ADELAIDA TANEGA vs. HON.

JUDGE MASAKAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioner Adelaida Tanega appealed her conviction of the crime of slander to the City Court of
Quezon City. Found guilty once again by the CFI, she was sentenced to suffer 20 days of arresto
menor. The CA affirmed her conviction. The City Court of Quezon City directed that the
execution of the sentence be set for 27 January 1965. On petitioner’s motion, execution was
deferred to 12 February 1965 at 8:30 am. At the appointed day and hour, petitioner failed to
appear prompting Respondent Judge Masakayan to issue warrants for her arrest but the former
was never arrested. More than a year later, Petitioner moved to quash the warrants on the ground
of prescription of penalty but such plea was rejected and Respondent Judge issued another
warrant of arrest. ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty has prescribed. HELD/DECISION: No.
The penalty has not prescribed. Petition dismissed. RATIO: By Article 92 of the Revised Penal
Code, light penalties "imposed by final sentence" prescribe 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". Under Art. 157 of the
RPC, the 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." Indeed, evasion of sentence is but
another expression of the term "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. Adverting to the facts, we have here the case of a convict who — sentenced to
imprisonment by final judgment — was thereafter never placed in confinement. Prescription of
penalty, then, does not run in her favor. (1985) case digest
G.R. Nos. L-37168-69 September 13, 1985

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

DELFINO BELTRAN, alias Minong, DOMINGO HERNANDEZ, alias Doming; CEFERINO BELTRAN,
alias Ebing; MANUEL PUZON alias Noling; CRESENCIO SIAZON, alias Ising; and ROGELIO BUGARIN,
alias Boy, accused-appellants.

RELOVA, J.:

FACTS:
Accused-appellants Delfino Beltran and others were indicted for murder and double attempted murder
with direct assault evidence shows that in Ballesteros, Cagayan, Ernesto Alvarado was bringing Calixto
Urbi home in a jeep. Passing by the Puzon Compound, Delfino Beltran shouted at them, "Oki ni inayo"
(Vulva of your mother).

They proceeded on their way and ignored Delfino. After Alvarado had brought Urbi to his house he went
to the house of Mayor. The newly elected Mayor told the Chief of Police that something should be done
about it.

When they came near the compound, they saw appellants and suddenly there was a simultaneous
discharge of gunfire, The mayor's son, Vicente, and Mayor also suffered injuries.

I: W/N appellants guilty of attempted murder with direct assault.

H: Yes. considering that Mayor Quirolgico is a person in authority and Pat. Rolando Tolentino is a
policeman who at the time was in his uniform, and both were performing their official duties to maintain
peace and order in the community, the finding of the trial court that appellants are guilty. For the double
attempted murder with direct assault, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed on
the aforesaid appellants is reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum.