Luna v. Warden of Provincial Prison of Batangas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Severino Luna was found guilty of vagrancy under Act No. 519 and sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment. While serving this sentence, he was convicted of theft and sentenced to three months of arresto mayor, to commence after the vagrancy sentence. Petitioner escaped after serving seven months and sixteen days of the vagrancy sentence and remained at large until his apprehension on January 19, 1923. Procedural History: Upon apprehension, petitioner was recommitted to prison to continue serving his sentences. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the penalties imposed had prescribed under Article 132 of the Penal Code. The Petition: Petitioner seeks his liberty on the ground that the penalties imposed for vagrancy and theft have prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the penalty for theft, a correctional penalty, has prescribed. Whether the penalty for vagrancy, imposed under Act No. 519, has prescribed.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The penalty for theft has prescribed, but the penalty for vagrancy has not.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prescription of the penalty for theft: The Court held that the penalty of three months of arresto mayor has prescribed. Arresto mayor is classified as a correctional penalty under the Penal Code. Article 132 of the Penal Code provides that correctional penalties prescribe in ten years. The prescription period began to run upon the escape of the convict from prison. Since the petitioner escaped and remained at large, and the period for prescription of correctional penalties is ten years, the penalty for theft has indeed prescribed. On the prescription of the penalty for vagrancy: The Court found the situation with respect to the penalty for vagrancy to be different. The penalty was imposed under Act No. 519, which prescribes simple imprisonment and is not classified according to the scheme in the Penal Code. There is no special provision for its prescription. If it is prescribable at all, it must be under the general provisions of Article 132 of the Penal Code. However, Article 132 specifically relates to classified penalties, such as death, cadena perpetua, afflictive, and correctional penalties, with varying prescription periods. The Court observed that it would be wholly impracticable to apply this article to unclassified simple imprisonment. Consequently, as there is no other provision for the prosecution of the penalty, the petitioner remains liable to serve the remaining portion of his sentence for vagrancy. The Court also referenced the case of United States vs. Lao Lock Hing, which held that acts punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Penal Code, though it noted potential doubt regarding the reasoning that a law of general application could be considered a special law.
Main Doctrine
The penalty for vagrancy under Act No. 519, being simple imprisonment and not classified under the Penal Code, is not subject to the prescription periods provided in Article 132 of the Penal Code, as the article applies only to classified penalties. Furthermore, penalties imposed under special laws may not be subject to the general provisions of the Penal Code.