92 & 93.2 Pangan vs.

Gatbalite
Provisions:
Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code:
The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the
service of sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to
some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime
before the expiration of the period of prescription.
The elements of prescription are:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final judgment
!. That convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence
". That the convict who had escaped from prison has not given himself up, or been captured, or
gone to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime
#. The penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time from the date of the evasion of the
service of the sentence by the convict.
"ART. 157. $vasion of service of sentence%The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term
of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment.
Facts: The petitioner was indicted for simple seduction. During the trial of the case, Atty. Eduardo Pineda, counsel for
petitioner, submitted the case for decision without offering any evidence, due to the petitioners constant absence at
hearings.
MTC: convicted petitioner of the offense charged and was sentenced to serve a penalty of two months and one day
of arresto mayor.
RTC: affirmed in toto the decision of the T!.
The case was called for promulgation of the decision in the court of origin. Despite due notice, counsel for the petitioner
did not appear. "otice to petitioner was returned unserved with the notation that he no longer resided at the given
address. As a conse#uence, he also failed to appear at the scheduled promulgation. The $udgment of conviction was
promulgated in absentia and an order for petitioners arrest was issued.
Petitioner was apprehended and detained at the abalacat Detention !ell and filed a Petition for a %rit of &abeas !orpus
at the 'T! and impleaded as respondent the Acting !hief of Police of abalacat, Pampanga. Petitioner contended that his
arrest was illegal and un$ustified on the grounds that: a( the straight penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor
prescribes in five years under "o. ), Article *) 'P!, and +b( having been able to continuously evade service of sentence
for almost nine years, his criminal liability has long been totally e,tinguished under "o. -, Article .* 'P!.
CA: Denied petition for habeas !orpus
Issue: %&E" D/E0 T&E P'E0!'1PT12E PE'1/D /3 PE"A4T1E0 5E61" T/ '7"8
Ruling: The contention is not well ta9en. The duty of government to arrest petitioner and compel him to serve his
sentence began on August *, :**:, the day $udgment was promulgated. According to Article *) of the 'evised Penal !ode
the period of prescription of penalties commences to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his
sentence. 1t is evident from this provision that evasion of the sentence is an essential element of prescription. There has
been no such evasion in this case. Even if there had been one and prescription were to be applied, its basis would have to
be the evasion of the unserved sentence, and computation could not have started earlier than the date of the order for the
prisoner;s rearrest
Article *) of the 'evised Penal !ode provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. 7nder said
provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article :<= of
the same !ode, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final $udgment
by escaping during the term of his sentence. Article :<= which provides for a higher penalty if such >evasion or escape
shall have ta9en place by means of unlawful entry, by brea9ing doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using
pic9loc9s, false 9eys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of
the penal institution, . . .> 1ndeed, evasion of sentence is but another e,pression of the term >$ail brea9ing.>
As correctly pointed out by the 0olicitor 6eneral, >escape> in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles *) and :<= of the
'P! means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. !learly, one who has not been committed to
prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
%e, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the
culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment.
As correctly pointed out by the 0olicitor 6eneral >escape> in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles *) and :<= of the
'P! means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. !learly, one who has not been committed to
prison cannot be said to have escaped there from.
1n the instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. 1n fact, even before the e,ecution of the $udgment for his
conviction, he was already in hiding. "ow petitioner begs for the compassion of the !ourt because he has ceased to live a
life of peace and tran#uility after he failed to appear in court for the e,ecution of his sentence. 5ut it was petitioner who
chose to become a fugitive.
!onsistent with Tanega v. &asa'ayan and (el )astillo v. Torrecampo, this !ourt pronounces that the prescription of
penalties found in Article *) of the 'evised Penal !ode, applies only to those who are convicted by final $udgment and are
serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty. The period for prescription of penalties begins only when the
convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. 0ince petitioner never suffered
deprivation of liberty before his arrest on ?anuary @A, @AAA and as a conse#uence never evaded sentence by escaping
during the term of his service, the period for prescription never began.
Petitioner, however, has by this time fully served his sentence of two months and one day of arresto mayor and
should forthwith be released unless he is being detained for another offense or charge.