G.R. No. 139033 December 18, 2002
JOVENDO DEL CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. ROSARIO TORRECAMPO, Presiding Judge, RTC of Camarines Sur, Branch 33 and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovendo Del Castillo was charged with and convicted for violating Section 178(nn) of the 1978 Election Code (PD 1296) for conducting himself in a disorderly manner by striking the electric bulb and kerosene lamps during the vote counting, plunging the room into darkness and disrupting the proceedings. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 1 year as minimum to 3 years as maximum. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final. During the scheduled execution of judgment on October 14, 1987, petitioner failed to appear, prompting the court to issue a warrant for his arrest. He remained at large. Ten years later, on October 24, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant on the ground of prescription of the penalty. The trial court denied his motion and motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed his Petition for Certiorari, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has prescribed.

RULING

No, the penalty has not prescribed. The Court ruled that for the prescription of a penalty under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code to commence, the convict must evade service of sentence “by escaping during the term of his sentence” as provided under Article 157. Since the petitioner was never committed to prison and evaded the execution of judgment from the outset by failing to appear and remaining at large, he cannot be deemed to have “escaped.” Therefore, the period of prescription never began to run in his favor. The penalty imposed is a correctional penalty prescribing in ten years, but the essential element of escape during service of sentence is absent. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition.