted Myrna but convicted Salvador of the crime charged but imposed only a penalty of fine instead of
imprisonment considering that respondent’s act of issuing the bounced checks was not tainted with bad faith and that he
was a first-time offender. However, Salvador was not able to pay the fine imposed which prompted Brian to file a motion
to impose subsidiary penalty. This was denied by the MTC because the subsidiary penalty was not provided in the judgment.
RTC and CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON may undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to
pay the fine imposed.
Article 39. Subsidiary Penalty—If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one
day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules: . . .

HELD

1. No. Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction.

2. Another reason which militates against petitioner’s position is the lack of provision pertaining to subsidiary imprisonment
in the judgment of conviction. As the fact show that there is no judgment sentencing the accused to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvent to pay the fine imposed upon him, because the said subsidiary imprisonment is not stated
in the judgment finding him guilty, it is clear that the court could not legally compel him to serve said subsidiary
imprisonment. A contrary holding would be a violation of the laws aforementioned. That subsidiary imprisonment is a
penalty, there can be no doubt, for, according to Article 39, it is imposed upon the accused and served by him in lieu of the
fine which he fails to pay on account of insolvency.

3. Furthermore, Article 78 provides that “No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. 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.” No person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Criminal Law – Article 48 (Complex Crimes)
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

• Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two categories: (1)
when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding from its operation light
felonies); and (2) when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other; Article 365 is a substantive rule
penalizing not an act, defined as a felony but the mental attitude behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or
foresight, a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences.

• Court holds that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity
of the consequences; There shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the
same first level court. By doing this, rampant occasions of constitutionally impermissible second prosecutions are avoided,
not to mention that scarce state resources are conserved and diverted to proper use.

FACTS

1. Following a vehicular collision, Ivler was charged before the MeTC with 2 separate offenses (1) reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by Evangeline Ponce and (2) Reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide and damage to property for the death of Ponce’s husband, Nestor Ponce and damage to their vehicle.

2. Ivler pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries and was penalized as such. Invoking this
conviction, he moved to quash the other Information for placing him in jeopardy of 2nd punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence. MeTC denied the motion. The trial court affirmed the decision. Hence, the appeal.

3. Ponce calls the Court’s attention to jurisprudence holding that light offenses cannot be complexed under Article 48 with
grave or less grave felonies. Hence, the prosecution was obliged to separate the charges for slight physical injuries in
one case, and homicide & damage to property, on the other.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON the trial court erred in extending to his favor the
constitutional right of the accused under the Double Jeopardy
Clause which would bar further proceedings of the 2nd criminal
case (reckless imprudence resulting in homicide & damage to
property).
Article 48. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.

HELD

4. Yes. The jurisprudence in People v. de los Santos holding that light felonies cannot be complexed with grave or less grave
felonies under Article 48 cannot apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the RPC. Prosecutions under Article
365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences.

5. The confusion bedeviling the question posed in this petition, to which the MeTC succumbed, stems from persistent but
awkward attempts to harmonize conceptually incompatible substantive and procedural rules in criminal law, namely,
Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses and Article 48 on complexing of crimes, both under the Revised Penal
Code. Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either (1)
compound crime and (2) complex proper crime. Legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu
of serving multiple penalties, will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime. In contrast,
Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but “the mental attitude behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight”, a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus,
Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.

6. Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their
constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the
favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the certainty
of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as “light offenses” (or, as here, for the more serious consequence
prosecuted belatedly).
Criminal Law – Article 48 (Complex Crimes)
People v. Sanidad

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

• In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the
law as well as in the conscience of the offender.

• Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that
purpose are looked down as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single complex offense.

FACTS

1. Jimmel Sanidad and Ponce Manuel (Pambong) were charged with the crime of murder with multiple attempted
murder and malicious mischief.

2. A group on board a passenger jeepney driven by Delfin Tadeo went to attend a barangay fiesta. The group joined the
residents in a drinking spree. Sanidad and Manuel and several other residents of Lagangilang joined them in drinking.
Marlon Tugadi and Sanidad were drinking buddies and members of the CAFGU before then.

3. After their drinking spree and at 4 am, the group drove home. As the jeepney approached a plantation, its headlights beamed
at Sanidad, Manuel and 2 other unidentified companions who were armed with an armalite, .45 pistol and shotguns with
buckshots.

4. The accused in a classic case of ambuscade suddenly and without warning unleashed a volley of shots at the jeepney. With
the exception of Rolando Tugadi, all passengers survived the ambush. Moments later, fire engulfed the jeepney. It could
not be determined whether the accused purposely set the vehicle on fire or the fuel tank was hit during the shooting that
ignited the fire.

5. Marlon and Pepito Tugadi later heard one of the unidentified companions say, “My gosh, we were not able to kill them all”.
The accused left the scene, firing their guns indiscriminately into the air as they walked away. Police later came to the scene.
The trial court convicted the accused of the crime charged.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON the trial court correctly convicted Sanidad and Manuel
with the crime of murder with multiple attempted murder and
malicious mischief.
Article 48. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.

HELD

We fully agree with the lower court that the instant case comes within the purview of Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code. Although
several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible
to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants
intended to fire at each and every one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other. On the contrary, the evidence
clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi’s group as a whole. Thus, one of accusedappellants exclaimed in
frustration after the ambush: “My gosh, we were not able to kill all of them.”
Criminal Law – Article 48 (Complex Crimes)
People v. de los Santos

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

• Where the incident resulting in several deaths and injuries was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of
a single act of reckless driving, the accused should be held guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries; If a
reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed.

• Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, slight physical injuries should be treated
and punished as separate offenses.

FACTS

4. Several members of the PNP were undergoing an “endurance run” as part of the Special Counter Insurgency Operation Unit
Training when an Isuzu Elf truck came towards them. The 2 rear security guards started waving for the vehicle to take the
other side of the rode as the trainees were occupying the right lane of the highway. The vehicle, however, just kept its speed,
apparently ignoring their signals and coming closer and closer to them.

5. Realizing that the vehicle would hit them, the rear guards told their co-trainees to “retract.” The guards forthwith jumped
in different directions. Lemuel and Weldon saw their co-trainees being hit by said truck falling like dominoes one after the
other. Some were thrown, and others were overrun by the vehicle. The driver did not reduce his speed even after hitting the
first and second columns. The guards then stopped oncoming vehicles to prevent their comrades from being hit again

6. Glenn immediately surrendered to local authorities. He interposed the defense that because of the darkness, he did not
know he was already hitting people. At the sound of the first bumping thuds, GLENN put his right foot on the brake pedal.
was trembling and could not see what were being bumped. At the succeeding bumping thuds, he was not able to pump the
brake, nor did he notice that his foot was pushing the pedal. He immediately went home and did not bother to report
because he was not aware of what exactly happened. When he heard the news 2 hours later on Bombo Radyo, he realized
that it was the PNP group he had hit.

7. The trial court convicted GLENN, as charged, of the complex crime of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and
multiple attempted murder, with the use of motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.

ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

WON Glenn should be convicted of the complex crime of multiple
murder, multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder.
Article 48. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.

HELD

7. No, considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a single act of reckless
driving, GLENN should be held guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with
serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries. Since Article 48 speaks of felonies, it is applicable to crimes
through negligence in view of the definition of felonies in Article 3 as “acts or omissions punishable by law” committed
either by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).

8. The slight physical injuries caused by GLENN to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been
intentional, have constituted light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should be treated
and punished as separate offenses. Separate Informations should have, therefore, been filed.