The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period for penalties, as outlined in Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, only begins to run when a convicted person evades service of their sentence after imprisonment has already commenced. This means that merely avoiding arrest or absconding before serving any time in jail does not trigger the start of the prescriptive period. The ruling emphasizes that evasion of sentence presupposes an escape from confinement and affirms the principle that prescription favors only those who have begun serving their sentence.

Fugitive from Justice: When Does Time Start Running on a Penalty?

The case revolves around Benjamin Pangan, who was convicted of simple seduction and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor. After the Regional Trial Court affirmed his conviction, Pangan failed to appear for the promulgation of the decision. An order for his arrest was issued, but he remained at large for nearly nine years before being apprehended. Pangan then filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing that his penalty had prescribed because more than five years had passed since the judgment, citing Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition, leading to this appeal where the central question is when the prescriptive period of penalties begins.

Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code states that “[t]he period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence…” This provision has been the subject of interpretation by the courts. In interpreting Article 93, the Supreme Court relied on existing jurisprudence, particularly the case of Tanega v. Masakayan. This case clarifies that for the prescription of a penalty of imprisonment to commence, the offender must escape during the term of their imprisonment. The Court referred to Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines evasion of service of sentence:

“ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. xxx”

In Tanega, the Court explicitly stated that evasion of sentence, under Article 157, requires that the convict is “serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty” and “evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.” The court then emphasized the importance of the escape taking place while serving the sentence, which meant that because Tanega never served time, the prescription period could not run in her favor.

Building on this principle, the Court underscored the essence of evasion as being synonymous with “jail breaking,” further cementing the idea that it can only occur during active imprisonment. The case of Del Castillo v. Torrecampo reinforced this doctrine, reiterating that prescription begins only when the convict escapes during imprisonment. The Supreme Court clarified that one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped and thus, cannot claim the benefit of prescription of penalties. In the case at hand, the Supreme Court emphasized that Pangan had never been imprisoned prior to his arrest on January 20, 2000. Therefore, because Pangan was never in prison, there could be no talk of an escape during imprisonment, and thus, the period for the prescription of his penalty never began to run.

Despite the affirmation of the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court noted that Pangan had already served his sentence by the time the decision was rendered. As such, it ordered his immediate release, unless he was being detained for any other offense or charge. This demonstrates the court’s consideration for individual liberties while upholding the principles of penal law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was to determine when the prescriptive period for penalties begins, specifically whether it starts from the date of conviction or from the date the convict evades service of sentence after imprisonment has commenced.
What is the meaning of “evasion of service of sentence” according to the Revised Penal Code?	“Evasion of service of sentence” refers to a convict escaping during the term of their imprisonment after having been convicted by final judgment, as defined under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code.
Does prescription of penalties apply to someone who avoids arrest after conviction?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the prescription of penalties under Article 93 applies only to those who have begun serving their sentence through imprisonment and subsequently escape.
What previous cases influenced the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?	The Supreme Court relied heavily on the rulings in Tanega v. Masakayan and Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, which both established that prescription of penalties requires an escape from confinement.
What happens if the convict is detained for another offense or charge?	If the convict is detained for another offense or charge, they will not be released immediately, and their detention will continue based on the merits of the new case.
Can someone claim prescription of penalty if they were never imprisoned?	No. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that if there was no imprisonment, the period of prescription of penalties does not begin.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The ruling establishes that avoiding arrest does not constitute evasion of sentence. In other words, it clarifies that people cannot simply hide to allow their penalties to prescribe if they have not even begun serving their sentence in jail.
How does Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code relate to Article 93?	Article 157 helps define the phrase ‘evade the service of his sentence’ used in Article 93. According to 157, for a person to evade their sentence, they must have been imprisoned by reason of final judgment, and subsequently escaped from that imprisonment.

This case provides a clear interpretation of Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, emphasizing that prescription of penalties requires actual evasion of sentence through escape from imprisonment. This ensures that individuals cannot avoid serving their sentences by simply remaining at large before ever being confined. It must be noted that this decision hinged upon the fact that by the time this decision was rendered, petitioner Pangan had completely served his sentence, entitling him to release from confinement.

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: BENJAMIN PANGAN Y RIVERA v. HON. LOURDES F. GATBALITE and COL. JAMES D. LABORDO, G.R. NO. 141718, January 21, 2005