G.R. No. L-32377 - Buiser vs. People

Lucas Buiser, the petitioner, was charged and convicted for the crime of less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
The offense stemmed from events leading to physical harm to Damian Bautista, for which Buiser was found liable.
In Criminal Case No. SP-1253 before the Court of First Instance of Laguna, he was sentenced to:

Imprisonment of two (2) months (arresto mayor);
Payment of indemnity amounting to P500.00 to the victim; and
Subsidiary imprisonment, to be imposed only in the event of insolvency on his part to pay the indemnity.

The decision rendered by the Court of First Instance was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on May 14, 1970, in CA-G.R. No. 08350-CR.
The Court of Appeals maintained the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment as provided under the law then in force.

The petitioner advanced two primary issues in his appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court:

Alleged error in the lower court’s findings, contending that the evidence did not justify the conviction;
Contentions that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency to pay the indemnity was erroneous.

The petition was given due course only with respect to the second issue, namely the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.

The petitioner argued that Republic Act No. 5465, which took effect on April 21, 1969, should benefit him.
Notably, Republic Act No. 5465 abolished subsidiary imprisonment in cases where the accused failed to pay the indemnity or other pecuniary liabilities.
He invoked Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides retroactive application of penal laws that are favorable to the accused, even after a final sentence has been pronounced, provided the person is not a habitual criminal.
The Solicitor General, in his comment, concurred with the petitioner’s contention regarding the retroactive application of RA No. 5465.

Although the decision of the Court of First Instance correctly imposed subsidiary imprisonment based on the law then in force, the subsequent amendment via Republic Act No. 5465 rendered that imposition obsolete.
The petitioner, not being shown to be a habitual criminal, sought to have the benefits of the more favorable law applied retroactively.
Prior jurisprudence, notably from the decision in “People vs. Dorian,” had already upheld the retroactive beneficial effect of amendments that relieve an accused from harsher penalties.

Whether the petitioner, Lucas Buiser, is entitled to the benefit of Republic Act No. 5465, which abolishes subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency to pay indemnity, based on the retroactive application principle under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment, as maintained by the lower courts, should be sustained or amended in light of the new law that took effect while the appeal was pending.