Tuozo, Lourdes Clouie D.

14-2867
Case No. 29
Adelaida Tanega v Hon. Honorato Masakayan
G.R. No. L-2719, February 28, 1967
Sanchez, J.;
Facts:
Petitioner Tanega was found guilty of slander by the City Court of Quezon City.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, but CFI affirmed the decision of
the City Court. Petitioner 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 Appeals affirmed the decision and declined to review on certiorari.
The CFI directed that the execution of the sentence will be on January 11, 1965. The petitioner
filed a motion to defer the execution on February 12, 1965 at 8:30 am. Petitioner failed to show
up on the said date and time. Respondent, Judge Masakayan, then issued a warrant of arrest on
February 15, 1965 and on March 23, 1965 an alias warrant of arrest. The petitioner was never
arrested.
On December 10, 1965 the petitioner’s counsel moved to quash the warrants of arrest
dated February 15 and March 23, 1965 on the ground that the penalty has prescribed.

Issue:
Whether the penalty already prescribed

Ruling:
No.
Article 93 of the RPC provides that “The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to
run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence xxx”. Accordingly,
article 157 of the RPC provides the requisites to constitute an evasion of service—when the
offender is a convict by final judgement, the sentence consists of deprivation of liberty, and the
convict escaped during the term of his imprisonment.
Petitioner Tanega was convicted by final judgement, however, she was never arrested. There was
no evasion of service for the convict did not “escape during the term of her imprisonment”. She
never served her sentence in the first place.
Hence, the period of prescription cannot apply in her favor for she was never placed in
confinement.