Scribd
Upload
70 views

Case Digest of People Vs Abilong 82 Phil 174

Florentino Abilong was sentenced to destierro, or banishment from Manila for 2 years and 4 months for attempted robbery. He appealed, arguing that evading destierro is not criminally liable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which refers to "imprisonment". The Court ruled that the Spanish text of Article 157 governs, as the code was originally approved in Spanish. The Spanish text refers to "deprivation of liberty", of which destierro is a form. Therefore, evading a sentence of destierro can constitute evasion of sentence under Article 157.

Uploaded by

Lord Jester Aguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views

Case Digest of People Vs Abilong 82 Phil 174

Florentino Abilong was sentenced to destierro, or banishment from Manila for 2 years and 4 months for attempted robbery. He appealed, arguing that evading destierro is not criminally liable under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code, which refers to "imprisonment". The Court ruled that the Spanish text of Article 157 governs, as the code was originally approved in Spanish. The Spanish text refers to "deprivation of liberty", of which destierro is a form. Therefore, evading a sentence of destierro can constitute evasion of sentence under Article 157.

Uploaded by

Lord Jester Aguirre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs Abilong

82 Phil 174

Facts:

 Florentino Abilong was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with evasion of service of
sentence.
 Florentino Abilong was 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 for attempted robbery.
 Florentino Abilong appealing from that decision where he believes that t 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 Florentino Abilong contends 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:
o 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:
o 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;

Issue:

 Whether or not evasion of service of sentence punished under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code may
only be committed by a person penalized with imprisonment.

Ruling:

 No, Inasmuch as 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 privación 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.
 One who, sentenced to destierro by virtue of final judgment, and prohibited from entering the City of
Manila, enters said’ city within the period of his sentence, is guilty of evasion of sentence under article
157, Revised Penal Code (Spanish text).

You might also like