Facts:
1. On September 16, 1987, the petitioner was convicted of the offense charged
and was sentenced to serve a penalty of two months and one day
of arresto mayor. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, on October 24,
1988, affirmed in toto the decision
of the MTC. Petitioner never got to serve his sentence and
hid for about nine years.
2. Then, on January 20, 2000, the petitioner was
apprehended and detained at the Mabalacat Detention Cell. Four days thereafter, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the RTC of Angeles City, impleading respondent (Acting Chief of Police of
Mabalacat, Pampanga). Petitioner contended that his arrest was illegal and
unjustified on the grounds that, a) the straight penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor
prescribes in five years under No. 3,Article 93 [of the] Revised Penal Code,
and (b)
having been able to continuously evade service of sentence for almost nine
years, his criminalliability has long been totally extinguished under No. 6,
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied since there was no
evasion of the service of the sentence. Evasion
presupposes escape during the service of the sentence consisting in
deprivation of liberty.
Issue: Whether or not the penalty already prescribed
HELD: NO.
The period of prescription of penalties – the succeeding Article 93
provides – "shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should
evade the service of his sentence". Article 157 of the RPC discussed how evasion of service of sentence was perfected. It is provided therein that,
"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. To consider properly the meaning of evasion
service of sentence, its elements must be present these are: (1) the offender
is a convict by final judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence which
consists in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades service of sentence
by escaping during the term of his sentence. For, by the express terms of the
statute, a convict evades "service of his sentence" by "escaping
during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment."
That
escape should take place while serving sentence, is emphasized by the second sentence of Article 157. It provides for a higher
penalty if such "evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of
unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or
by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or
through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, .
. ." Indeed, evasion of sentence is but another expression of the term
"jail breaking."
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, "escape" in
legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means the unlawful
departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has
not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
In this case, the petitioner was never brought to prison. As the record would show, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he was
already in hiding. He now begs for the compassion of the Court because
he has ceased to live a life of peace and tranquility after he failed to appear
in court for the execution of his sentence. But it was petitioner who chose to
become a fugitive. The Court accords compassion only to those who are deserving.
Petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt but he refused to answer
for the wrong he committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor.
