6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.

Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.141718.January21,2005]

BENJAMINPANGANyRIVERA,petitioner,vs.HON.LOURDESF.GATBALITE,as
the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 56, and
COL. JAMES D. LABORDO, as the City Jail Warden of Angeles City,
respondents.

DECISION
AZCUNA,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,assailingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofAngelesCity,Branch56,renderedon
[1]
January31,2000.
Thefactsofthiscaseareundisputed.ThepetitionerwasindictedforsimpleseductioninCriminal
CaseNo.85816,attheMunicipalTrialCourtofAngelesCity,Branch3.
During the trial of the case, Atty. Eduardo Pineda, counsel for petitioner, submitted the case for
decisionwithoutofferinganyevidence,duetothepetitionersconstantabsenceathearings.
OnSeptember16,1987,thepetitionerwasconvictedoftheoffensechargedandwassentenced
toserveapenaltyoftwomonthsandonedayofarrestomayor.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, on October 24, 1988, affirmed in toto the decision of the
MunicipalTrialCourt.
On August 9, 1991, the case was called for promulgation of the decision in the court of origin.
Despite due notice, counsel for the petitioner did not appear. Notice to petitioner was returned
unservedwiththenotationthathenolongerresidedatthegivenaddress.Asaconsequence,healso
failed to appear at the scheduled promulgation. The court of origin issued an order directing the
recording of the decision in the criminal docket of the court and an order of arrest against the
[2]
petitioner.
Pursuant to the order of arrest, on January 20, 2000, the petitioner was apprehended and
detainedattheMabalacatDetentionCell.OnJanuary24,2000,petitionerfiledaPetitionforaWritof
HabeasCorpusattheRegionalTrialCourtofAngelesCity.HeimpleadedasrespondenttheActing
[3]
Chief of Police of Mabalacat, Pampanga. Petitioner contended that his arrest was illegal and
unjustifiedonthegroundsthat:

(a)thestraightpenaltyoftwomonthsandonedayofarrestomayorprescribesinfiveyearsunderNo.3,
Article93[ofthe]RevisedPenalCode,and

(b)havingbeenabletocontinuouslyevadeserviceofsentenceforalmostnineyears,hiscriminalliability
[4]
haslongbeentotallyextinguishedunderNo.6,Article89[ofthe]RevisedPenalCode.

AfterhistransfertotheCityJailofAngelesCityonJanuary25,2000,petitionerfiledanAmended
PetitionwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,impleadinghereinrespondentCol.JamesD.Labordo,theJail
[5]
WardenofAngelesCity,asrespondent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 1/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision

In response, the Jail Warden alleged that petitioners detention was pursuant to the order of
commitment(mittimus),issuedbyMarlonP.Roque,ClerkofCourtIIIoftheMunicipalTrialCourtof
[6]
AngelesCity,Branch3,datedJanuary25,2000.
On January 31, 2000, respondent Judge rendered the decision, which is the subject of this
presentappeal,whichpronounced:

TheCourtcannotsubscribetothecontentionofthepetitionerthatthepenaltyimposedonhiminthedecision
advertedtoabovehadalreadyprescribed,hence,hisdetentionisillegalforunderArticle93oftheRevised
PenalCode:

Theperiodofprescriptionofpenaltiesshallcommencetorunfromthedatewhentheculpritshouldevadethe
serviceofsentence,anditshallbeinterruptedifthedefendantshouldgivehimselfup,becaptured,shouldgoto
someforeigncountrywithwhichthisGovernmenthasnoextraditiontreaty,orshouldcommitanothercrime
beforetheexpirationoftheperiodofprescription.

Theelementsofprescriptionare:

1.Thatthepenaltyisimposedbyfinaljudgment

2.Thatconvictevadedtheserviceofthesentencebyescapingduringthetermofhissentence

3.Thattheconvictwhohadescapedfromprisonhasnotgivenhimselfup,orbeencaptured,or
gonetoaforeigncountrywithwhichwehavenoextraditiontreaty,orcommittedanothercrime

4.Thepenaltyhasprescribed,becauseofthelapseoftimefromthedateoftheevasionofthe
serviceofthesentencebytheconvict.

Inthiscase,theessentialelementofprescriptionwhichistheevasionoftheserviceofsentenceisabsent.
Admittedly,thepetitionerhereinhasnotservedthepenaltyimposedonhiminprisonandthatduringtheservice
ofthesentence,heescapedtherefrom.Notably,atthetrialofCrim.CaseNo.85816intheMunicipalTrial
Court,BranchIII,AngelesCityandonthedatesetforthepromulgationoftheaffirmeddecision,thepetitioner
failedtoappearandremainedatlarge.

Therewasnoevasionoftheserviceofthesentenceinthiscase,becausesuchevasionpresupposesescaping
duringtheserviceofthesentenceconsistingindeprivationofliberty.(Infantevs.Warden,48O.G.No.122)(92
Phil.310).

Corollarily,thedetentionofthepetitionerinAngelesCityJailincompliancewiththeOrderofCommitment
(ExhibitE)isnotillegalfor

Acommitmentindueform,basedonafinaljudgment,convictingandsentencingthedefendantinacriminal
case,isconclusiveevidenceofthelegalityofhisdetention,unlessitappearsthatthecourtwhichpronounced
thejudgmentwaswithoutjurisdictionorexceededit.(U.S.vs.Jayne,24Phil90,24J.F.94,Phil.Digest,Vol.2,
1398).

WHEREFORE,fornotbeingmeritoriousandwellfounded,thepetitionforawritofhabeascorpusishereby
denied.

SOORDERED.
[7]
AngelesCity,January31,2000.

Fromtheabovequoteddecision,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewonaquestionpurely
oflawandraisedthefollowingissue:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 2/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision

HOWSHOULDTHEPHRASESHALLCOMMENCETORUNFROMTHEDATEWHENTHECULPRIT
SHOULDEVADETHESERVICEOFSENTENCEINARTICLE93OFTHEREVISEDPENALCODEON
THECOMPUTATIONOFTHEPRESCRIPTIONOFPENALTIESBECONSTRUED?PUTALITTLE
[8]
DIFFERENTLY,WHENDOESTHEPRESCRIPTIVEPERIODOFPENALTIESBEGINTORUN?

Petitionerclaimsthat:

xxxtheperiodforthecomputationofpenaltiesunderArticle93oftheRevisedPenalCodebeginstorunfrom
themomentthejudgmentofconvictionbecomesfinalandtheconvictsuccessfullyevades,eludes,anddodges
[9]
arrestforhimtoservesentence.

Petitionersupportshisclaiminthefollowingmanner:

TheDecisionsubjectofthisappeal,whichwasbasedonthe1952rulingrenderedinInfantevs.Warden,48O.G.
No.122,92Phil.310,is,petitionermostrespectfullysubmits,notgoodcaselaw.Itimposesupontheconvicta
conditionnotstatedinthelaw.Itiscontrarytothespirit,natureoressenceofprescriptionofpenalties,creates
anambiguityinthelawandopensthelawtoabusebygovernment.

THEINFANTERULINGIMPOSESA
CONDITIONNOTSTATEDINTHELAW.

ItappearsthattheInfanterulingimposesthat,asanessentialelement,theconvictmustserveatleastafew
seconds,minutes,days,weeksoryearsofhisjailsentenceandthenescapesbeforethecomputationof
prescriptionofpenaltiesbeginstorun.This,petitionerrespectfullysubmitsisnotaconditionstatedinArticle
93,whichstatesthat,theprescriptionofpenaltiesshallcommencetorunfromthedatewhentheculpritshould
evadetheserviceofsentence.

Thereisnodisputethatthedutyofgovernmenttocompeltheserviceofsentencesetsinwhenthejudgmentof
convictionbecomesfinal.

Thedispute,however,isintheconstructionofthephraseshouldevadetheserviceofsentence.Whendoesthe
periodofprescriptionofpenaltiesbegintorun?TheInfanterulingconstruesthistomeanthattheconvictmust
escapefromjailbecausesuchevasionpresupposesescapingduringtheserviceofthesentenceconsistingin
deprivationofliberty.

Petitioner,withduerespect,disagreesbecauseifthatweretheintentionofthelaw,thenthephraseshouldevade
theserviceofsentenceinArticle93wouldhaveread:shouldescapeduringtheserviceofthesentence
consistingindeprivationofliberty.ThelegislaturecouldhaveveryeasilywrittenArticle93toreadthisway

Theperiodofprescriptionofpenaltiesshallcommencetorunfromthedatewhentheculpritshouldescape
duringtheserviceofthesentenceconsistingindeprivationofliberty,anditshallbeinterruptedifthe
defendantshouldgivehimselfup,becaptured,shouldgotosomeforeigncountrywithwhichthisGovernment
hasnoextraditiontreaty,orshouldcommitanothercrimebeforetheexpirationoftheperiodofprescription.

Buttheydidnot.

Thelegislaturewroteshouldevadetheserviceofsentencetocoverorincludeconvictslikehimwho,although
convictedbyfinaljudgment,wereneverarrestedorapprehendedbygovernmentfortheserviceoftheir
sentence.Withallthepowersofgovernmentatitsdisposal,petitionerwasabletosuccessfullyevadeserviceof
his2monthsand1dayjailsentenceforatleastnine(9)years,fromAugust9,1991toJanuary20,2000.Thisis
approximately3yearsand5monthslongerthanthe5yearprescriptiveperiodofthepenaltyimposedonhim.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 3/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision

That,astherespondentRTCJudgenoted,petitionerdidnotattendthetrialattheMunicipalTrialCourtandthe
promulgationofhisjudgmentofconvictioninAugust9,1991isofnomoment.Hisbondforprovisionalrelease
wassurelycancelledandanorderofarrestwassurelyissuedagainstpetitioner.Theundisputedfactisthaton
August9,1991thejudgmentofconvictionwaspromulgatedinabsentiaandanorderforpetitionersarrestwas
issuedbytheMunicipalTrialCourtofAngelesCity,BranchIII.

Thedutyofgovernment,therefore,toarrestpetitionerandcompelhimtoservehissentencebeganonAugust9,
1991.The5yearprescriptiveperiodofhisarrestomayorpenaltyalsobegantorunonthatdayconsideringthat
noreliefwastakentherefrom.Sincepetitionernevergavehimselfup[n]orwas[he],untilJanuary20,2000,
evercaptured,fortheserviceofhissentencenordidhefleetosomeforeigncountrywithwhich[our]
governmenthasnoextraditiontreaty,that5yearprescriptiveperiodofhispenaltyrancontinuouslyfrom
August9,1991whenhisjudgmentofconvictionwaspromulgatedinabsentiaandwasneverinterrupted.

Forreasonsknownonlytoit,however,governmentfailedorneglected,foralmostnine(9)years,toarrest
petitionerfortheserviceofhisarrestomayorsentence[which]shouldnotbetakenagainstpetitioner.Hewas
abletosuccessfullyevadeserviceofhissentenceforaperiodlongerthanthe5yearprescriptiveperiodofhis
penaltyand,assuch,isentitledtototalextinctionofhiscriminalliability.

Tosay,aswassaidinInfante,thattheprescriptiveperiodofthepenaltyneverbegantoruninfavorofpetitioner
becauseheneverescapedfromjailduringtheserviceofhissentenceimposesaconditionnotwritteninthelaw.
Italsoviolatesthebasicprinciplethatthecriminalstatutesareconstruedliberallyinfavoroftheaccusedand/or
convictandiscontrarytothespiritbehindoressenceofstatutesoflimitations[and]prescription,incriminal
[10]
cases.
[11]
The Regional Trial Court based its decision on the case of Infante v. Warden . In said case,
Infante,thepetitioner,wasconvictedofmurderandwassentencedtoseventeenyears,fourmonths
andonedayofreclusiontemporal.Afterservingfifteenyears,sevenmonthsandelevendays,hewas
grantedaconditionalpardon.Theconditionwasthatheshallnotagainviolateanyofthepenallaws
of the Philippines. Ten years after his release on conditional pardon, Infante was found guilty by a
MunicipalCourtfordrivingwithoutalicense.Infantewasimmediatelyorderedrearrestedforbreachof
theconditionofhispardon.OneoftheissuesraisedbyInfanteinhispetition,

xxxwasthattheremittedpenaltyforwhichthepetitionerhadbeenrecommittedtojailoneyearand11dayshad
[12]
prescribed.xxx

TheCourtdisagreedandreasonedoutthus:

Thecontentionisnotwelltaken.Accordingtoarticle93oftheRevisedPenalCodetheperiodofprescriptionof
penaltiescommencestorunfromthedatewhentheculpritshouldevadetheserviceofhissentence.Itisevident
fromthisprovisionthatevasionofthesentenceisanessentialelementofprescription.Therehasbeennosuch
evasioninthiscase.Eveniftherehadbeenoneandprescriptionweretobeapplied,itsbasiswouldhavetobe
theevasionoftheunservedsentence,andcomputationcouldnothavestartedearlierthanthedateoftheorder
[13]
fortheprisoner'srearrest.

AperusalofthefactsinInfantev.Wardenrevealsthatitisnotonallfourswiththepresentcase.
In Infante, the convict was on conditional pardon when he was rearrested. Hence, he had started
serving sentence but the State released him. In the present case, the convict evaded service of
sentencefromthestart,andwasarrestedeightyearslater.
The RTC decision, however, must stand, since it is in accord with applicable decisions of this
[14]
Court.Theissueraisedbypetitionerisnotnovel.Article93oftheRevisedPenalCode hasbeen
interpretedseveraltimesbytheCourt.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 4/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision
[15]
ThecaseofTanegav.Masakayan fallssquarelywithintheissuesofthepresentcase.Inthat
case,petitionerAdelaidaTanegafailedtoappearonthedayoftheexecutionofhersentence.Onthe
same day, respondent judge issued a warrant for her arrest. She was never arrested. More than a
year later, petitioner through counsel moved to quash the warrant of arrest, on the ground that the
penalty had prescribed. Petitioner claimed that she was convicted for a light offense and since light
offensesprescribeinoneyear,herpenaltyhadalreadyprescribed.TheCourtdisagreed,thus:

xxxTheperiodofprescriptionofpenaltiesthesucceedingArticle93provides"shallcommencetorunfromthe
datewhentheculpritshouldevadetheserviceofhissentence".Whatthenistheconceptofevasionofserviceof
sentence?Article157oftheRevisedPenalCodefurnishesthereadyanswer.SaysArticle157:

"ART.157.Evasionofserviceofsentence.Thepenaltyofprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximum
periodsshallbeimposeduponanyconvictwhoshallevadeserviceofhissentencebyescapingduringtheterm
ofhisimprisonmentbyreasonoffinaljudgment.xxx"

Elementsofevasionofserviceofsentenceare:(1)theoffenderisaconvictbyfinaljudgment(2)he"isserving
hissentencewhichconsistsindeprivationofliberty"and(3)heevadesserviceofsentencebyescapingduring
thetermofhissentence.Thismustbeso.For,bytheexpresstermsofthestatute,aconvictevades"serviceof
hissentence"by"escapingduringthetermofhisimprisonmentbyreasonoffinaljudgment."Thatescape
shouldtakeplacewhileservingsentence,isemphasizedbytheprovisionsofthesecondsentenceofArticle157
whichprovidesforahigherpenaltyifsuch"evasionorescapeshallhavetakenplacebymeansofunlawful
entry,bybreakingdoors,windows,gates,walls,roofs,orfloors,orbyusingpicklocks,falsekeys,disguise,
deceit,violenceorintimidation,orthroughconnivancewithotherconvictsoremployeesofthepenalinstitution,
..."Indeed,evasionofsentenceisbutanotherexpressionoftheterm"jailbreaking."

xxx

We,therefore,rulethatforprescriptionofpenaltyofimprisonmentimposedbyfinalsentencetocommenceto
run,theculpritshouldescapeduringthetermofsuchimprisonment.

Advertingtothefacts,wehaveherethecaseofaconvictwhosentencedtoimprisonmentbyfinaljudgmentwas
[16]
thereafterneverplacedinconfinement.Prescriptionofpenalty,then,doesnotruninherfavor.
[17]
In Del Castillo v. Torrecampo , the Court cited and reiterated Tanega. Petitioner, Del Castillo,
was charged for violation of Section 178 (nn) of the 1978 Election Code. The trial court found Del
Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of
imprisonmentof1yearasminimumto3yearsasmaximum.OnappealtheCourtofAppealsaffirmed
thedecisionofthetrialcourtintoto.DuringtheexecutionofjudgmentonOctober14,1987,petitioner
was not present. The presiding Judge issued an order of arrest and the confiscation of his bond.
Petitionerwasneverapprehended.Tenyearslater,petitionerfiledamotiontoquashthewarrantof
arrest on the ground that the penalty imposed upon him had already prescribed. The motion was
deniedbythetrialcourt.DelCastillo,onapetitionforcertioraritotheCourtofAppeals,questioned
thedenialbythetrialcourt.TheCourtofAppealsdismissedthepetitionforlackofmerit.Upondenial
of his Motion for Reconsideration, Del Castillo raised the matter to this Court. The Court decided
againstDelCastilloandafterquotingtheratiodecidendioftheCourtofAppealsinfull,itratiocinated,
thus:

TheforegoingconclusionoftheCourtofAppealsisconsistentwiththerulingofthisCourtinTanegavs.
Masakayan,etal.,wherewedeclaredthat,forprescriptionofpenaltyimposedbyfinalsentencetocommenceto
run,theculpritshouldescapeduringthetermofsuchimprisonment.

TheCourtisunabletofindand,infact,doesnotperceiveanycompellingreasontodeviatefromourearlier
pronouncementclearlyexemplifiedintheTanegacase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 5/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision

Article93oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovideswhentheprescriptionofpenaltiesshallcommencetorun.Under
saidprovision,itshallcommencetorunfromthedatethefelonevadestheserviceofhissentence.Pursuantto
Article157ofthesameCode,evasionofserviceofsentencecanbecommittedonlybythosewhohavebeen
convictedbyfinaljudgmentbyescapingduringthetermofhissentence.

AscorrectlypointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral,"escape"inlegalparlanceandforpurposesofArticles93and
157oftheRPCmeansunlawfuldepartureofprisonerfromthelimitsofhiscustody.Clearly,onewhohasnot
beencommittedtoprisoncannotbesaidtohaveescapedtherefrom.

Intheinstantcase,petitionerwasneverbroughttoprison.Infact,evenbeforetheexecutionofthejudgmentfor
hisconviction,hewasalreadyinhiding.NowpetitionerbegsforthecompassionoftheCourtbecausehehas
ceasedtolivealifeofpeaceandtranquilityafterhefailedtoappearincourtfortheexecutionofhissentence.
Butitwaspetitionerwhochosetobecomeafugitive.TheCourtaccordscompassiononlytothosewhoare
deserving.Petitioner'sguiltwasprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtbutherefusedtoanswerforthewronghe
committed.Heisthereforenottoberewardedtherefor.

TheassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisbasedonsettledjurisprudenceandapplicablelaws.Itdidnot
engageinjudiciallegislationbutcorrectlyinterpretedthepertinentlaws.Becausepetitionerwasneverplacedin
[18]
confinement,prescriptionneverstartedtoruninhisfavor.

Consistentwiththetwocasescitedabove,thisCourtpronouncesthattheprescriptionofpenalties
found in Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, applies only to those who are convicted by final
judgmentandareservingsentencewhichconsistsindeprivationofliberty.Theperiodforprescription
ofpenaltiesbeginsonlywhentheconvictevadesserviceofsentencebyescapingduringthetermof
his sentence. Since petitioner never suffered deprivation of liberty before his arrest on January 20,
2000andasaconsequenceneverevadedsentencebyescapingduringthetermofhisservice,the
periodforprescriptionneverbegan.
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.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofAngelesCity,Branch56isAFFIRMED,
butpetitionerisorderedreleasedeffectiveimmediatelyforhavingfullyservedhissentenceunlesshe
isdetainedforanotheroffenseorcharge.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing,(ActingChairman),YnaresSantiago,andCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),onleave.

[1]
Rollo,pp.2629.
[2]
RTCDecision,SP.PROC.No.5784Rollo,pp.2627.
[3]
Rollo,p.6.
[4]
Rollo,p.6.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Rollo,p.27.
[7]
Rollo,pp.2729.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 6/7
6/6/2017 PanganvsGatbalite:141718:January21,2005:J.Azcuna:FirstDivision:Decision
[8]
Rollo,p.9.
[9]
Rollo,p.24.
[10]
Rollo,pp.913.
[11]
92Phil310(1967).
[12]
Supra,at313.
[13]
Supra,at313.
[14]
Theperiodofprescriptionofpenaltiesshallcommencetorunfromthedatewhentheculpritshouldevadetheserviceof
his 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 as no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the
expirationoftheperiodofprescription.
[15]
125Phil966(1967).
[16]
Supra,at968971.
[17]
394SCRA221(2002).
[18]
Supra,at225226.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/141718.htm 7/7