Prescription of Penalties: Evasion of Sentence Requires Prior Imprisonment

The Supreme Court has clarified a crucial point in criminal procedure: the prescription of a penalty does not begin to run simply because a convicted person goes into hiding before serving any time in prison. In Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002), the Court ruled that the clock for prescription of a penalty only starts when a convict actually evades service of sentence by escaping from confinement. This distinction matters for anyone facing a final judgment of conviction, as well as for lawyers advising clients on the consequences of failing to surrender.

The Facts of the Case

The petitioner was charged in 1983 with violating Section 178 (nn) of the 1978 Election Code for disorderly conduct during a barangay election. He was accused of striking an electric bulb and two kerosene lamps at a voting center, plunging the room into darkness and disrupting the counting of votes.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of one year minimum to three years maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the decision became final and executory. Execution of judgment was scheduled for October 14, 1987.

On the scheduled date, the petitioner failed to appear. The trial court issued an order of arrest and confiscated his bond, but the petitioner was never apprehended. He remained at large for ten years.

The Issue: When Does Prescription of Penalty Begin?

In October 1997, the petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest, arguing that his penalty had already prescribed. He relied on Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that the period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.

The petitioner argued that since he evaded service of his sentence by going into hiding in 1987, the ten-year prescription period for correctional penalties should have lapsed by 1997. The trial court denied his motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Ruling: No Escape Without Prior Confinement

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the rulings of the lower courts. The Court interpreted Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 157 of the same Code.

Article 157 defines evasion of service of sentence as an offense committed by a person who, having been convicted by final judgment, escapes during the term of his sentence. The Court emphasized that "escape" in legal parlance means the unlawful departure of a prisoner from the limits of his custody. A person who has never been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped from it.

The Court cited its earlier ruling in Tanega v. Masakayan (19 SCRA 564, 1967), which held that for prescription of a penalty to commence, the culprit must escape during the term of imprisonment. Since the petitioner never served a single minute of his sentence and was never placed in confinement, the prescription period never started to run in his favor.

The Elements of Prescription of Penalty

The Court adopted the elements of prescription of penalty as outlined in a leading commentary on the Revised Penal Code:

1. The penalty is imposed by final sentence.
2. The convict evaded service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
3. The convict who escaped has not given himself up, been captured, gone to a foreign country with no extradition treaty, or committed another crime.
4. The penalty has prescribed due to the lapse of time from the date of evasion.

The second element was not satisfied in this case. The petitioner was never in prison, so he could not have escaped from it. His choice to become a fugitive before serving his sentence did not trigger the prescription period.

Practical Takeaways

• Prescription of penalty requires prior confinement. A convicted person who goes into hiding before imprisonment cannot claim that the prescription period has started to run.
• The rule applies to special laws. When a special law like the Election Code does not provide for prescription of penalties, the Revised Penal Code applies in a suppletory manner.
• Fleeing does not help the accused. The Court noted that it accords compassion only to those who deserve it; a fugitive who refuses to answer for a proven wrong will not be rewarded.
• Consult a lawyer early. Understanding the precise rules on prescription can prevent costly mistakes in strategy, especially after a conviction becomes final.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.