Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16377 January 28, 1961

PURA TOLEDO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN, respondent-
appellant.

E. C. Saturnino for petitioner-appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant.

BENGZON, J.:

In the Rizal Court of First Instance, Pura N. Toledo, an inmate of the Correctional Institution for
Women, file this petition for habeas corpus. Having found that petitioner had served more than the
period of imprisonment legally imposed on her, the Honorable Cecilia Munoz-Palma ordered the
prisoner's release from confinement.

Opposing the petition, the superintendent of said Institution appealed in due time.

There is no question that prior to July 1949, Pura N. Toledo had been sentenced in nine criminal
cases, to total imprisonment of 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. She was also sentenced to pay
certain indemnities, which if not paid, would normally entail subsidiary imprisonment of 3 years and 7
months. It is admitted that although Toledo had served time for 10 years, 11 months and 2 days
(with good conduct time allowance), the Superintendent detained her to undergo subsidiary
imprisonment for non-payment of indemnities. The petitioner contended and the judge upheld the
contention that she was not required to suffer subsidiary detention, in view of Art. 39 of the
Revised Penal Code which reads as follows: .

. . . 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. . .

Her Honor reasoned thus: inasmuch as the aggregate principal penalty imposed on petitioner
exceeded the maximum of prision correccional (6 years) - the prisoner should no longer undergo
additional imprisonment for failure to the monetary indemnities. The Superintendent maintains in this
appeal that inasmuch as none of the nine separate convictions and sentences imposed on the
prisoner had exceeded prision correccional which is true, the above provision of section 39
should not apply.

We think the appealed decision took the correct view. The apparent theory of the law is that no
prisoner shall be held in jail for more than six years by reason of insolvency; therefore, the aggregate
penalties should be considered in bulk - not separately. This is what we indicated in Bagtas v.
Director of Prisons, 84 Phil. 692:
 . . . he (the prisoner) should not have been made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency in view of the fact that the aggregate of the principal penalties as reduced under
Article 70 exceeded 6 years of imprisonment. . .

We hold that the correct rule is to multiply the highest principal penalty by 3 and the result
will be the aggregate principal penalty which the prisoner has to serve, plus the payment of
all the indemnities which he has been sentenced to pay, with or without subsidiary
imprisonment depending upon whether or not the principal penalty exceeds 6 years.
(Emphasis ours.)

This cumulation of sentences, it may be observed, aligns with the underlying principle in the matter
of the three-fold duration of penalties under Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code.1

As the case may be decided this way, we do not need to discuss the other issues presented in the
briefs. Judgment affirmed. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., reserves his vote.
Barrera and Concepcion, JJ., took no part.

Footnotes

1 People v. Garalde, 50 Phil. 823; Torres v. Superintendent, 58 Phil. 847.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation