Martin vs. Eduardo

Time spent at large during an escape cannot be counted as service of sentence because service of sentence consists of deprivation of liberty and, under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, must be served in a penal institution.

Conrado Martin was a prisoner committed to the New Bilibid Prison, and Vicente M. Eduardo was the Acting Director of Prisons responsible for his custody. The controlling statutory backdrop is Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires penalties involving deprivation of liberty to be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code or by law.

Conrado Martin was incarcerated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, as prisoner No. 51512-P. He was first received at the NBP on April 22, 1959, to serve a definite sentence of 40 years for various crimes; his sentences were "three-folded."

On October 14, 1963, Martin escaped but was recommitted on November 28, 1963. He escaped again on May 1, 1965, and was recommitted on June 22, 1968. On October 3, 1969, he escaped for the third time but was recommitted a few days later, on October 10, 1969.

On June 12, 1976, Martin's original sentence was commuted or reduced to thirty (30) years by the President of the Philippines. Notwithstanding the clemency, he escaped for the fourth time on July 28, 1979, and was recommitted on August 8, 1979. The prison authorities then charged him with evasion of service of sentence, which added two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to his thirty-year commuted sentence. During his four escapes, Martin was at large for three (3) years, three (3) months, and eleven (11) days.

The commuted sentence plus the sentence for evasion expired on April 29, 1982, and would have entitled Martin to release if the time he had spent at large was counted as service of his sentences. The Acting Director of Prisons, respondent Gen. Vicente M. Eduardo, thought otherwise, and Martin remained confined. The facts were not in dispute, and the question presented was whether the time Martin enjoyed while at large during his four escapes should be included in the service of his two sentences in fixing the date of his release.

• Computation of Sentence: Whether the time petitioner was at large during his four escapes should be included in the service of his two sentences in fixing the date of his release.

• Computation of Sentence: No. The period during which petitioner was not inside prison walls cannot be regarded as service of sentence; Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code requires penalties to be executed and served in penal establishments. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

• Computation of Sentence: A sentence imposed on petitioner consists of deprivation of liberty, and he cannot be said to have been deprived of liberty during the periods he was at large. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code further stipulates that penalties like those meted to petitioner "shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future," thus requiring service of sentence in a penal institution. Because Martin was outside prison walls for three years, three months, and eleven days across his four escapes, that time cannot be credited as service. The commuted sentence plus the evasion sentence expired on April 29, 1982 only if the time at large were counted; since it could not be counted, no release was due and the habeas corpus petition lacked merit.

• Service of Sentence Requires Deprivation of Liberty in a Penal Institution — Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, penalties involving deprivation of liberty must be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code or by law. Time spent at large during an escape is not service of sentence because the prisoner is not deprived of liberty and is not confined in a penal institution. The Court applied this to deny credit for the three years, three months, and eleven days Martin spent at large during his four escapes, so his release date was not April 29, 1982.

• "No reflection is necessary to show that the period during which the petitioner was not inside prison walls cannot be regarded as service of sentence." — This states the core ratio: time outside prison during escape is not service of sentence.
• "The sentences imposed on the petitioner consists of deprivation of his liberty. He cannot be said to have been deprived of his liberty during the periods he was at large." — This explains the rationale that service of sentence requires actual deprivation of liberty.
• "Moreover, Art, 89 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates that penalties like those meted to the petitioner 'shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.'" — This cites the statutory basis requiring service in a penal institution.
• "WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs." — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• Article 89, Revised Penal Code — Stipulates that penalties like those meted to petitioner "shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future." The provision was applied to require service of sentence in a penal institution; because Martin was at large and not inside prison during his escapes, those periods could not be counted as service.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concurred. Aquino, J., was on leave.