G.R. No.

L-1960 November 26, 1948

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FLORENTINO ABILONG, defendant-appellant.
Carlos Perfecto for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and Solicitor Manuel Tomacruz for appellee.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Florentino Abilong was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with evasion of service of sentence under the
following information:
That on or about the 17th day of September, 1947, in the City of Manila, Philippines, 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.
Contrary to law.
Upon arraignment he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
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:
1. 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."
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.
The Solicitor General in his brief says that had the original text of the Revised Penal Code been in the English
language, then the theory of the appellant could be uphold. However, it is the Spanish text that is controlling in case
of doubt. The Spanish text of article 157 in part reads thus:
ART. 157. Quebrantamiento de sentencia. Sera castigado con prision correccional en sus grados medio y
maximo el sentenciado que quebrantare su condena, fugandose mientras estuviere sufriendo privacion de
libertad por sentencia firme; . . . .
We agree with the Solicitor General that inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originally approved and enacted
in Spanish, the Spanish text governs (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665, 668). 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. It is equally clear that although the Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not constituting
imprisonment, it 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. This view has been adopted in the case
of People vs. Samonte, No. 36559 (July 26, 1932; 57 Phil., 968) wherein this Court held, as quoted in the brief of the
Solicitor General that "it is clear that a person under sentence of destierro is suffering deprivation of his liberty and
escapes from the restrictions of the penalty when he enters the prohibited area." Said ruling in that case was ratified
by this Court, though, indirectly in the case of People vs. Jose de Jesus, (45 Off. Gaz. Supp. to No. 9, p. 370)1, where
it was held that one evades the service of his sentence of destierro when he enters the prohibited area specified in
the judgment of conviction, and he cannot invoke the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which provides
that its provisions do not apply to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.
In conclusion we find and hold that the appellant 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.
Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant.
So ordered.