People v Abilong GR No: L-1960 November 26, 1948

FACTS:

Florentino Abilong was found guilty of the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
evasion of service of sentence to wit: He was convicted on September 17, 1947, in
Manila, then being a convict sentenced and ordered to serve 2 years, four 4 months
and one 1 day of destierro. During said period he is prohibited from entering within
one hundred 100 kilometer radius of Manila. He was sentenced for the crime of
robbery by the municipal court in April 1946 for attempted robbery. It is further
said that he evaded his sentence by going beyond the set limits and
committed vagrancy. Defendant pled guilty to Charge of the Lower Court. He was
sentenced to two 2 years, four 4 months and one 1 day of prision correcional.
However, his counsel filed an appeal stating that Article 157 of the Revised Penal
Code refers to those who are completely deprived of liberty. His client being
sentenced to destierro does that qualify since he was not sentenced with
imprisonment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellant, for having violated his judgment of destierro rendered by
the Municipal Court of Manila, can be sentenced under article 157 of the Revised
Penal Code.

RULING:

Yes. Though the court agreed that it is a well settled rule that the Spanish Text of
the Revised Penal Code, the defendant entered manila within effectivity of his
penalty. As a General Rule, the Spanish Text of the Revised Penal Code
takes precedence over the English Translation. In the case of Article 157,
destierro does not mean imprisonment. The translation of the phrase “sufriendo
privacion de Libertad” as same as “imprisonment” is erroneous. It is clear that the
word "imprisonment" used in the English text is a wrong or erroneous translation of
the phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the Spanish text. It is equally
clear that although the Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not
constituting imprisonment, it is a deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the sense
that as in the present case, the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived
of the liberty to enter the City of Manila. Under the case of People vs. Samonte, as
quoted in the brief of the Solicitor General that "it is clear that a person under
sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of his liberty and escapes from the
restrictions of the penalty when he enters the prohibited area."