Miriam Armi Jao Yu vs. People of the Philippines

Subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed upon an accused convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 who is unable to pay the fine imposed, notwithstanding the absence of an express provision for subsidiary imprisonment in that special law, because Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code apply suppletorily under Article 10 thereof unless the special law specially provides the contrary.

Miriam Armi Jao Yu was the accused in criminal cases involving checks for which Susan Andaya was ordered indemnified. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit, and Section 1 prescribes imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, not exceeding Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both, at the discretion of the court. The Revised Penal Code is supplementary to special laws under Article 10 unless the latter specially provide the contrary, while Articles 38 and 39 govern pecuniary liabilities and subsidiary penalty. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 clarified the imposition of imprisonment and subsidiary imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.

On March 25, 1991, Miriam Armi Jao Yu was charged with 19 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 91, Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 19468 to 19486. The cases were prosecuted by the People of the Philippines, and the trial court’s judgment later ordered petitioner to indemnify Susan Andaya in each case.

Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. After hearing, the trial court rendered a Decision finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It sentenced her to pay fines in each of the 19 cases and to indemnify Susan Andaya in corresponding amounts. The fines ranged from ₱13,475.00 to ₱200,000.00, and the indemnities ranged from ₱13,475.00 to ₱500,000.00. The trial court also ordered her to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine in each case and to pay the costs of suit.

The trial court’s judgment thus imposed subsidiary imprisonment notwithstanding that Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not expressly provide for it. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violations charged.

• Subsidiary Imprisonment Not Authorized: Petitioner contended that Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 provides only the imposition of imprisonment or fine, or both, in cases of violation of that law, and that she should not suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fines imposed by the trial court.

• Affirm the Court of Appeals: The Solicitor General disagreed with petitioner and prayed that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be affirmed.

• Subsidiary Imprisonment under B.P. Blg. 22: Whether an accused found guilty of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 may be made to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case she fails to pay the fines imposed by the trial court for such violations.

• Subsidiary Imprisonment under B.P. Blg. 22: Yes. The absence of an express provision in B.P. Blg. 22 does not preclude subsidiary imprisonment; Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code apply suppletorily under Article 10, and Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 confirms that there is no legal obstacle to such imposition.

• Subsidiary Imprisonment under B.P. Blg. 22: The Court began with Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 38 provides the order of payment of pecuniary liabilities: preparation of the damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages, fine, and costs of the proceedings. Article 39 provides that if the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, he shall be subject to subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the rules in that article. The Court then applied Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the Code, but the Code is supplementary to such laws unless the latter specially provide the contrary. Because Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not specially provide contrary to subsidiary imprisonment, Articles 38 and 39 can be applied suppletorily. The Court relied on People vs. Cubelo, which held that Articles 100 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code are applicable to offenses under special laws. It concluded that the absence of an express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in B.P. Blg. 22 does not and cannot preclude its imposition. The Court also cited Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, which clarified that Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 did not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty and that if only a fine is imposed and the accused is unable to pay it, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment. Finally, the Court noted that in Felicito Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, it had imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the petition was denied.

• Supplementary Application of the Revised Penal Code to Special Laws — Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the Code, but the Code is supplementary to such laws unless the special law specially provides the contrary. The Court applied this doctrine to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, holding that because the special law does not expressly prohibit subsidiary imprisonment, Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code apply suppletorily.
• Subsidiary Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fine — Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if a convict has no property with which to meet the fine, he shall be subject to subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the rules in that article. The Court held that this subsidiary penalty may be imposed upon an accused convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 who is unable to pay the fine.
• Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 — This circular clarified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 by stating that the latter did not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 and that if only a fine is imposed and the accused cannot pay it, there is no legal obstacle to applying the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment. The Court cited it as confirming the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.

• "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:" — This is the Court’s core holding, stating the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code’s subsidiary imprisonment provisions to B.P. Blg. 22.
• "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." — This passage directly rejects petitioner’s argument that the special law’s silence bars subsidiary imprisonment.
• "Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment." — This is the clarifying rule from Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 that the Court relied upon to resolve the controversy.
• "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)." — This excerpt from People vs. Cubelo supplies the precedent for applying Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary penalty to special-law offenses.

• People vs. Cubelo, No. L-13678, November 20, 1959, 106 Phil. 496 — The Court cited this as early authority holding that Articles 100 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code are applicable to offenses under special laws, supporting the suppletory application of subsidiary imprisonment to B.P. Blg. 22.
• Felicito Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003 — The Court cited this case as having imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, reinforcing the ruling.
• People vs. Moreno, 60 Phil. 178; Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, 66 Phil. 184 — Cited in People vs. Cubelo for the rule that Articles 100 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code apply to offenses under special laws.
• Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998, 298 SCRA 656; Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000 — Mentioned in Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 as rulings adopted by Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 as a policy on the imposition of penalties for B.P. Blg. 22.

• Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit and prescribes imprisonment or fine, or both, at the discretion of the court. The Court held that its silence on subsidiary imprisonment does not preclude such imposition.
• Article 10, Revised Penal Code — Provides that offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the Revised Penal Code, but the Code is supplementary to such laws unless the latter specially provide the contrary. This was the basis for applying Articles 38 and 39 to B.P. Blg. 22.
• Article 38, Revised Penal Code — Establishes the order of payment of pecuniary liabilities: preparation of the damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages, fine, and costs of the proceedings. The Court cited it to recognize the fine as a pecuniary liability.
• Article 39, Revised Penal Code — Provides for subsidiary penalty if the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to specified rules. The Court applied it to allow subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of fines under B.P. Blg. 22.
• Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The petition was filed pursuant to this rule as a petition for review on certiorari.
• Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 — Clarified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and stated that if only a fine is imposed and the accused is unable to pay it, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

Panganiban, Corona, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur. The footnote states that Carpio Morales was on leave.