The Supreme Court has clarified that the prescription of penalties for a crime only begins to run when a convicted person evades their sentence after already being imprisoned. In Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, the Court ruled that if a person avoids imprisonment altogether, the period for the penalty to prescribe does not commence. This means that individuals who successfully evade initial imprisonment remain liable to serve their sentence indefinitely, until they are apprehended. This decision underscores the importance of serving the imposed sentence and clarifies the conditions under which penalties can be considered prescribed under Philippine law.

Fugitive’s Dilemma: Can a Sentence Prescribe if Never Served?

This case revolves around Jovendo Del Castillo, who was convicted of violating the 1978 Election Code for disrupting a Barangay election in 1982. After his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1986, Del Castillo failed to appear for the execution of the judgment, prompting the court to issue an arrest warrant and confiscate his bond. He remained at large for ten years, after which he filed a motion to quash the warrant, arguing that the penalty had prescribed. The trial court denied his motion, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals. The central legal question is whether the period for the prescription of a penalty begins when the convict evades initial imprisonment, or only after they have already begun serving their sentence.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasized the importance of interpreting Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in conjunction with Article 157 of the same code. Article 93 addresses the computation of the prescription of penalties, stating that the period begins to run from the date the culprit evades the service of their sentence. However, Article 157 defines evasion of service of sentence as escaping during the term of imprisonment following a final judgment.

Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code: ‘Computation of the prescription of penalties – The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which his Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.’

The Court reasoned that the term “evade” implies that the person must have already been in custody, serving their sentence, before they can be considered to have evaded it. The Supreme Court referenced the case of Tanega vs. Masakayan, et. al., wherein it was established that the prescription of a penalty starts when a convict escapes during their term of imprisonment. Building on this principle, the Court clarified that merely failing to submit oneself to imprisonment does not constitute evasion as contemplated by the law.

A critical aspect of the Court’s analysis is the distinction between avoiding imprisonment altogether and escaping from imprisonment. The Solicitor General aptly pointed out that “escape,” in legal terms, refers to the unlawful departure of a prisoner from the confines of their custody. This approach contrasts with simply not reporting to serve a sentence. The Supreme Court highlighted that Del Castillo had never been incarcerated, thus he could not be said to have “escaped” from confinement. Because he avoided imprisonment from the outset, the prescriptive period for his penalty never began.

The Supreme Court also addressed Del Castillo’s plea for compassion, noting that his predicament was a direct result of his own actions. Despite being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he chose to evade justice, thereby forfeiting any claim to leniency from the court. This decision underscores the principle that individuals are accountable for their choices, particularly when those choices involve evading legal consequences. The court’s position reinforces the importance of respecting and complying with judicial orders.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that its decision was rooted in settled jurisprudence and applicable laws, and did not constitute judicial legislation. The Court was tasked with interpreting existing laws, not creating new ones. This demonstrates a commitment to adhering to legal precedent and maintaining consistency in the application of the law. The ruling reaffirms the principle that laws must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with their intended purpose and historical context.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Del Castillo v. Torrecampo offers a clear interpretation of the prescription of penalties under Philippine law. The ruling clarifies that the prescriptive period for a penalty does not begin to run until a convict has already begun serving their sentence and subsequently evades it. This interpretation ensures that individuals who avoid imprisonment from the outset remain accountable for their crimes, regardless of the passage of time. This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of criminal penalties and the pursuit of justice in the Philippines.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the period for the prescription of a penalty begins when a convict evades initial imprisonment, or only after they have already begun serving their sentence. The Court determined that prescription only begins after imprisonment has commenced.
What is the meaning of “evasion of service of sentence” in this context?	Evasion of service of sentence, as defined in relation to prescription of penalties, refers to escaping from imprisonment after having been incarcerated, not simply failing to report for imprisonment. This distinction is crucial in determining when the prescriptive period begins.
What is Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code about?	Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code discusses the computation of the prescription of penalties, stating that the period begins to run from the date the culprit evades the service of their sentence. However, this article must be read in conjunction with Article 157.
Why did the court deny Del Castillo’s motion to quash the warrant?	The court denied the motion because Del Castillo had never been imprisoned, and therefore, the prescriptive period for his penalty had never begun to run. His act of avoiding initial imprisonment did not constitute evasion of sentence.
What was the penalty imposed on Del Castillo?	Del Castillo was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years as maximum for violating Section 178 (nn) of the 1978 Election Code. This penalty is considered a correctional penalty under the Revised Penal Code.
What is the significance of the Tanega vs. Masakayan case in this ruling?	The Tanega vs. Masakayan case established the precedent that the prescription of a penalty starts when a convict escapes during their term of imprisonment, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed in this case. This reinforces the principle that evasion requires prior imprisonment.
Can a person who avoids initial imprisonment claim that their penalty has prescribed?	No, a person who avoids initial imprisonment cannot claim that their penalty has prescribed because the prescriptive period only begins to run once they are serving their sentence and subsequently evade it. This ruling clarifies this point definitively.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for convicted criminals?	The practical implication is that convicted criminals who avoid imprisonment from the outset remain liable to serve their sentence indefinitely, regardless of the passage of time, until they are apprehended. This underscores the importance of complying with court orders.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Del Castillo v. Torrecampo serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the law and fulfilling one’s legal obligations. By clarifying the requirements for the prescription of penalties, the Court has strengthened the enforcement of criminal sentences and reaffirmed the principle of accountability. Individuals facing legal challenges should seek advice from qualified legal professionals to understand their rights and obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002