This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-09-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve." (Underscoring ours) We hold that the above provisions on subsidiary imprisonment can be applied suppletorily to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 pursuant to Article 10 of the same Code, which provides: "ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary." (Underscoring ours) As early as 1959, this Court, in People vs. Cubelo,[3] held: "Appellant's contention that the trial court committed error in ordering him to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of fine with the reason that Act No. 4003, which prohibits fishing with the use of explosive, fails to provide for such subsidiary imprisonment, and that being a special law, it is not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, is untenable. The second paragraph of Article 10 of the said Code provides that 'this Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.' Articles 100 (civil liability) and 39 (subsidiary penalty) are applicable to offenses under special laws (People vs. Moreno, 60 Phil. 178; Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, 66 Phil. 184)." Indeed, the absence of an express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not and cannot preclude its imposition in cases involving its violations. | |||||