Jovendo Del Castillo vs Hon. Rosario Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033.

December 18,

2002.
Facts:
In Barangay Ombao, Camarines Norte the accused unlawfully conducted himself
in a disorderly manner, by striking the electric bulb and two (2) kerosene petromax
lamps lighting the room where voting center no. 24 is located, during the counting of the
votes in said voting center plunging the room in complete darkness, thereby interrupting
and disrupting the proceedings of the Board of Election Tellers.
He was declared guilty by the RTC. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the
Court of Appeals which eventually affirmed the decision of the trial court. Execution of
judgment was scheduled on October 14, 1987. His counsel motioned to reset the
execution of judgment which was denied. During the execution petitioner failed to
appear. The court was prompted to issue an order for his arrest. He was never
apprehended and he remained at large.
Ten years later petitioner filed before the trial court a motion to
quash the warrant issued for his arrest on the ground of prescription of the penalty
imposed upon him. He asserts that that the period of prescription shall commence to
run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. The Court
of Appeals, in its interpretation of the said provision, engaged in judicial legislation when
it added the phrase by escaping
during the term of the sentence.
Issue: Whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has prescribed?
Held:
The Court held, that in order for prescription to take place the following elements
must concur:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence; 2. That the convict evaded the service
of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence; 3. That the convict who
escaped from prison has not given himself up, or been captured, or gone
to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty or committed another
crime; 4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time form the date of
the evasion of the service of the sentence by the convict.
From the elements, it is clear that the penalty imposed has not prescribed
because the circumstances of the case failed to satisfy the second element, That the
convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during the service of his
sentence. As a matter of fact, the petitioner never served a single minute of his
sentence.