Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 428 views

    Tanega Vs Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. Ramon V. Sison for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. SANCHEZ, J.:

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tanega Vs Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    428 views1 page
    G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. Ramon V. Sison for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. SANCHEZ, J.:

    Original Title

    Tanega vs Masakayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. Ramon V. Sison for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. SANCHEZ, J.:

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    428 views1 page

    Tanega Vs Masakayan

    Uploaded by

    Bug Rancher
    G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. Ramon V. Sison for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. SANCHEZ, J.:

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-27191 February 28, 1967


    ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner,
    vs.
    HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First
    Instance of Rizal, Branch V, and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF QUEZON
    CITY, respondents.
    Ramon V. Sison for petitioner.
    Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

    SANCHEZ, J.:

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Adelaida Tanega appealed her conviction of the crime of slander to the City
    Court of Quezon City. Found guilty once again by the CFI, she was sentenced to suffer
    20 days of arresto menor. The CA affirmed her conviction. The City Court of Quezon
    City directed that the execution of the sentence be set for 27 January 1965. On
    petitioner’s motion, execution was deferred to 12 February 1965 at 8:30 AM. At the
    appointed day and hour, petitioner failed to appear prompting respondent Judge
    Masakayan to issue warrants for her arrest but the former was never arrested. More
    than a year later, -petitioner moved to =quash the warrants on the ground of
    prescription of penalty but such plea was rejected and respondent Judge issued another
    warrant of arrest.

    ISSUE:
    WON the penalty has prescribed

    HELD:
    No. The penalty has not prescribed. According to Article 92 of the RPC, penalties
    “imposed by final sentence” prescribe in one year. The period of prescription of
    penalties, so the succeeding Article 93 provides “shall commence to run from the date
    when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.” Under Art. 157 of the RPC,
    the elements of evasion of service of sentence are: (1) the offender is a convict by final
    judgment; (2) he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty; and (3)
    he evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. This must be
    so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a convict evades service of his sentence, by
    escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgement. Indeed,
    evasion of sentence is but another expression of the term jail breaking. For prescription
    of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit
    should escape during the term of such imprisonment. Adverting to the facts, we have
    here the case of a convict who – sentenced to imprisonment by final judgement, was
    thereafter never placed in confinement. Prescription of penalty, then, does not run in
    her favor.

    You might also like