Title
Parulan vs. Director of Prisons
Case
G.R. No. L-28519
Decision Date
Feb 17, 1968
Ricardo Parulan, serving a commuted sentence, escaped confinement, was recaptured, and prosecuted for evasion of service of sentence. The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction, ruling evasion as a continuing crime, denying his habeas corpus petition.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28519)

Facts:

Ricardo Parulan, the petitioner, was serving a sentence of life imprisonment commuted by the President to twenty years and was confined in the state penitentiary at Muntinglupa, Rizal before being transferred in October, 1964 to the military barracks at Fort Bonifacio, Makati, Rizal, under the custody of the Stockade Officer; in that month he escaped from confinement, was later recaptured in the City of Manila, and was prosecuted before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of evasion of service of sentence, penalized under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, after due trial was found guilty and sentenced on August 3, 1966, whereupon he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, directed to the Director of Prisons, alleging that the conviction and sentence were illegal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his person and the offense; the petition asserted that his confinement under the respondent was therefore unlawful and sought immediate release.

Issues:

Was the Court of First Instance of Manila vested with jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence Ricardo Parulan for the crime of evasion of service of sentence?; If the offense of evasion of service of sentence is a continuing crime, may the offender be validly arrested and tried at any place where he is found after escape?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.