GR L 27191; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27191; February 28, 1967
ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Adelaida Tanega was convicted of slander by the City Court of Quezon City. She appealed to the Court of First Instance, which also found her guilty and sentenced her to 20 days of arresto menor, an indemnity of P100.00 to the offended party, with subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari. After the judgment became final, the Court of First Instance, on January 11, 1965, set execution of the sentence for January 27, 1965. Upon petitioner’s motion, execution was deferred to February 12, 1965. Petitioner failed to appear at the appointed time. Consequently, the respondent judge issued a warrant for her arrest on February 15, 1965, and an alias warrant on March 23, 1965. Petitioner was never arrested. On December 10, 1966, petitioner moved to quash the warrants, arguing that the penalty had prescribed. The respondent judge, on December 19, 1966, rejected the plea of prescription and ordered the issuance of another alias warrant. Petitioner then filed the present original petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
When does the prescription of a penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence commence to run?
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It ruled that for the prescription of a penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence, the culprit must evade the service of the sentence by escaping during the term of such imprisonment. The Court, interpreting Articles 92, 93, and 157 of the Revised Penal Code, held that “evasion of service of sentence” requires that the offender is a convict by final judgment, is serving a sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, and escapes during the term of imprisonment. Since the petitioner was never placed in confinement to begin serving her sentence, there was no evasion from which the one-year prescription period for light penalties could start to run. Therefore, the penalty had not prescribed.