GR L 28519; (February, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28519; February 17, 1968
RICARDO PARULAN, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo Parulan, while serving a commuted sentence of twenty years at the state penitentiary in Muntinglupa, Rizal, was transferred in October 1964 to the military barracks at Fort Bonifacio, Makati, Rizal. During that month, he escaped from confinement. He was later recaptured in the City of Manila. Subsequently, he was prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code before the Court of First Instance of Manila. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced on August 3, 1966. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Parulan contends that his confinement is illegal because the Court of First Instance of Manila that convicted him for evasion of sentence lacked jurisdiction over his person and the offense. He argues that the court where he was tried did not have jurisdiction because the escape (the essential ingredient of the crime) occurred in Makati, Rizal, not in Manila.
ISSUE
Was the Court of First Instance of Manila vested with jurisdiction to try and decide the case against petitioner for the crime of evasion of service of sentence?
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the writ of habeas corpus. It held that the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction. The crime of evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense. While the escape itself may have been initiated in Makati, Rizal, the act of evading service of sentence persists as long as the prisoner remains at large and continues to evade the authorities. Therefore, the offense is deemed committed not only at the place of escape but also at any place where the escapee is found while still evading service. Since Parulan was recaptured in Manila, an essential ingredient of the continuing crime—his act of evasion—occurred there. Consequently, under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the court of the province or city where any essential ingredient of the crime took place (in this case, Manila) has jurisdiction to try the case. The Court analogized the crime to other continuing offenses like kidnapping and illegal detention, where the violation persists across locations. The right to arrest an escapee without a warrant at any place (under Rule 113, Section 6[c] of the Rules of Court) further supports the principle that the escapee is in the continuous act of committing the crime until apprehended.