CHAPTER  16:  NON-­‐IMPRISONMENT   Lozano   Case   –   Issue:   WON   BP   22   transgressed   with  

the   constitutional   prohibition   against   imprisonment  

FOR  DEBT  
for  debt.  
 
"no  person  shall  be  imprisoned  for  debt  or  non-­‐ Court  ruled:  The  gravamen  of  the  offense  punished  by  
payment  o  f  a  poll  tax."  –  Art.  III,  Sec.  20,  1987   BP   22   is   the   act   of   making   and   issuing   a   worthless  
Constitution   check  or  a  check  that  is  dishonored  upon  its  presentation  
  for   payment.   It   is   not   the   nonpayment   of   an  
Debt   -­‐   refers   to   any   civil   obligation   arising   from   obligation   which   the   law   punishes.   The   law   is   not  
contract,  expressed  or  implied.     intended   or   designed   to   coerce   a   debtor   to   pay   his  
debt.  The  thrust  of  the  law  is  to  prohibit,  under  pain  
As  long  as  the  obligation  to  pay  arises  ex  contractu,  it   of   penal   sanctions,   the   making   of   worthless   checks  
is   considered   a   private   matter   between   the   creditor   and   putting   them   in   circulation.   Because   of   its  
and   the   debtor   and   the   punitive   arm   of   the   State   deleterious  effects  on  the  public  interest,  the  practice  
cannot  be  employed  in  a  criminal  action  to  enforce  the   is  proscribed  by  the  law.  The  law  punishes  the  act  not  
former's  right.  The  remedy  in  this  case  is  a  civil  action   as  an  offense  against  property,  but  an  offense  against  
only  for  the  recovery  of  the  unpaid  debt.     public  order.    

Serafin   v.   Lindayag   -­‐   a   criminal   complaint   was   filed   People   v.   Merillo   -­‐   the   accused   was   charged   with  
with   respondent   judge   charging   that   "the   above-­‐   violation   of   a   law   requiring   employers   to   pay   the  
named  accused  with  intent  of  gain  did  then  and  there   salaries   of   their   employees   at   least   once   every   two  
willfully,   unlawfully   and   feloniously   owe   the   sum   of   weeks   and   pro   viding   that   failure   to   do   so   shall   be  
One   Thousand   Five   Hundred   Pesos,   (Pl.500.00)   considered  prima  facie  evidence  of  fraud  committed  
Philippine  currency;  that  said  amounts  has  long  been   through  false  pretenses.  Against  the  challenge  that  it  
due   since   January   28,   1971"   and   "that   the   accused   violated   the   constitutional   prohibition   against  
failed  to  pay  her  account  in  spite  of  due  notice  sent  by   imprisonment  for  debt,  the  Supreme  Court  held  the  
registered   mail   and   up   to   the   present   she   failed   to   law   to   be   valid,   since   "what   is   being   punished   is   the  
settle   her   obligation."   Although   on   the   face   of   this   fraud   or   deceit   of   the   employer   who,   being   able   to  
complaint   no   criminal   offense   had   been   committed,   make  payment,  shall  abstain  or  refuse  to  do  so  without  
the   judge   nevertheless,   after   a   rather   hasty   justification."    
preliminary   examination,   issued   a   warrant   for   the  
arrest  of  the  defendant.  The  Supreme  Court  annulled   The  suspension  of  a  civil  servant  for  failure  to  pay  a  
his  act,  declaring  it  to  be  violative  of  the  prohibition   just  and  admitted  debt  is  an  administrative  sanction  
against  imprisonment  for  debt.     and   does   not   violate   the   prohibition   against  
imprisonment   for   debt.   (Flores   vs.   Tatad,   96   SCRA  
Sura   vs.   Martin   -­‐   defendant   in   a   civil   action   was   676)  
ordered  arrested  for  contempt  of  court  because  of  his  
failure,   owing   to   his   insolvency,   to   pay   the   plaintiff   Poll  tax  -­‐  Since  a  tax  is  not  a  debt  but  arises  from  the  
past  and  future  support.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that   obligation  of  the  person  to  contribute  his  share  in  the  
such  arrest  was  invalid  as  it  would  in  effect  authorize   maintenance   of   the   government,   failure   to   pay   the  
his   imprisonment   for   debt   in   violation   of   the   same   can   be   validly   punished   with   imprisonment.    
Constitution.     Exception:  Poll  tax,  a  specific  fixed  sum  levied  upon  
every   person   belonging   to   a   certain   class   without  
Crime   regard  to  his  property  or  occupation    

Although   the   debtor   cannot   be   imprisoned   for   his   This  exception,  adopted  pursuant  to  the  social  justice  
failure  to  pay  his  debt,  he  can  be  validly  punished  in  a   policy,   reflects   the   tender   regard   of   the   law   for   the  
criminal   action   if   he   contracted   his   debt   through   millions   of   our   impoverished   masses   who   cannot  
fraud.     afford  even  the  nominal  cost  of  a  poll  tax  like  the  basic  
community  tax  certificate.  It  was  applied  in  the  case  of  
In  such  a  case,  the  act  for  which  he  is  penalized  is  the   People  v.  Linsangan,  in  favor  of  a  person  convicted  of  
deception   he   employed   in   securing   the   debt,   not   his   non-­‐payment  of  the  old  cedula  tax  whose  appeal  was  
default  in  paying  it.  The  responsibility  of  the  debtor  in   pending  at  the  time  of  the  inclusion  of  the  above  rule  
this  situation  arises  not  from  the  contract  of  loan,  but   in  the  1935  Constitution.    
ex  delicto,  i.e.,  from  the  commission  of  a  crime.  As  his  
obligation   does   not   arise   ex   contractu,   it   is   not    
considered  a  debt  under  this  provision.