Scribd
Upload
187 views1 page

Tanega Vs Masakayan

Adelaida Tanega Tanega was found guilty of slander and sentenced to 20 days in jail and a fine. She failed to surrender on the date set for serving her sentence. Over a year later, she argued she could no longer be arrested because the penalty had prescribed. The resolution found that for the prescription period to start running for a prison sentence, the offender must escape during the term of the imprisonment imposed by the final judgment, which Tanega did not do, so the penalty had not prescribed.

Uploaded by

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

Tanega Vs Masakayan

Adelaida Tanega Tanega was found guilty of slander and sentenced to 20 days in jail and a fine. She failed to surrender on the date set for serving her sentence. Over a year later, she argued she could no longer be arrested because the penalty had prescribed. The resolution found that for the prescription period to start running for a prison sentence, the offender must escape during the term of the imprisonment imposed by the final judgment, which Tanega did not do, so the penalty had not prescribed.

Uploaded by

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

27. Tanega vs. Masakayan G.R. No.

L-27191

Facts:

Adelaida Tanega Tanega was found guilty of slander. She was sentenced to 20 days of
arresto menor, to indemnify the offended party, Pilar B. Julio, in the sum of P100.00, with the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs. Court of First Instance of Quezon
City said that execution of the sentence be set for January 27, 1965. On petitioner's motion,
execution was deferred to February 12, 1965, at 8:30 a.m. At the appointed day and hour,
petitioner failed to show up. This prompted the respondent judge, on February 15, 1965, to
issue a warrant for her arrest, and on March 23, 1965 an alias warrant of arrest. Petitioner was
never arrested.

Contention of the accused:

(December 10, 1966) She can no longer be arrested because the penalty has prescribed.

Resolution:

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.7 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 judgment." That escape should take
place while serving sentence, is emphasized by the provisions of the second sentence.

We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final
sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy