KEYWORD/TOPIC

FACTS The case involves Abelardo Subido appealing a decision in a libel case where he
was sentenced by the lower court to three months of arresto mayor, a fine of
P500.00, and an indemnity of P10,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment, reducing the penalty to
a fine of P500.00 and the indemnity to P5,000.00. Subido sought the cancellation
of his appeal bond, arguing that the judgment did not expressly state he should
serve the fine and indemnity through subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.
Despite the Court of Appeals' modification, the trial court ordered Subido to
suffer subsidiary imprisonment if he couldn't pay the fine and indemnity. Subido
appealed this decision, contesting that the Court of Appeals' judgment did not
impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The crux of the matter lay
in the interpretation of whether Subido should serve the fine and indemnity
through subsidiary imprisonment as per the Court of Appeals' modified judgment
or if these penalties were waived through the appellate court's decision. The case
involved legal arguments over the imposition of penalties, particularly subsidiary
ISSUE WON the accused-appellant should suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency to pay the fine and indemnity imposed by the judgment, considering
the modifications made by the Court of Appeals.

RULING The court examined the punctuation and language used in the judgment to
interpret the intention behind the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment. The
comma placement, as well as the structure and wording of the sentence, implied
that subsidiary imprisonment applied to both the fine and the indemnity. The
Court of Appeals' modifications didn't eliminate the subsidiary imprisonment
clause but reduced the penalties.
However, due to the retroactive effect of Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code,
the accused couldn't be subjected to subsidiary imprisonment for the civil liability,
as it favored the accused. The accused's contention that attachment of property
should satisfy the civil liability was dismissed, affirming that attachment doesn't
absolve one from subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The court upheld the lower court's decision, confirming that the accused would
still need to pay the reduced fine and indemnity, but no longer had to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment for the indemnity, based on the retroactive effect of