This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines. The defendant, Abelardo Subido, was found guilty of libel by the Court of First Instance and sentenced to 3 months in jail, a fine of 500 pesos, and to pay 10,000 pesos in damages to the offended party. The Court of Appeals reduced the damages to 5,000 pesos but did not specify if non-payment would result in imprisonment. The defendant argued he could not be imprisoned for non-payment since it was not explicitly stated. The court ruled that the use of a comma in the original sentence meant the subsidiary imprisonment applied to both the fine and damages.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines. The defendant, Abelardo Subido, was found guilty of libel by the Court of First Instance and sentenced to 3 months in jail, a fine of 500 pesos, and to pay 10,000 pesos in damages to the offended party. The Court of Appeals reduced the damages to 5,000 pesos but did not specify if non-payment would result in imprisonment. The defendant argued he could not be imprisoned for non-payment since it was not explicitly stated. The court ruled that the use of a comma in the original sentence meant the subsidiary imprisonment applied to both the fine and damages.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines. The defendant, Abelardo Subido, was found guilty of libel by the Court of First Instance and sentenced to 3 months in jail, a fine of 500 pesos, and to pay 10,000 pesos in damages to the offended party. The Court of Appeals reduced the damages to 5,000 pesos but did not specify if non-payment would result in imprisonment. The defendant argued he could not be imprisoned for non-payment since it was not explicitly stated. The court ruled that the use of a comma in the original sentence meant the subsidiary imprisonment applied to both the fine and damages.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
versus ABELARDO SUBlDO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-21734
September 5, 1975
Facts of the Case
The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila found Subido guilty of Libel, and sentenced him three (3) months of arresto mayor with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of five hundred (P500.00) pesos, to indemnify the offended party, Mayor Arsenio Lacson, in the sum of ten thousand (P10, 000.00) pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The defendant appealed to the Court of appeals (CA). The CA eliminated the penalty of arresto mayor, imposed a fine of Php500.00 and reduced the indemnity to be paid by the defendant to the offended party from Php10, 000.00 to Php5, 000.00. The accused-appellant filed a motion with the trial court praying that: (1) the court enter of record that the judgment of the Court of Appeals has been promulgated and (2) that his appeal bond be cancelled. Accused-appellant argued that although he could not pay the fine and the indemnity prescribed in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, he could not be required to serve the amount of fine and indemnity in the form of subsidiary imprisonment because said judgment did not expressly and specifically provide that he should serve the fine and indemnity in form of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The lower court denied the accused-appellant's motion and declared that the accusedappellant has to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case he could not pay the fine and indemnity prescribed in the decision. Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, this appeal. Statutory Construction Rule Used Punctuation marks are aids of low degree and can never control against intelligible meaning of written words. It is because punctuation marks are neither a part of the statute nor the English language. However, if there is ambiguity in a statute which may be partially or wholly solved by a punctuation mark, it may be considered in the construction of a statute if it gives the statute a meaning which is reasonable and in accord with the will of the legislature. Application of the Rule in this Case A careful scrutiny of the decision of the trial court reveals that the clause "with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency" is separated by a comma (,) from the preceding clause "is hereby sentenced to three months of arresto mayor with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of five hundred (P500.00) pesos, to indemnify the offended party, Mayor Arsenio Lacson, in the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) pesos." The Court held that the use of a comma (,) in the part of the sentence is to make "the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency" refer not only to non-payment of the indemnity, but also to non-payment of the fine.