Tanega V Masakayan Case Digest
Tanega V Masakayan Case Digest
Then, on December 10, 1966, petitioner, by counsel, moved to quash the warrants of arrest of February
15, 1965 and March 23, 1965. Petitioner's ground: Penalty has prescribed.
On December 19, 1966, the respondent judge ruled that "the penalty imposed upon the accused has to
be served", rejected the plea of prescription of penalty and, instead, directed the issuance of
another alias warrant of arrest.
Issue:
Ruling:
Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00 constitute a light penalty which prescribes in one year. The period
of prescription of penalties — so the succeeding Article 93 provides — "shall commence to run from the
date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence".
Elements of evasion of service of sentence 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. This must be so. 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." This connotes that evasion is indeed another term for jail breaking. For prescription of
penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape
during the term of such imprisonment.
In the present case, since the petitioner was never confined, the prescription of her sentence never run
in favor. Thus, her penalty has not yet prescribed.