CALSADO, LOURDES ANTONETTE V.

151662

ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner vs.HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity

as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE
OF QUEZON CITY, respondents
G.R. no. L-27191, February 28, 1967
Sanchez, J.
FACTS:
The City Court of Quezon City had found Adelaida Tanega guilty of slander and 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. She
repeatedly appealed the decision at different court but the courts merely affirmed the City
Court’s decision. The CFI ordered the execution of sentence to begin on January 27, 1965 but it
was deferred to February 12, 1965 after Tanega filed a motion to defer execution. On February
12, 1965, Tanega did not show up which prompted Masakayan to issue an arrest warrant on
February 15, 1965 and an alias warrant of arrest on March 23, 1965 but Tanega was never
arrested. On December 10, 1966, Tanega filed a motion to quash the arrest warrants on the
ground that the penalty has prescribed. Nine days later, Masakayan ruled that the penalty has to
be served and issued another alias warrant of arrest. Hence, Tanega filed petition for certiorari
and prohibition to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the penalty given has prescribed? NO
RULING:
For the reasons given, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
No costs. So ordered.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The penalty has not yet prescribed because the Tanega was never arrested. Tanega was convicted
by final judgment of slander and was given a light penalty which should have prescribed after
one year under Article 92 of the RPC but Article 93 of the same, provides that prescription will
only prescribe, if the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. Article 157 of the RPC
supplies us the elements of evasion of service which are:(1) the offender is a convict by final
judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he
evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. With all this considered,
it is clear that prescription cannot apply in the case of Adelaida Tanega.