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.