Case Summary (G.R. No. 159302)
Factual Background
Petitioner Ricardo Parulan was serving a sentence of life imprisonment later commuted to twenty years by the President of the Philippines and was confined in the state penitentiary at Muntinglupa, Rizal. In October, 1964, while under custody after a transfer to the military barracks at Fort Bonifacio, Makati, he escaped from confinement. He was subsequently recaptured in the City of Manila and thereafter prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157, Revised Penal Code.
Trial Court Proceedings
The Court of First Instance of Manila arraigned and tried petitioner for evasion of service of sentence. After trial, the court found the petitioner guilty and on August 3, 1966 imposed the penalty prescribed by law. The precise term and the characterization of the penalty in the trial court's judgment are recorded in the petition as having been imposed on that date.
Nature of the Petition and Relief Sought
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Director of Prisons, asserting that his confinement at the state penitentiary, under the respondent’s administrative and supervisory control, was unlawful. The petition anchored relief on the allegation that the conviction for evasion of service of sentence was rendered by a court without jurisdiction over his person and without jurisdiction over the offense.
Legal Issue Presented
The principal legal issue was whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try and punish the petitioner for evasion of service of sentence, given that the escape originated from confinement in Muntinglupa and the recapture occurred in the City of Manila, and whether the alleged lack of jurisdiction rendered the imprisonment unlawful for purposes of habeas corpus relief.
Applicable Law on Venue and Continuing Offenses
The Court considered Section 14, Rule 110 which provides that criminal prosecutions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or where any essential ingredient thereof took place. The Court reviewed doctrine distinguishing transitory or continuing offenses, recognizing that where essential acts occur in different localities any court of those localities has jurisdiction. The Court identified two relevant classes of offenses: those transitory in nature where distinct acts produce separate results, and those deemed continuing by reason of their nature, such as kidnapping, illegal detention, and libel circulated across provinces.
Application to Evasion of Service of Sentence
The Court held that evasion of service of sentence may be a continuing offense when the escaped convict moves from place to place in an ongoing effort to evade his sentence. The Court reasoned that the escape does not exhaust the criminality at the moment of flight; as long as the convict continues to evade service of sentence he continues the criminal conduct. Consequently, any place where the escapee may be found and where essential elements of the continuing evasion occur constitutes a proper forum to prosecute the offense.
Auxiliary Rule on Arrest Without Warrant
In support of the conclusion that the offense is continuous, the Court invoked Rule 113, section 6[c], which authorizes arrest without warrant where a person has escaped from confinement. The Court treated this statutory arrest power as founded on the principle that an escapee remains in the continuous commission of the crime of evading service of sentence and therefore may be lawfully apprehended and tried where found.
Parties' Contentions and Court's Response
Petitioner contended that the Court of First Instance of Manila lacked jurisdiction because the confinement and escape originated in Muntinglupa, Rizal. The Respondent maintained the conviction in Manila was valid because the escapee’s flight and subsequent acts rendered the offense continuing and therefore triable where the escapee was found. The Court agreed with the respondent’s position, reasoning that the continuing character of the offense vested jurisdiction in the Manila tri
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159302)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- RICARDO PARULAN filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Director of Prisons challenging the legality of his continued confinement.
- RICARDO PARULAN sought immediate release on the ground that the court which convicted him for evasion of service of sentence lacked jurisdiction.
- The petition alleged that the conviction for evasion, penalized under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, was rendered by a court without jurisdiction over his person and the offense.
- The Court considered the petition on the assumed correctness of the factual allegations as pleaded by RICARDO PARULAN.
Key Factual Allegations
- RICARDO PARULAN was confined in the state penitentiary at Muntinglupa, Rizal, serving a life sentence later commuted to twenty (20) years by the President.
- RICARDO PARULAN was transferred in October, 1964, to the military barracks at Fort Bonifacio under the custody of the Stockade Officer.
- RICARDO PARULAN escaped from confinement in October, 1964, and was subsequently recaptured in the City of Manila.
- RICARDO PARULAN was prosecuted before the Court of First Instance of Manila for evasion of service of sentence and, after trial, was found guilty and sentenced on August 3, 1966.
Procedural History
- The petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenged the judgment of conviction rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of evasion of service of sentence.
- The petition alleged lack of jurisdiction of the trial court as the principal ground for relief by RICARDO PARULAN.
- The Court proceeded to examine the legal sufficiency of the jurisdictional plea assuming the truth of the pleaded facts.
Issue Presented
- The central issue presented was whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence RICARDO PARULAN for evasion of service of sentence.
- The subsidiary issue was whether evasion of service of sentence constitutes a transitory or continuing offense for venue and jurisdictional purposes.
Statutory Framework
- Section 14, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court governs the place where criminal actions shall be instituted and provides that venue li