Title
People vs. Abilong
Case
G.R. No. L-1960
Decision Date
Nov 26, 1948
Florentino Abilong violated *destierro* by entering Manila, leading to his conviction under Article 157. The Supreme Court ruled that *destierro* constitutes a deprivation of liberty, affirming guilt despite the dissent's narrower interpretation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 72119)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
    • On September 17, 1947, Florentino Abilong, then under a final judgment dated April 5, 1946 (Municipal Court Crim. Case No. B-4795), was serving a sentence of two years, four months, and one day of destierro, prohibiting his entry within 100 kilometers of Manila.
    • He was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with evasion of service of sentence, pleaded guilty upon arraignment, and was sentenced to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional with accessory penalties and costs.
  • Assignment of Error and Contentions
    • Appellant’s Claim: Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to convicts imprisoned in penal institutions; destierro is not “imprisonment” and thus not covered.
    • Government’s Position: The Spanish text of Article 157 controls over the English translation; “sufriendo privación de libertad” (deprivation of liberty) includes destierro. Cited precedents: People v. Manaba (58 Phil. 665), People v. Samonte (57 Phil. 968), and People v. Jose de Jesus (80 Phil. 746).

Issues:

  • Does the Spanish phrase “sufriendo privación de libertad” in Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code include a sentence of destierro?
  • Is evasion of destierro punishable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.