Case Summary (G.R. No. 139033)
Petitioner
Accused under Section 178(nn) of PD 1296 (1978 Election Code) for striking lighting fixtures during vote tallying, thereby plunging the room into darkness and interrupting the Board of Election Tellers.
Respondents
– Hon. Rosario Torrecampo: Trial judge who denied petitioner’s motion to quash the arrest warrant.
– People of the Philippines: Prosecution in the criminal case.
Key Dates
• May 17, 1982 – Alleged commission of the offense.
• March 8, 1983 – Filing of Information for violation of Section 178(nn).
• January 14, 1985 – RTC conviction and imposition of 1–3 years’ imprisonment.
• October 14, 1987 – Scheduled execution of judgment; petitioner’s failure to appear triggered an arrest warrant.
• October 24, 1997 – Motion to quash warrant of arrest filed in RTC; denied.
• November 20, 1998 – Court of Appeals decision dismissing certiorari petition.
• June 14, 1999 – CA denial of motion for reconsideration.
• December 18, 2002 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1978 Election Code (PD 1296), Section 178(nn) (amended) – Disorderly conduct before election boards.
• Revised Penal Code (RPC):
– Article 92: Prescription periods for penalties (correctional penalties prescribe in 10 years).
– Article 93: Commencement and interruption of prescription (runs from date culprit evades service of sentence).
– Article 157: Definition of escape from custody (escape must occur during term of imprisonment).
Factual Background
Petitioner allegedly struck an electric bulb and two kerosene lamps during the counting of votes on Barangay Election Day, causing total darkness and disrupting the Board of Election Tellers. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment, underwent trial, and was convicted by RTC.
Procedural History
- RTC (Jan 14, 1985) – Convicted del Castillo beyond reasonable doubt; imposed indeterminate penalty of 1–3 years.
- Court of Appeals – Affirmed RTC decision; judgment became final and execution scheduled for Oct 14, 1987.
- Petitioner defaulted on surrender; RTC issued warrant of arrest and forfeited his bond. He remained at large.
- Oct 24, 1997 – RTC denied petitioner’s motion to quash arrest warrant on grounds of prescription. Reconsideration likewise denied.
- Nov 20, 1998 – CA dismissed certiorari petition for lack of merit; denied reconsideration on June 14, 1999.
- Dec 18, 2002 – Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review by certiorari.
Issue
Whether the penalty imposed by final sentence has prescribed under Articles 92 and 93 RPC, given that petitioner never surrendered to serve his sentence.
Legal Analysis
- Prescription of Correctional Penalties
– Article 92 RPC prescribes a ten-year period for correctional penalties. By virtue of Article 1 RPC, these provisions apply suppletorily to special-law offenses absent contrary specification. - Commencement of Prescription (Article 93 RPC)
– Prescription “shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence,” and is interrupted upon surrender, capture, flight to a non-extradition country, or commission of another crime. - Definition of Escape (Article 157 RPC)
– Escape entails unlawful departure from lawful custody during the term of imprisonment. One no
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 139033)
Facts
- On May 17, 1982, at approximately 8:15 P.M. in Barangay Ombao, Municipality of Bula, Camarines Sur, petitioner struck the electric bulb and two kerosene petromax lamps illuminating voting center No. 24 during the counting of votes, plunging the room into darkness and interrupting the Board of Election Tellers.
- On March 8, 1983, he was charged under Section 178(nn) of the 1978 Election Code (P.D. 1296) in Criminal Case No. F-1447 before RTC Branch 33, Camarines Sur.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty; trial ensued. On January 14, 1985, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and meted an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from one to three years.
Procedural History
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 20, 1998 affirmed the trial court decision in toto; its denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 14, 1999 rendered the judgment final and executory.
- The writ of execution was set for October 14, 1987; petitioner filed an urgent motion to reset on October 12, 1987, which was denied. Failing to appear, he became a fugitive and a warrant of arrest was issued, with his bond forfeited.
- On October 24, 1997, petitioner moved to quash the arrest warrant on the ground that the penalty had prescribed; both that motion and its reconsideration were denied by the RTC.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for lack of merit.
- The present petition for