G.R. No. 141718 - Pangan vs. Gatbalite

In Criminal Case No. 85-816 before the MTC of Angeles City, Branch 3, petitioner was indicted for simple seduction. His counsel waived evidence due to petitioner’s absence.
On September 16, 1987, he was convicted and sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor.

The RTC of Angeles City, Branch 56, affirmed the conviction in toto on October 24, 1988.
At the scheduled promulgation on August 9, 1991, neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared; notice was returned unserved. The trial court recorded the decision in its criminal docket and issued an arrest order.

Petitioner was arrested on January 20, 2000, and detained at Mabalacat Detention Cell. On January 24, 2000, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus before RTC, impleading the police chief and later the Angeles City jail warden.
On January 31, 2000, the RTC denied relief, ruling that prescription under Article 93, RPC, did not run because petitioner never escaped during actual service of sentence, and that the commitment order conclusively established legality of detention.

Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 45 on a pure question of law, challenging the RTC’s interpretation of Article 93, RPC.
He argued that prescription should commence upon finality of judgment and successful evasion of service (i.e., eluding arrest), even if never actually imprisoned.

How should the phrase “shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of sentence” be construed?
Specifically, when does the prescriptive period of penalties begin to run under Article 93, RPC?