THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIMON CARILLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Carillo

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Felimon Carillo, and it reached our Supreme Court on appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz. The case matters to a reviewee for a narrow but recurring reason. It is an early illustration of how our courts treat a judgment of conviction that imposes a fine, and of the rule on subsidiary imprisonment when the accused cannot pay that fine. The decision itself is short. The Court affirmed the trial court's order, but modified the penalty so that the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs in both instances.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Capiz. That court issued an order dated the 23rd of October, 1933, which was the subject of the appeal. The record shows that the cause was submitted by both parties for decision, and that the court regularly acquired jurisdiction over it. The accused, Felimon Carillo, appealed from that order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after consideration of the record, filed its decision and order for judgment on the 25th of August, 1934. In that decision the Court affirmed the order appealed from, with the modification that the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs in both instances.

Facts

The decision text before us is the judgment entry of the Supreme Court. It records that the Court of First Instance of Capiz issued an order dated the 23rd of October, 1933, and that an appeal was taken from that order. The cause was then submitted by both parties for decision, and the Supreme Court regularly acquired jurisdiction over it.

Upon consideration of the record, the Supreme Court filed its decision and order for judgment on the 25th of August, 1934. The Court adjudged and decreed that the order of the Court of First Instance of Capiz be affirmed, with a modification of the penalty.

The modification is precise. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs in both instances. The costs in the Supreme Court amount to 24 pesos, and the trial judge was directed to proceed by summary proceedings for their collection. The cause was further ordered remanded to the Court of First Instance.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Capiz should be affirmed on appeal.
• Whether or not the penalty should be modified to a fine of 100 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs in both instances.
• Whether or not the accused may be held liable for the costs in both instances, and whether or not the trial judge should proceed by summary proceedings to collect the costs in the Supreme Court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text before us does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the law on fines and subsidiary imprisonment without setting out the text. The provisions that bear on the case are therefore stated here only as the decision uses them, and no verbatim quotation is offered because none appears in the text.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Capiz. The Court held that it had regularly acquired jurisdiction for the trial of the cause, which was submitted by both parties for decision, and that after consideration of the record the order appealed from should be affirmed.

On the second issue, the Court modified the penalty. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court thus fixed the fine and expressly provided for subsidiary imprisonment should the accused be unable to pay it.

On the third issue, the Court ordered the accused to pay the costs in both instances. The costs in the Supreme Court amount to 24 pesos, and the Court directed that the trial judge shall proceed by summary proceedings for their collection. The Court further ordered that the cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance.

Doctrine

First, a judgment of conviction that imposes a fine may likewise impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court's modification in this case pairs the fine of 100 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment, and a reviewee should retain that pairing as the rule applied here.

Second, the accused in a criminal case may be ordered to pay the costs in both instances, meaning the costs of the trial court and of the appellate court. The Court so ordered, and it fixed the costs in the Supreme Court at 24 pesos.

Third, the collection of costs may be pursued by summary proceedings before the trial judge. The Court directed the trial judge to proceed in that manner for the collection of the costs in the Supreme Court, and it remanded the cause to the Court of First Instance for that purpose.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, with the modification that the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs in both instances, and it remanded the cause to the Court of First Instance.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a fine of 100 pesos was imposed with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the accused was ordered to pay the costs in both instances. Examiners use this case to test the rule on subsidiary imprisonment accompanying a fine, and the rule that costs in both instances may be collected by summary proceedings before the trial judge.