Case Digest: Pangan v. Hon. Gatbalite, etc., et al., G.R. No. 141720, Jan. 21, 2005

Criminal Law | Prescription

  • Benjamin Pangan was convicted of simple seduction and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor.

  • His conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1988.

  • He failed to appear for the promulgation of judgment in 1991 and remained at large.

  • He was arrested only in 2000—almost nine years later.

  • Pangan filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that his penalty had prescribed under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, which sets a 5-year prescriptive period for arresto mayor.

  • When does the prescriptive period for penalties begin under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code? Specifically, does it apply to a convict who was never arrested or imprisoned?

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty had not prescribed.

    • Article 93 states that prescription begins when the convict “evades the service of sentence.”

    • Based on jurisprudence (Infante, Tanega, Del Castillo), evasion means escaping during actual service of sentence—i.e., while in custody.

    • Since Pangan was never arrested or imprisoned, he could not be said to have “evaded” service of sentence.

    • Therefore, the prescriptive period never began to run.

    • The Court affirmed the legality of his detention and denied the petition.

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 75