G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO BASALO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Provincial Fiscal of Bataan appealed the order of the trial court dismissing Criminal Case No. 4681 against Francisco Basalo for alleged violation of Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code (fraudulent disposal of mortgaged property) on the ground of prescription. The information was filed on June 5, 1953, charging Basalo with unlawfully selling eighty cavans of palay he had mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) without the bank’s consent, to its prejudice. Upon arraignment, Basalo interposed the defense of prescription, claiming more than five years had elapsed from the alleged commission of the offense (related to a chattel mortgage executed on July 14, 1947, for a loan due ten months later) to the filing of the information. The prosecution contended the bank discovered the offense only in 1953. The trial court ruled that the bank could have or should have discovered the fraudulent disposal by September 1947, and thus the filing was beyond the five-year prescriptive period. It further held that even considering the alternative penalty of a fine (triple the loan amount, which it noted would exceed P900), the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency would not exceed six months, equivalent to arresto mayor, leading to a five-year prescription.

ISSUE

Whether the offense under Article 319 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by arresto mayor or a fine (double the value of the property), prescribes in five years or ten years.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. It held that for purposes of prescription, the alternative penalty of a fine should not be converted into a subsidiary imprisonment term. Applying Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code, a fine, whether single or alternative, is classified as afflictive, correctional, or light based on its amount. In this case, the imposable fine was P640 (double the P320 property value), which falls under a correctional penalty. Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, offenses punishable by a correctional penalty prescribe in ten years. Therefore, the period of prescription is ten years, not five. The Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve when the offense was actually discovered, as the ten-year period had not elapsed from the alleged commission in 1947 to the filing in 1953.