G.R. No.
139033 | December 2002
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo
I. Recit-ready Summary
The accused, Jovendo Del Castillo, unlawfully conducted himself
in a disorderly manner, by striking the electric bulb and two kerosene
petromax lamps lighting the room where voting center no. 24 is located,
during the counting of the votes in said voting center plunging the room in
complete darkness, thereby interrupting and disrupting the proceedings of
the Board of Election Tellers.
He was declared guilty by the RTC. Execution of judgment was
scheduled on October 14, 1987. His counsel motioned to reset the execution
of judgment which was denied. During the execution petitioner failed to
appear. The court was prompted to issue an order for his arrest but he was
never apprehended.
Ten years later petitioner filed before the trial court a motion to
quash the warrant issued for his arrest on the ground of prescription of the
penalty imposed upon him. He asserts that that the period of prescription
shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the
service of his sentence.
The Court held, that in order for prescription to take place the
following elements must concur:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence;
2. That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during
the term of his sentence;
3. That the convict who 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;
4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time form the
date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by the convict.
The circumstances of the case failed to satisfy the second element.
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
II. Facts of the Case
In Barangay Ombao, Camarines Norte the accused, Jovendo Del
Castillo, unlawfully conducted himself in a disorderly manner, by striking
the electric bulb and two kerosene petromax lamps lighting the room where
voting center no. 24 is located, during the counting of the votes in said
Criminal Law 1 (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan
Prescription of Crime
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo
voting center plunging the room in complete darkness, thereby interrupting
and disrupting the proceedings of the Board of Election Tellers.
He was declared guilty by the RTC. Petitioner appealed his
conviction to the Court of Appeals which eventually affirmed the decision
of the trial court. Execution of judgment was scheduled on October 14,
1987. His counsel motioned to reset the execution of judgment which was
denied. During the execution petitioner failed to appear. The court was
prompted to issue an order for his arrest. He was never apprehended and he
remained at large.
Ten years later petitioner filed before the trial court a motion to
quash the warrant issued for his arrest on the ground of prescription of the
penalty imposed upon him. He asserts that that the period of prescription
shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the
service of his sentence. The Court of Appeals, in its interpretation of the
said provision, engaged in judicial legislation when it added the phrase “by
escaping during the term of the sentence”.
III. Issue/s
1. W/N the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has prescribed?
No.
IV. Holding/s
1. No, the penalty has not prescribed.
The Court held, that in order for prescription to take place the following
elements must concur:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence;
2. That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during
the term of his sentence;
3. That the convict who 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;
4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time form the
date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by the convict.
1
APPELLANT: Hon. Rosario Torrecampo
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Jovendo Del Castillo
 G.R. No. 139033 | December 2002 Prescription of Crime
Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo

From the elements, it is clear that the penalty imposed has not prescribed VIII. Additional Notes
because the circumstances of the case failed to satisfy the second element,
‘That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during the VII. Random Facts
service of his sentence.’ As a matter of fact, the petitioner never served a ● Ponente: Corona, J.
single minute of his sentence.

V. Law or Doctrine Applied

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME (ART. 90)

Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen

years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with

the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in
five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six
months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall
be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first,
second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661,
approved June 19, 1966).

VI. Disposition

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is hereby DENIED.

VII. Separate Opinions

Criminal Law 1 (2019) APPELLANT: Hon. Rosario Torrecampo

DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Jovendo Del Castillo