View full case

BENJAMIN PANGAN Y RIVERA v. LOURDES F. GATBALITE

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case was indicted for simple seduction and was convicted and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court. The petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled promulgation of the decision and an order of arrest was issued against him. He was apprehended and detained, after which he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that his arrest was illegal and unjustified. The petitioner argued that the penalty had prescribed due to the lapse of time and his criminal liability had been extinguished. The respondent Judge denied the petition for habeas corpus, stating that the essential element of evasion of the service of sentence was absent. The petitioner then filed a petition for review, raising the issue of when the prescriptive period of penalties begins to run.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prescriptive period of the penalty began to run in favor of the petitioner, who evaded the service of his sentence for nine years.

  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the total extinction of his criminal liability.

  3. Whether the ruling in Infante v. Warden is applicable to the present case.

  4. Whether prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence can commence to run if the culprit never escaped during the term of imprisonment.

  5. Whether the petitioner in this case is entitled to the prescription of penalty.

  6. Whether or not an accused who has fully served his sentence can be immediately released, despite being detained for another offense or charge.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the 5-year prescriptive period of the penalty began to run on the day the judgment of conviction was promulgated in absentia and was never interrupted. The petitioner's successful evasion of the service of his sentence for a period longer than the prescriptive period entitles him to the total extinction of his criminal liability.

  2. Yes, the petitioner is entitled to the total extinction of his criminal liability due to the government's failure or neglect to arrest him for almost nine years.

  3. No, the ruling in Infante v. Warden is not applicable to the present case as it involved a convict who was on conditional pardon when re-arrested, while the petitioner in this case evaded service of his sentence from the start.

  4. No, the prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence can only commence to run if the culprit escapes during the term of imprisonment.

  5. No, the petitioner is not entitled to the prescription of penalty because he was never placed in confinement and did not escape during the term of his sentence.

  6. Yes, an accused who has fully served his sentence can be immediately released, unless he is detained for another offense or charge.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Evasion of the service of sentence is an essential element of prescription of penalties.

  • The prescriptive period of the penalty begins to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.

  • The criminal statutes are construed liberally in favor of the accused and/or convict.

  • Elements of evasion of service of sentence: (a) the offender is a convict by final judgment; (b) he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty; and (c) he evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.

  • Prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence can only commence to run if the culprit escapes during the term of imprisonment.

  • Escape, for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the Revised Penal Code, means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody.

  • Prescription starts to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence.

  • Prescription of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to those who are convicted by final judgment and are serving a sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty.

  • An accused who has completed his sentence is entitled to immediate release, except if there is another offense or charge for which he is still detained.

  • The right to immediate release after serving a sentence is recognized, subject to the exception of detention for another offense or charge.