People vs. Abilong

The Court held that Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code applies to the violation of a destierro sentence because the controlling Spanish text penalizes any convict who escapes while suffering a deprivation of liberty (privacion de libertad) by final judgment. Because destierro legally restricts territorial movement, it constitutes a cognizable deprivation of liberty, and breaching its geographical limits satisfies the elements of evasion under the provision.

Florentino Abilong was convicted by the Municipal Court of Manila of attempted robbery and sentenced on April 5, 1946, to destierro for two years, four months, and one day. The penalty expressly prohibited him from entering any place within a 100-kilometer radius of the City of Manila. On September 17, 1947, Abilong entered the City of Manila, thereby transgressing the territorial restriction imposed by his sentence. The prosecution subsequently filed an information charging him with evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Abilong’s original conviction for attempted robbery carried a penalty of destierro, which legally restricted his freedom of movement by prohibiting his presence within 100 kilometers of the City of Manila.
• On September 17, 1947, Abilong entered the City of Manila, thereby violating the territorial boundary established by his sentence of destierro.
• The prosecution filed an information charging him under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code for evading service of sentence.
• Upon arraignment, Abilong pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced by the trial court to prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, alongside accessory penalties and costs.
• Abilong appealed the conviction, arguing that Article 157 does not penalize the evasion of destierro because the provision’s English text limits liability to convicts escaping from "imprisonment."

• Petitioner maintained that Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code does not cover the evasion of a destierro sentence because the English text expressly limits the offense to convicts escaping "during the term of his imprisonment."
• Petitioner argued that destierro involves no physical confinement or institutional custody, and therefore, unauthorized entry into a prohibited geographic area cannot constitute criminal evasion under the penal provision.

• Respondent countered that the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code governs its interpretation, and the Spanish phrasing sufriendo privacion de libertad encompasses any deprivation of liberty, including the partial deprivation inherent in destierro.
• Respondent argued that established jurisprudence recognizes destierro as a deprivation of liberty, and violating its territorial restrictions constitutes evasion of sentence punishable under Article 157.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the evasion of a sentence of destierro by entering a prohibited area constitutes a violation of Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, given the semantic discrepancy between the English text ("imprisonment") and the Spanish text ("privacion de libertad").

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Article 157 applies to the appellant’s conduct. The Court ruled that the Revised Penal Code was originally enacted in Spanish, rendering the Spanish text controlling in cases of discrepancy. The Spanish phrase sufriendo privacion de libertad is broader than the English translation "imprisonment" and correctly encompasses the partial deprivation of liberty imposed by destierro. Because destierro legally restricts a convict’s freedom to enter specified localities, unauthorized entry into the prohibited zone satisfies the statutory element of evading a sentence. The Court relied on prior jurisprudence recognizing destierro as a deprivation of liberty and rejected the contention that the offense requires physical confinement.

• Controlling Text Doctrine (Spanish Text of the RPC) — When a discrepancy exists between the English and Spanish texts of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish version controls because the Code was originally drafted, deliberated, and enacted in that language. The Court applied this principle to resolve the statutory ambiguity, concluding that the Spanish phrasing privacion de libertad accurately reflects the legislative intent to cover all forms of liberty deprivation, not merely physical incarceration.
• Nature of Destierro as Deprivation of Liberty — Destierro constitutes a partial deprivation of liberty because it legally restricts a convict’s freedom of movement within specified geographical boundaries. The Court applied this doctrine to establish that breaching the territorial limits of destierro satisfies the statutory requirement of escaping while under a sentence that deprives liberty.

• "It is clear that the word 'imprisonment' used in the English text is a wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase 'sufriendo privacion de libertad' used in the Spanish text. It is equally clear that although the Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not constituting imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the sense that as in the present case, the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the City of Manila." — The Court used this passage to anchor its statutory interpretation on the original legislative language and to legally characterize destierro as a cognizable deprivation of liberty.

• People vs. Manaba — Cited to establish the controlling authority of the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code over the English translation in cases of doubt or textual discrepancy.
• People vs. Samonte — Cited as direct precedent holding that a person under a destierro sentence suffers a deprivation of liberty and legally escapes the penalty's restrictions upon entering the prohibited area.
• People vs. Jose de Jesus — Cited to ratify the principle that evading a destierro sentence triggers statutory consequences, specifically reinforcing that such evasion disqualifies a convict from the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Article 157, Revised Penal Code — The central penal provision criminalizing evasion of service of sentence. The Court interpreted its Spanish text (sufriendo privacion de libertad por sentencia firme) to encompass violations of destierro, thereby extending criminal liability beyond physical imprisonment.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Referenced to reinforce that evasion of sentence, including destierro, carries substantive statutory consequences and disqualifies offenders from its application.

• Justice Briones — Concurred in the dissenting opinion, explicitly agreeing that the Spanish term fugandose (escaping) inherently refers to physical imprisonment or confinement. He reasoned that the statutory language cannot logically extend to destierro, which lacks any enclosure or physical detention.

• Justice Perfecto — Dissented on the ground that Article 157 requires physical confinement, as emphasized by the verb fugandose in the Spanish text. He argued that "escape" presupposes an enclosure or detention, which destierro lacks, and that extending the provision to banishment violates grammatical and logical constraints. He further cautioned against judicial overreach, noting that any statutory gap should be remedied by Congress, and suggested that contempt of court would be the appropriate sanction for violating destierro restrictions.