PANGAN vs.

GATBALITE
(G.R. No. 141718, January 21, 2005)
Extinction of Criminal Liability

FACTS:
A certain Mr. Benjamin Pangan herein referred to as the petitioner, in its inability to attend
hearings his legal counsel was prompted to submit the case for decision without offering any
evidence, was sentenced for a simple seduction case and thereafter ordered to serve a penalty of
two months and one day of arresto mayor.
On appeal the RTC upheld in toto the judgment of the MTC. Due to the absence of the
counsel for the petitioner on the promulgation of the case in the MTC and the inability of the
petitioner to be at his arraignment MTC booked the decision in the criminal docket of the court
thereupon released the warrant of arrest of the petitioner.
The petitioner remained at large for at least nine (9) years when he was arrested and
detained. The petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the RTC and insisted that
his arrest was illegal and unjustified. The trial court then denied the said petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not having been able to continuously evade service of sentence for almost nine
years, his criminal liability has long been totally extinguished under No. 6, Article 89 [of
the] Revised Penal Code.

RULING:
YES. In this case, the essential element of prescription which is the evasion of the service
of sentence is absent. Admittedly, the petitioner has not served the penalty imposed on him
in prison and that during the service of the sentence, he escaped therefrom. It could also be
noted that at time of the trial and arraignment the petitioner remained to be absent and
remained at large.
"There was no evasion of the service of the sentence in this case, because such evasion
presupposes escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of
liberty." (Infante vs. Warden, 48 O.G. No. 122) (92 Phil. 310). Since petitioner never
suffered deprivation of liberty before his arrest, and as a consequence never evaded
sentence by escaping during the term of his service, the period of prescription never began.
However, by this time, petitioner has fully served his sentence and should be released
unless he is detained for another offense or charge.