Consti II – Dean Carlo Vistan Digest by K.

Quinco
Non-imprisonment for Debt
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Alejano v. Inserto
G.R. No. 104768 | July 21, 2003 | Carpio, J.

Plaintiff: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Defendant: SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO

Doctrine: The debt contemplated in the constitutional provision that "no person shall be imprisoned for
debt," refers only to a contractual obligation or an obligation to pay money arising from a contract and not to
an obligation arising from a crime.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY

FACTS: Respondent was charged with ignorance of the law, and his removal from office was sought for
having sentenced the complainant to suffer imprisonment in case of failure to pay the civil indemnity due
form the latter in a criminal case in violation of Art. IV, Section 13 of the Constitution.

Admitting his error, the respondent claimed that it was not his intention to oppress anyone, much less the
complainant, and that the error was due to oversight and honest belief that what the Constitution prohibits
is imprisonment for non-payment of debt arising from action ex-contractu but not damages arising from
action ex-delictu.

HELD: It is erroneous on the part of the complaint to claim that the error committed by the respondent
Judge was in violation of the constitutional provision that "no person shall be imprisoned for debt," because
the debt contemplated in the constitutional provision refers only to a debt," because the debt contemplated
in the constitutional provision refers only to a contractual obligation or an obligation to pay money arising
from a contract and not to an obligation arising from a crime.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
● Complainant Ajeno of Barotac, Nuevo, Iloilo, charged Judge Sancho Y. Inserto of the Court of First
Instance, Iloilo City for ignorance of the law  RPC and Consti, Art III, Sec 13 (1973)
o Judge Inserto sentenced complainant "to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months of
arresto mayor to indemnify Solomon Banagua, Jr. in the sum of P200.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the cost of the suit
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

ISSUES & HELD

1. W/N the right against imprisonment for one’s debt was violated [NO]
● Judge
○ admitted his error in imposing upon the complainant the subsidiary imprisonment of forty
(40) days in case of insolvency, to pay the indemnity of P200.00 to Solomon Banagua, Jr.
○ alleged among others that he realized his oversight when the case was appealed to the
Court of Appeals;
■ that it was never his intention to oppress anyone, much less the complainant;
■ that at the time he committed the mistake he was relying on the doctrine that what
the Constitution prohibits is imprisonment for debt arising exclusively from action ex

1
Consti II – Dean Carlo Vistan Digest by K. Quinco
Non-imprisonment for Debt
contractu and does not include damages arising from actionex delictu, fines,
penalties imposed in criminal proceedings
● SC
○ It is erroneous on the part of the complaint to claim that the error committed by the
respondent Judge was in violation of the constitutional provision that "no person shall be
imprisoned for debt," because the debt contemplated in the constitutional provision refers
only to a contractual obligation or an obligation to pay money arising from a contract and not
to an obligation arising from a crime.
○ The obligation of the complainant to pay the sum of P200.00 to Solomon Banagua, Jr. does
not arise from a contract but from a crime and is therefore beyond the scope of the
constitutional provision mentioned.
○ Respondent Judge is correct in relying on said doctrine, but he failed to realize that if
subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed now in case of insolvency of the accused to pay
the indemnity, it is not because its imposition would constitute imprisonment for non-
payment of a debt but because of the new amendment introduced to Article 39 of the
Revised Penal Code by Republic Act No. 5465:
■ imposed subsidiary imprisonment only in case of non-payment of the fine
■ Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act. No. 5465,
provides among others, that if the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional,
six (6) years, or one (1) day to six (6) months arresto mayor and a fine, the subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the sentence nor more than one (1)
year at the amended rate of one (1) day for each eight (P8.00) pesos fine.

DECISION
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the respondent Judge is hereby admonished to be more cautious in the
application of the law to cases submitted to him for decision with a warning that a repetition of the same will
be severely dealt with.

SO ORDERED.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NOTES