​Basilonia vs. Villaruz

​Basilonia vs. Villaruz
Facts:
On June 19, 1987, a decision was promulgated against the petitioners, wherein the court finds the GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of murder of Attorney Isagani Roblete on September 15, 1983 in Roxas City, Philippines with no aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The petitioners appealed but was denied by the CA. After two decades from the entry of judgement Dixon Roblete the son of the deceased Atty. Roblete filed a motion for execution on May 11, 2009, alleging, among others, that despite his request to the City Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, the judgment has not been enforced because said prosecutor has not acted upon is request. Pursuant to the trial court's directive, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed on May 22, 2009 an Omnibus Motion for Execution of Judgment and Issuance of Warrant of Arrest. That the petitioners would like to avail bail however they did not appear before the court which forfeited their manifestation for bail and that the court issued a writ of execution.
Issue:
Whether or not a trial court has jurisdiction to grant writ of execution which was filed 20 years ago
Held:
Yes because the prescription of penalty will only commence when they were put in custody or in prison which does not happened in this case for the longest time, despite that they were sentenced by final judgment, thus the prescription will not run in their favor. Therefore the court did not commit any wrong to grant the execution. Moreover, thus every criminally liable is also civilly liable therefore the writ of execution of final judgement does not expired and the court has jurisdiction to issue and take eefect the writ of execution.