Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    People Vs Abilong

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    Florentino Abilong was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day. He was later charged with evading his sentence by entering Manila. The issue is whether evading a sentence of destierro falls under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits evading imprisonment. The Court held that destierro involves a deprivation of liberty, so Article 157 applies. One justice dissented, arguing destierro allowed freedom of movement outside Manila so it was not an imprisonment that could be evaded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Abilong

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    3K views2 pages
    Florentino Abilong was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day. He was later charged with evading his sentence by entering Manila. The issue is whether evading a sentence of destierro falls under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits evading imprisonment. The Court held that destierro involves a deprivation of liberty, so Article 157 applies. One justice dissented, arguing destierro allowed freedom of movement outside Manila so it was not an imprisonment that could be evaded.

    Original Title

    People vs Abilong

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Florentino Abilong was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day. He was later charged with evading his sentence by entering Manila. The issue is whether evading a sentence of destierro falls under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits evading imprisonment. The Court held that destierro involves a deprivation of liberty, so Article 157 applies. One justice dissented, arguing destierro allowed freedom of movement outside Manila so it was not an imprisonment that could be evaded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    3K views2 pages

    People Vs Abilong

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    Florentino Abilong was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to destierro, which prohibited him from entering Manila for 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day. He was later charged with evading his sentence by entering Manila. The issue is whether evading a sentence of destierro falls under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits evading imprisonment. The Court held that destierro involves a deprivation of liberty, so Article 157 applies. One justice dissented, arguing destierro allowed freedom of movement outside Manila so it was not an imprisonment that could be evaded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE VS ABILONG

    Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Defendant: FLORENTINO ABILONG

    MONTEMAYOR, J.:

    Facts:

    Florentino Abilong was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with evasion of
    service of sentence. The said accused, being then a convict sentenced and ordered to
    serve two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of destierro during which he should not
    enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometers from the City of Manila, by virtue of final
    judgment rendered by the municipal court on April 5, 1946, in criminal case No. B-4795 for
    attempted robbery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously evade the service of
    said sentence by going beyond the limits made against him and commit vagrancy.

    Upon arraignment he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two (2) years, four (4) months
    and one (1) day ofprision correccional, with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay the
    costs. He is appealing from that decision with the following assignment of error:

    Counsel for the appellant contends that a person like the accused evading a sentence
    of destierro is not criminally liable under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
    particularly article 157 of the said Code for the reason that said article 157 refers only to
    persons who are imprisoned in a penal institution and completely deprived of their liberty. He
    bases his contention on the word "imprisonment" used in the English text of said article
    which in part reads as follows:

    Evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium


    and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of
    his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final
    judgment.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the lower court erred in imposing a penalty on the accused under article 157
    of the Revised Penal Code, which does not cover evasion of service of "destierro."

    Held:

    It is the Spanish text that is controlling in case of doubt for the Revised Penal Code was
    originally approved and enacted in Spanish, the Spanish text governs.

    It is clear that the word "imprisonment" used in the English text is a wrong or erroneous
    translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the Spanish text.
    Destierro is a deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the sense that as in the present case,
    the appellant by his sentence of destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the City of
    Manila.

    Hence, appellant Abilong is guilty of evasion of service of sentence under article 157 of the
    Revised Penal Code (Spanish text), in that during the period of his sentence of destierro by
    virtue of final judgment wherein he was prohibited from entering the City of Manila, he
    entered said City.

    Separate Opinions

    PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

    The "destierro" imposed on appellant banished him from Manila alone, and he was free to
    stay in all the remaining parts of the country, and to go and stay in any part of the globe
    outside the country. With freedom to move all over the world, it is farfetched to allege that he
    is in any confinement from which he could escape.

    BRIONES, J., concurring:

    I concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion, because evidently the word "fugandose" in the
    Spanish text refers to imprisonment, not to destierro.

    You might also like