GR L 2472 73; (December, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑2472‑73 (December 7 1906)
FACTS
– Defendants, including Tomas Cortes, were charged with bandolerismo (banditry).
– Although the alleged offenses were filed in two separate complaints, the acts were said to have been committed simultaneously and jointly; the trial court therefore consolidated the cases and tried all defendants together.
– The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted the accused and imposed: (a) imprisonment ranging from 20 to 25 years; (b) a joint and several civil judgment of ₱300 to the victims, Casimiro Estanislao and his wife; (c) restitution of stolen jewelry or payment of its value (₱32); and (d) subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay the monetary awards.
– On appeal, the United States (as plaintiff‑appellee) filed its brief on 13 Sept 1906; the defendants’ brief was filed on 30 July 1906. The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on 2 Oct 1906.
ISSUE
Whether, under the Philippine Commission’s criminal statutes, the trial court may:
1. Award civil damages (money judgment) in a criminal prosecution; and
2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment for non‑payment of such monetary awards.
RULING
1. Civil damages in criminal cases: The statutes of the Philippine Commission contain no provision authorizing a judgment for civil damages in a criminal prosecution. Consequently, the portion of the lower court’s sentence ordering payment of ₱300 and the value of the jewelry (₱32) is revoked. The court may, however, order the return of specific stolen property to its owner.
2. Subsidiary imprisonment: Philippine penal law, as interpreted in U.S. v. Glefonea and U.S. v. Carvajal, expressly prohibits subsidiary imprisonment as a penalty for failure to satisfy monetary awards in criminal cases. Thus, the subsidiary imprisonment provision is invalidated.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMS the conviction and the terms of imprisonment, MODIFIES the judgment by striking the civil‑damages award and the subsidiary imprisonment, and directs that judgment be entered ten days thereafter, with the case returned to the trial court for execution.
Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey concurred.