G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968
Rufo Quemuel, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rufo Quemuel was convicted of libel by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, imposing a fine of P500.00 and an indemnity of P2,000.00 to the offended party, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The trial court’s original decision had not awarded any indemnity, and the offended party did not appeal. Quemuel filed this petition, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding indemnity since the offended party did not appeal, that appellate courts lack authority to assess damages initially, that there was no proof of actual damages, and that the subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment constitutes unconstitutional imprisonment for debt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding civil indemnity to the offended party despite the lack of an appeal by said party and the absence of proof of actual damages, and whether the subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the indemnity violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, including the penalty, which may be increased. The civil indemnity forms an integral part of the penalty under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. While the authority to assess damages is vested in trial courts initially, this authority passes to the appellate court upon appeal. The Supreme Court has, in many cases, increased damages awarded by the trial court even if only the accused appealed. In libel cases where the article is libelous per se, as in this case, the law implies damages, and the complainant is not required to introduce evidence of actual damages, especially when the award is nominal. The civil liability arising from libel is not a “debt” within the constitutional prohibition, which refers to obligations arising from contract. This liability arises from a tort or crime and from law, making the subsidiary imprisonment for its non-payment constitutional.