Title
Pangan vs. Gatbalite
Case
G.R. No. 141718
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2005
A petitioner convicted of simple seduction seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his arrest was illegal and his criminal liability had been extinguished due to the prescription of penalties, but the court denies the petition, ruling that the prescription of penalties only begins when the convict evades the service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 141718)

Facts:

  • Petitioner: Benjamin Pangan y Rivera
  • Charge: Simple seduction in Criminal Case No. 85-816
  • Court: Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 3
  • Defense Counsel: Atty. Eduardo Pineda
  • Trial Issue: Pangan's absence at hearings led to no evidence being presented by the defense
  • Conviction Date: September 16, 1987
  • Sentence: Two months and one day of arresto mayor
  • RTC Affirmation: October 24, 1988
  • Promulgation Date: August 9, 1991
  • Absence: Pangan and his counsel did not appear
  • Arrest Order: Issued due to non-appearance
  • Apprehension: January 20, 2000, detained at Mabalacat Detention Cell
  • Petition: Filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming illegal arrest and prescription of penalties
  • RTC Decision: Petition denied, leading to the present appeal

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The prescriptive period of penalties begins to run only when the convict evades the service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
  2. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that Pangan...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code: Prescription of penalties commences from the date when the convict evades the service of the sentence.
  • Supporting Cases: "Infante v. Warden," "Tanega v. Masakayan," and "Del Castillo v. Torrecampo"
  • Key Point: Prescription applies only to those convicted by final judgment and serving a sentence involving deprivation of liberty.
  • Pangan's Situation: Never served any part of his sentence before arrest, so the prescription period never began.
  • Outcome: Pangan had...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.