Scribd
Upload
155 views1 page

6 People vs. Abilong

Florentino Abilong was sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years and 4 months. However, he was later charged with attempted robbery in Manila. He argued that destierro is not covered by Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which criminalizes evasion of service of sentence. The Solicitor General argued that the Spanish text of the RPC is controlling, and it does consider destierro a sentence that can be evaded. The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General, finding that the Spanish text governs and Abilong was guilty of evading his sentence under Article 157.

Uploaded by

KJPL_1987
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
155 views1 page

6 People vs. Abilong

Florentino Abilong was sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years and 4 months. However, he was later charged with attempted robbery in Manila. He argued that destierro is not covered by Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which criminalizes evasion of service of sentence. The Solicitor General argued that the Spanish text of the RPC is controlling, and it does consider destierro a sentence that can be evaded. The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General, finding that the Spanish text governs and Abilong was guilty of evading his sentence under Article 157.

Uploaded by

KJPL_1987
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y.

2017-2018

CASE DIGEST G.R. No.: L-1960. 26 November 1948


CASE TITLE: The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Florentino Abilong, defendant-
appellant

FACTS: Abilong was charged with evasion of service of sentence. On September 17, 1947, the
accused was sentenced of distierro which he could not enter within 100 KMs from the City of
Manila for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day. Then on April 5, 1946, Abilong was charged for
attempted robbery. Upon arraignment that the lower court erred in imposing a penalty on the
accused under article 157 of the RPC, which does not cover evasion of service of “destierro.”
The Solicitor General in his brief says that had the original text of the Revised Penal Code been
in the English language, then the theory of the appellant could be upheld. However, it is the
Spanish text that is controlling in case of doubt. In conclusion, the appellant was guilty of
evasion of service of sentence under article 157 of the revised penal code. The court agreed
witht the Solicitor General that the RPC was originally approved and enacted in Spanish in
Spanish. The Spanish text governs.

ISSUE/S:
1.) 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
2.) whether or not the Spanish text conveys a thing different from that which can be read in the
English text.
3.) whether the lower court erred in imposing a penalty on the accused under the article 157 of
the
RPC
HELD/RULING:
1.) No, the reason for this is that the view of the solicitor general has been adopted by the SC in
the case of PoP vs Samonte. In conclusion the court find and hold the appellant guilty of
evasion of service of sentence under article 157 of RPC during that the period his sentence of
desterrio by virtue of final judgement wherein he was prohibited from entering the city of
manila, he entered the city.

You might also like