People v. Abilong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Florentino Abilong was charged with evasion of service of sentence for violating a sentence of destierro imposed by the municipal court of Manila. The sentence prohibited him from entering any place within a 100-kilometer radius of Manila. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Abilong pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional. He appealed the decision. The Petition: The appellant contended that Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes evasion of service of sentence, does not cover evasion of destierro because the English text uses the word "imprisonment," implying confinement in a penal institution.
Issue(s)
Whether evasion of the sentence of destierro is punishable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the English text or the Spanish text of Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code should govern in case of doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding Florentino Abilong guilty of evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether evasion of the sentence of destierro is punishable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that it is punishable. The appellant's contention that Article 157 only applies to those serving sentences involving actual imprisonment is based on the English text of the provision. However, the Court emphasized that the Spanish text is controlling in case of doubt, as the Revised Penal Code was originally enacted in Spanish. The Spanish text uses the phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" (suffering deprivation of liberty), which is broader than "imprisonment" and includes the partial deprivation of liberty inherent in destierro. The Court cited previous rulings in People vs. Samonte and People vs. Jose de Jesus which established that a person under sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of liberty and evades service of sentence when they enter the prohibited area. On the issue of whether the English text or the Spanish text of Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code should govern in case of doubt: The Court ruled that the Spanish text governs. This is because the Revised Penal Code was originally enacted in Spanish. The Court found that the word "imprisonment" in the English text was an erroneous translation of the Spanish phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad." Therefore, the interpretation of the law must be based on the controlling Spanish text, which clearly indicates that evasion of a sentence involving deprivation of liberty, such as destierro, is punishable under Article 157.
Main Doctrine
Evasion of the sentence of destierro is punishable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, as the Spanish text, which is controlling, uses the phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" (suffering deprivation of liberty), which encompasses destierro, unlike the English text's "imprisonment."