G.R. No. 232189 - Blay vs. Bana

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232189)

Petitioner, Respondent, and Procedural Posture

The People prosecuted Abilong under an information alleging that, while under a final sentence of destierro prohibiting entry within 100 kilometers of the City of Manila, he wilfully and unlawfully evaded the service of that sentence by entering the prohibited area and committing vagrancy. Upon arraignment Abilong pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prision correccional (two years, four months, one day) with accessory penalties and costs. Abilong appealed, assigning error to the imposition of penalty under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code.

Key Dates

Date of decision reviewed in the prompt: November 26, 1948. Applicable constitutional framework for analysis: 1935 Philippine Constitution (the decision predates the 1987 Constitution and thus the pre-1987 constitutional regime applies).

Applicable Law and Controlling Texts

Primary statutory provision at issue: Article 157, Revised Penal Code. The court treated the Spanish text as controlling, because the Revised Penal Code was originally enacted in Spanish. Quoted Spanish text: “ART. 157. Quebrantamiento de sentencia. Sera castigado con prision correccional en sus grados medio y maximo el sentenciado que quebrantare su condena, fugandose mientras estuviere sufriendo privacion de libertad por sentencia firme; …” English translation in the official text referred to the accused “escaping during the term of his imprisonment,” which the majority found to be a mistranslation of “sufriendo privacion de libertad.”

Assignment of Error by Appellant

Appellant’s principal contention: Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to persons imprisoned in a penal institution and deprived completely of liberty; it does not cover evasion of a sentence of destierro because destierro is not “imprisonment” under the English text of Article 157.

Majority Court’s Interpretive Approach

The majority begins from the textual principle that the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code governs when doubt exists, citing People v. Manaba. It rejects reliance on the English translation where the Spanish original supplies the meaning. The majority read “sufriendo privacion de libertad” as a broader phrase meaning “suffering deprivation of liberty,” which it considered capable of encompassing partial deprivations of liberty such as destierro.

Majority’s Application to Destierro

Relying on precedent (People v. Samonte and People v. Jose de Jesus) and the meaning of the Spanish text, the majority concluded that a person under destierro is “suffering deprivation of liberty” because destierro imposes an enforceable restriction (in this case, prohibition from entering a specified area). Entry into the prohibited area therefore constitutes an evasion of the service of sentence under Article 157 as read in the Spanish text.

Precedents and Their Role

The majority relied on earlier decisions holding that destierro involves a deprivation of liberty and that entering the prohibited area constitutes evasion of the sentence. Those precedents were invoked to support the interpretation that Article 157 reaches violations of judicially imposed geographic exclusion, not merely escapes from physical confinement in a penal institution.

Holding and Disposition (Majority)

Holding: Under the controlling Spanish text of Article 157, evasion of service of sentence includes violation of a sentence of destierro by entering the prohibited area. Result: The trial court’s conviction and sentence of Abilong for evasion of service of sentence (Article 157) were affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Dissenting Opinion — Core Argument

The dissent (Justices Perfecto and Briones) argued that Article 157’s operative verb “fugándose” (to escape) necessarily connotes escape from a form of physical confinement or imprisonment, and that “privacion de libertad” should be understood in ordinary legal and grammatical usage as imprisonment. The dissent stressed that destierro, which bans entry to a specific place while leaving freedom elsewhere, does not impose the enclosure or confinement presupposed by “escape.”

Dissent’s Policy and Practical Concerns

The dissent warned against an expansive interpretation that would equate any restriction or limitation on freedom with the kind of deprivation that Article 157 punishes. It observed that adopting the prosecution’s broad view would yield absurd results (e.g., treating evasion of trivial restrictions as grounds for imprisonment under Article 157) and encroach on legislative prerogatives

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232189)

Citation and Procedural Data

Reported at 82 Phil. 172; G.R. No. L-1960; decision promulgated November 26, 1948.
Decision authored by Montemayor, J.
Names of justices recorded as concurring in the majority: Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ.
Dissent authored by Perfecto, J.; Briones, J. concurs in the dissent.
Case presented as an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Parties

Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippines.
Defendant and Appellant: Florentino Abilong.

Information / Charge Filed

Accused charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with evasion of service of sentence.
Text of the information (as pleaded):
- That on or about September 17, 1947, in the City of Manila, accused being then a convict sentenced and ordered to serve two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of destierro during which he should not enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City of Manila, by virtue of final judgment rendered by the municipal court on April 5, 1946, in criminal case No. B-4795 for attempted robbery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously evade the service of said sentence by going beyond the limits made against him and commit vagrancy.
- Concluded with the phrase: "Contrary to law."

Facts as Pleaded and Established in Record

Appellant had been convicted in municipal court on April 5, 1946, in criminal case No. B-4795 for attempted robbery.
Sentence imposed by municipal court: two years, four months and one day of destierro (banishment), with prohibition to enter any place within a radius of 100 kilometers from the City of Manila.
On or about September 17, 1947, while under that sentence, appellant entered the City of Manila, thereby contravening the prohibition imposed by his destierro sentence.
Upon arraignment in the trial court on the evasion charge, appellant pleaded guilty.

Trial Court Disposition

Trial court sentenced appellant to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, with accessory penalties of law, and to pay costs.
Appellant appealed the conviction and sentence to the appellate court (this appeal).

Assignment of Error on Appeal

Appellant’s principal assignment of error: The lower court erred in imposing a penalty under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code because Article 157 does not cover evasion of service of "destierro."
Appellant’s contention: Article 157 refers only to persons imprisoned in a penal institution and completely deprived of liberty; destierro is not imprisonment and therefore not within Article 157’s scope. Appellant bases this on the English word "imprisonment" used in the English text of Article 157.

Statutory Provision at Issue (Article 157) — English and Spanish Texts Quoted in Record

English text (excerpt as cited in the record):
- "Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment."
Spanish text (excerpt as cited in the record):
- "ART. 157. Quebrantamiento de sentencia. Sera castigado con prision correccional en sus grados medio y maximo el sentenciado que quebrantare su condena, fugandose mientras estuviere sufriendo privacion de libertad por sentencia firme; * * *."

Appellant’s Argument (as presented)

Relies on the English wording of Article 157, particularly the term "imprisonment," to argue that Article 157 applies only to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal institution or completely deprived of liberty.
Argues destierro (banishment) does not constitute imprisonment; therefore, evasion of destierro is not punishable under Article 157.

Prosecution / Solicitor General’s Argument (as presented)

Solicitor General argues that the Revised Penal Code was originally enacted and approved in Spanish; in case of doubt, the Spanish text controls.
Points out the Spanish phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" as the controlling phrase, which the Solicitor General treats as encompassing the deprivation of liberty represented by destierro, though it may be partial.
Cites prior jurisprudence (People vs. Samonte) to support the view that a person under sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of liberty and escapes from the restrictions of the penalty when he enters the prohibited area.

Precedents and Authorities Cited in the Record

People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665, 668 — used to support the principle that the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code governs when there is doubt.
People vs. Samonte, No. 36553 (July 26, 1932; 57 Phil., 968) — Court had held that a person under sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of his liberty an