Pangan vs. Gatbalite

The prescriptive period of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code begins to run only when a convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of imprisonment. A convict who was never placed in confinement cannot claim prescription of penalties.

Petitioner was indicted for simple seduction in the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City. Due to his constant absence at hearings, his counsel submitted the case for decision without offering evidence. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, which the Regional Trial Court affirmed in toto. Upon promulgation of the affirmed decision, petitioner failed to appear despite notice, prompting the court to issue an order of arrest. He remained at large for almost nine years until his apprehension.

• Conviction and Appeal: Petitioner was indicted for simple seduction in Criminal Case No. 85-816 at the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 3. Due to petitioner’s constant absence, his counsel submitted the case for decision without offering evidence. On September 16, 1987, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the MTC decision in toto on October 24, 1988.
• Promulgation and Evasion: On August 9, 1991, the case was called for promulgation of the decision in the court of origin. Despite due notice, petitioner’s counsel did not appear, and notice to petitioner was returned unserved with the notation that he no longer resided at the given address. Petitioner failed to appear. The court of origin recorded the decision in the criminal docket and issued an order of arrest. Petitioner was not apprehended.
• Apprehension and Habeas Corpus: Pursuant to the order of arrest, petitioner was apprehended on January 20, 2000, and detained at the Mabalacat Detention Cell. On January 24, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the RTC, impleading the Acting Chief of Police of Mabalacat. After his transfer to the Angeles City Jail on January 25, 2000, petitioner filed an Amended Petition impleading the Jail Warden. The Jail Warden alleged that petitioner’s detention was pursuant to a mittimus issued by the MTC Clerk of Court.

• Construction of Article 93: Petitioner argued that the prescriptive period of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code begins to run from the moment the judgment of conviction becomes final and the convict successfully evades arrest. The phrase "should evade the service of sentence" covers convicts who, although convicted by final judgment, were never arrested or apprehended by the government for the service of their sentence.
• Rejection of Infante Doctrine: Petitioner maintained that the Infante ruling imposes a condition not stated in the law by requiring that a convict must first serve part of the sentence and escape. This violates the principle of liberal construction of penal statutes in favor of the accused and the spirit of statutes of limitations. The government's failure to arrest him for almost nine years should not be taken against him.

• Evasion Requires Confinement: Respondent Judge countered that the essential element of prescription—evasion of the service of sentence—is absent because evasion presupposes escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty, citing Infante v. Warden.
• Legality of Detention: Respondent Jail Warden argued that petitioner’s detention was legal, being pursuant to a valid order of commitment (mittimus) based on a final judgment.

• Prescription of Penalties: Whether the prescriptive period of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code begins to run from the moment the judgment of conviction becomes final and the convict successfully evades arrest, or only when the convict escapes during the term of imprisonment.

• Prescription of Penalties: The prescriptive period of penalties begins to run only when a convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of imprisonment. Pursuant to Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, evasion of service of sentence is committed only by a convict who escapes during the term of imprisonment by reason of final judgment. Since petitioner was never placed in confinement, he could not have escaped, and thus the prescriptive period never began to run in his favor.

• Prescription of Penalties (Art. 93, RPC) — The period of prescription of penalties commences to run only from the date the culprit evades the service of his sentence. Evasion of service of sentence, under Article 157 of the RPC, requires that the offender is a convict by final judgment, is serving a sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty, and evades service by escaping during the term of the sentence. A convict who has never been committed to prison or placed in confinement cannot invoke prescription of penalties because the prescriptive period never commenced.

• "The prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, applies only to those who are convicted by final judgment 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."
• "Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom."

• Infante v. Warden, 92 Phil 310 (1967) — Distinguished. In Infante, the convict was on conditional pardon when rearrested, having started serving his sentence, whereas the present case involved a convict who evaded service from the start. However, the principle that evasion requires escaping during service of sentence was reiterated.
• Tanega v. Masakayan, 125 Phil 966 (1967) — Followed. Held that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment to commence, the culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment. A convict never placed in confinement cannot invoke prescription.
• Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, 394 SCRA 221 (2002) — Followed. Reiterated Tanega, holding that prescription of penalty never started to run in favor of a convict who was never brought to prison and was in hiding even before the execution of judgment.

• Article 93, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. Applied to rule that prescription does not begin if the convict was never confined and thus never "evaded" service by escaping.
• Article 157, Revised Penal Code — Defines evasion of service of sentence as escaping during the term of imprisonment by reason of final judgment. Applied to define the concept of "evasion" under Article 93, establishing that one must be serving sentence (deprived of liberty) to commit evasion.
• Article 89(6), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the prescription of the penalty. Cited by petitioner as basis for claiming total extinction of liability.

Quisumbing (Acting Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio. (Davide, Jr., C.J., on leave).