Parulan v. Director of Prisons
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo Parulan was serving a sentence of life imprisonment, commuted to twenty (20) years, at the state penitentiary. In October 1964, he was transferred to Fort Bonifacio and subsequently escaped. He was recaptured in the City of Manila. Procedural History: Petitioner was prosecuted for evasion of service of sentence before the Court of First Instance of Manila. He was found guilty and sentenced accordingly on August 3, 1966. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his confinement was illegal due to the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person and the offense charged.
Issue(s)
Was the Court of First Instance of Manila with jurisdiction to try and decide the case and to impose the sentence upon Ricardo Parulan for the offense of evasion of service of sentence?
Ruling
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try and decide the case and impose the sentence upon Ricardo Parulan for the crime of evasion of service of sentence. The Court explained that evasion of service of sentence is a 'transitory or continuing offense.' Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, criminal actions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place. For continuing offenses, while the elements for consummation may occur in a single place, the violation of the law is deemed ongoing. As such, the act of an escaped prisoner moving from one place to another constitutes a continuous act, maintaining the commission of the crime as long as he continues to evade his sentence. Therefore, Parulan's recapture in the City of Manila meant that Manila was a place where the continuing crime was being committed, thus vesting the Court of First Instance of Manila with jurisdiction. This principle is further supported by the right to arrest without warrant, as provided in Rule 113, Section 6[c] of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows for the arrest of a person who has escaped from confinement, on the premise that the escapee is continuously committing the crime of evading service of sentence at the time of arrest.
Main Doctrine
A crime of evasion of service of sentence is considered a continuing offense, allowing prosecution in any court where any essential ingredient of the offense took place, including the place where the escaped prisoner is found evading service.