Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Quemel Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction for libel but imposed a fine and indemnity in addition to the original sentence. The petitioner argued this was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the appeal opens the entire case for review, including penalties, which may be increased. The indemnity is considered part of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code. While trial courts initially assess damages, appellate courts may increase them. For libel cases, injury to reputation is assumed and actual damages need not be proven for nominal awards. Subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity is constitutional as the liability arises from crime, not an implied contract, so it is not considered a "debt".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quemel Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    76 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction for libel but imposed a fine and indemnity in addition to the original sentence. The petitioner argued this was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the appeal opens the entire case for review, including penalties, which may be increased. The indemnity is considered part of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code. While trial courts initially assess damages, appellate courts may increase them. For libel cases, injury to reputation is assumed and actual damages need not be proven for nominal awards. Subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity is constitutional as the liability arises from crime, not an implied contract, so it is not considered a "debt".

    Original Description:

    torts

    Original Title

    7. Quemel vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction for libel but imposed a fine and indemnity in addition to the original sentence. The petitioner argued this was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the appeal opens the entire case for review, including penalties, which may be increased. The indemnity is considered part of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code. While trial courts initially assess damages, appellate courts may increase them. For libel cases, injury to reputation is assumed and actual damages need not be proven for nominal awards. Subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity is constitutional as the liability arises from crime, not an implied contract, so it is not considered a "debt".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    76 views1 page

    Quemel Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction for libel but imposed a fine and indemnity in addition to the original sentence. The petitioner argued this was erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the appeal opens the entire case for review, including penalties, which may be increased. The indemnity is considered part of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code. While trial courts initially assess damages, appellate courts may increase them. For libel cases, injury to reputation is assumed and actual damages need not be proven for nominal awards. Subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of indemnity is constitutional as the liability arises from crime, not an implied contract, so it is not considered a "debt".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    7. G.R. No.

    L-22794 January 16, 1968

    RUFO QUEMUEL, petitioner,


    vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    Review of the Decision of CA


    Facts: Convicted by the Court of First Instance of Rizal of the crime of libel, 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 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.

    Issue: Whether petitioner’s contention is tenable.

    Held: NO. The appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the penalty, which may be
    increased and the indemnity is part of the penalty. 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 indemnify in criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is so only in the first
    instance. On appeal, such authority passess 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.

    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

    You might also like