Facts:

Del Castillo was charged for violation of Section 178(nn) of the 1978 Election Code. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years as maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. During the execution of judgment on October 14, 1987, petitioner was not present. The presiding Judge issued an order of arrest and the confiscation of his bond. Petitioner was never apprehended. 10 years later, petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest on the ground that the penalty imposed upon him had already prescribed. The motion was denied by the trial court.


Issue:

Whether the penalty imposed upon Del Castillo had prescribed


Held:

No. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, "escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.

In the instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. In fact, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he was already in hiding. Now petitioner begs for the compassion of the Court because he has ceased to live a life of peace and tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the execution of his sentence. But it was petitioner who chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords compassion only to those who are deserving. Petitioner’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt but he refused to answer for the wrong he committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor. (Del Castillo vs. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002)