GR 48515; (November, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48515; November 11, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHING KUAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Ching Kuan, was accused of violating Section 86 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila for constructing a 297-square-meter building of strong materials in Tondo on or about May 8, 1941, without the required permit from the city engineer. He pleaded guilty in the Municipal Court and was sentenced to pay a fine of P150 and costs. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, he again pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay an increased fine of P175, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. The appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court, contending that the fine was excessive.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in considering the appellant’s financial ability to pay when imposing the fine.
2. Whether Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates consideration of the culprit’s wealth or means in fixing the amount of a fine, is unconstitutional for denying equal protection of the laws.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence appealed from.
1. On the Application of Mitigating Circumstances: The Court found it unnecessary to reexamine its prior decisions (People vs. Durano and People vs. Roque) regarding the application of mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code to violations of special laws. Since the penalty imposed was only a fine, the rules in Articles 63 and 64 of the Revised Penal Code concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances were inapplicable. Instead, Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs the imposition of fines, was relevant.
2. On the Constitutionality of Article 66 and Consideration of Financial Ability: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code. This article requires courts, when imposing fines, to consider not only mitigating and aggravating circumstances but more particularly the wealth or means of the culprit. The appellant argued that this provision created discrimination between the rich and the poor, resulting in unequal application of the law. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that the provision aims to achieve substantive equality before the law. A fine’s severity is relative to the offender’s financial capacity; imposing the same fine on individuals with vastly different means would result in a penalty of unequal severity and be unjustly discriminatory. The Court emphasized that equality before the law is practical and relative, not literal and mathematical, as individuals have different material circumstances. Therefore, the trial court did not err in considering the appellant’s financial ability (being well-to-do and able to afford constructing a big building) in fixing the amount of the fine.
The penalty prescribed for the violation was a fine of not more than P200 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. The fine of P175 imposed by the Court of First Instance was within the legal limits and was affirmed.