Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 825 views

    Tanega V Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    NElle SAn Full
    The document discusses the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. It summarizes a Supreme Court case where the petitioner claimed the penalty for her conviction had prescribed after one year, as she was sentenced to a light penalty. The Supreme Court held that the elements of evasion of service include escaping during the term of the sentence, and that prescription of penalties only commences if the convict escapes. As the petitioner in this case was never placed in confinement, the prescription of the penalty did not run in her favor. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tanega V Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    NElle SAn Full
    825 views1 page
    The document discusses the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. It summarizes a Supreme Court case where the petitioner claimed the penalty for her conviction had prescribed after one year, as she was sentenced to a light penalty. The Supreme Court held that the elements of evasion of service include escaping during the term of the sentence, and that prescription of penalties only commences if the convict escapes. As the petitioner in this case was never placed in confinement, the prescription of the penalty did not run in her favor. The petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Tanega v Masakayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. It summarizes a Supreme Court case where the petitioner claimed the penalty for her conviction had prescribed after one year, as she was sentenced to a light penalty. The Supreme Court held that the elements of evasion of service include escaping during the term of the sentence, and that prescription of penalties only commences if the convict escapes. As the petitioner in this case was never placed in confinement, the prescription of the penalty did not run in her favor. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    825 views1 page

    Tanega V Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    NElle SAn Full
    The document discusses the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. It summarizes a Supreme Court case where the petitioner claimed the penalty for her conviction had prescribed after one year, as she was sentenced to a light penalty. The Supreme Court held that the elements of evasion of service include escaping during the term of the sentence, and that prescription of penalties only commences if the convict escapes. As the petitioner in this case was never placed in confinement, the prescription of the penalty did not run in her favor. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TOPIC: Crimes Against Public Order: Evasion of Service of service of his sentence".

    Sentence  Elements of evasion of service of sentence are:


    o the offender is a convict by final judgment;
    Tanega v Masakayan o he "is serving his sentence which consists in
    GR No. L-27191 deprivation of liberty";
    o he evades service of sentence by escaping
    Date of Promulgation: February 28,1967 during the term of his sentence.
    Ponente: Sanchez, J.  Article 157: provides for a higher penalty if such
    Petitioner: Adelaida Tanega "evasion or escape shall have taken by means of
    Respondent: Hon. Honorato B. Masakayan, In His Capacity As unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates,
    Judge Of The Court Of First Instance Of Rizal, Branch V, And walls, roofs, or floors or by using picklocks, false keys,
    The Chief Of Police Of Quezon City disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through
    Nature: original petition for certiorari and prohibition connivance with other convicts or employees of the
    Digest By:PSPambid penal institution, ... "
     evasion of sentence is but another expression of the
    term "jail breaking"
    Doctrine: Art 157. Elements of evasion of service of  Petitioner was never placed in confinement and the
    sentence include: (3) he evades service of sentence by prescription of penalty does not run in her favor.
    escaping during the term of his sentence. Prescription of
    penalties commences only if the convict escapes. Dispositive:
    Petition DISMISSED.
    Brief: Petitioner was convicted of slander and was sentenced
    to arresto mayor. She failed to show up when a warrant for
    her arrest was issued, and was never arrested. After a year,
    she claims that the prescription of the penalty has already
    prescribed. Respondent judge ruled otherwise. SC concurs.

    Facts:
     Petitioner was convicted of slander by the City Court of
    Quezon City.
     She was found guilty once again by the Court of First
    Instance where she was sentenced to 20 days of
    arresto menor, to indemnify the offended party, Pilar B.
    Julio, in the sum of P100.00, with the corresponding
    subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs.
     The Court of First Instance of Quezon City, on January
    11, 1965, directed that execution of the sentence be
    set for January 27, 1965. On petitioner's motion,
    execution was deferred to February 12, 1965, at 8:30
    a.m. At the appointed day and hour, petitioner failed to
    show up. This prompted the respondent judge, on
    February 15, 1965, to issue a warrant for her arrest,
    and on March 23, 1965 an alias warrant of arrest.
     Petitioner was never arrested.
     Petitioner moved to quash the warrants of arrest of
    February 15, 1965 and March 23, 1965. (Ground:
    Penalty has prescribed.)
     On December 19, 1966, the respondent judge ruled
    that "the penalty imposed upon the accused has to be
    served", rejected the plea of prescription of penalty
    and, instead, directed the issuance of another alias
    warrant of arrest. Hence, the present petition.

    SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
    Issue: WON Prescription of sentence has commenced
    Held: NO
    Ratio:

     Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00 constitute a light


    penalty.
     By Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code, light penalties
    "imposed by final sentence" prescribe in one year.
     The period of prescription of penalties — so the
    succeeding Article 93 provides — "shall commence to
    run from the date when the culprit should evade the

    You might also like