GR No. 199527, January 10, 2018
Martires, J.:
Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction.
In August 2005, the Spouses Alapan borrowed ₱400,000.00 from petitioner Brian Victor Britchford (petitioner) with a promise that they would pay the said amount within three (3) months. To secure the indebtedness, respondent issued eight (8) postdated checks. When the checks matured, petitioner deposited then at the Philippine National Bank (PNB), Olongapo City branch. One week thereafter, PNB informed petitioner that the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account against which the checks were drawn was closed. Petitioner immediately informed respondent of the dishonor of the checks.
Municipal Trial Court convicted respondent of eight (8) counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22. It imposed a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment considering that respondent's act of issuing the bounced checks was not tainted with bad faith and that he was a first-time offender. On the other hand, the MTC acquitted Myrna because she did not participate in the issuance of the dishonored checks.
After the MTC judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued. The writ, however, was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.
MTC denied the motion on the ground that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was not imposed in the judgment of conviction. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court.
The RTC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that respondent could not be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment because the judgment of conviction did not provide for such penalty in case of non-payment of fine. The RTC further opined that the MTC decision which already attained finality could no longer be altered or modified.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA. The CA dismissed the petition.
ISSUE:
I. WHETHER PETITIONER MAY ASSAIL THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION;
II. WHETHER RESPONDENT MAY UNDERGO SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FINE.
RULING:
I. NO.
II. NO.
Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's order.
In the appeal of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General.
Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime.
The penalty of fine and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment thereof pertain to the criminal aspect of the case. On the other hand, the indemnification for the face value of the dishonored checks refers to the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, petitioner could not appeal the imposition of fine as penalty which was not even questioned by the People through the OSG. "While a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate to the interest of the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.
Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction.
Here, the judgment of conviction did not provide subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary imprisonment may not be imposed without violating the RPC and the constitutional provision on due process.
The final and executory decision of the MTC can no longer be modified.
The time-honored doctrine of immutability of judgment precludes modification of a final and executory judgment. MTC decision has long attained finality and that none of the exceptions finds application in this case.
