RUFO QUEMUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Convicted by the Court of First Instance of Rizal
of the crime of libel,^[1]
with which he is charged, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging
from three (3) months and eleven (11) days of arresto
mayor to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional,
and to pay the costs, petitioner Rufo Quemuel appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
judgment of conviction, but imposed, instead of the penalty of imprisonment, a
fine of P500.00, and added thereto a P2,000.00 indemnity to the offended party,
with subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed six (6) months, in case of
insolvency, aside from the costs.

Petitioner maintains that the decision of the Court of Appeals is
erroneous because:  1) it awarded said
indemnity, despite the fact that the offended had not appealed from the
decision of the trial court, which made no award of such nature; 2) the
assessment of damages in a criminal case, in which the civil action is
impliedly included, is “vested in trial courts (and not in appellate
courts);” 3) there is no proof that damages had been sustained by the
offended party; and 4) subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the indemnity
constitutes imprisonment for non-payment of debt, which is unconstitutional.

Petitioner’s contention is untenable.  The appeal in a criminal case opens the whole
case for review and this includes the penalty, which may be increased^[2]
and the indemnity is part of the penalty.  Hence, in Bagtas
vs. Director of Prisons,^[3]
this Court held that:

“The indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay forms an
integral part of the penalty, it being expressly provided by Article 100 of
the Revised Penal Code that every person criminally liable is civilly
liable.”

Although the authority to assess damages or indemnity in criminal
cases is vested in trial courts, it is so only in the first instance.  On appeal, such authority passes to the
appellate court.  Thus, this Court has,
in many cases, increased the damages awarded by the trial court,
although the offended party had not appealed from said award, and the only
party who sought a review of the decision of said Court was the accused.^[4]

As regards the alleged absence of proof that the offended has
suffered mental anguish, lost sleep, or could not look his neighbor straight in
the eye, suffice it to stress that, by its very nature, libel causes dishonor,
disrepute and discredit; that injury to the reputation of the offended party is
a natural and probable consequence of the defamatory words in libel cases; that
“where the article is libelous per se” – as it is in
the case at bar – “the law implies damages;” and that the complainant
in libel cases is not “required to introduce evidence of actual damages,”
at least, when the amount of the award is more or less nominal, as it is in the
case at bar.^[5]

Needless to say, the civil liability arising from libel is not a
“debt”, within the purview of the constitutional provision against
imprisonment for non-payment of “debt”.  Insofar as said injunction is concerned,
“debt” means an obligation to pay a sum of money “arising
from contract“, express or implied. 
In addition to being part of the penalty, the civil liability in the
case at bar arises, however, from a tort or crime, and, hence, from law.  As a consequence, the subsidiary imprisonment
for non-payment of said liability does not violate the constitutional
injunction.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Rufo Quemuel.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Consisting of the imputation of bribery to a public officer.

^[2] U.S.
vs. Trono,
199 U.S. 521; People vs. Carreon, L-17920, May 30, 1962; Lontok
vs. People, 74 Phil. 513; People vs. Fresco, 63 Phil., 526; People vs. Olfindo,
et al., 47 Phil., 1; Pendleton vs.
U.S., 40 Phil., 1033; U.S. vs. Gimenez, 34 Phil., 74.

^[3] 84 Phil., 692.  See,
also, Erlinda vs.
Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 47326, March
18, 1940.

^[4] People
vs. Licerio,
61 Phil., 361; People vs. Raquel,
L-17401, November 28, 1964; Catuiza vs. People, L-20455, March 31, 1965;
People vs. Berdida,
L-20183, June 30, 1966.

^[5] Jimenez vs. Reyes, 27
Phil., 52; Phee vs.
La Vanguardia, 45 Phil., 211; Fentstermaker
vs. Tribune Pub. Co.,
13 Utah 532, 35
L.R.A. 611.

^[6] U.S. vs. Cara, 41 Phil., 828; Freeman vs. U.S.,
40 Phil., 1039.