You are on page 1of 2

ALFREDO RODILLAS Y BONDOC v.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-58652, May 20, 1988
Article 224. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners
Facts: Alfredo Rodillas is a policeman specially charged with the duty of keeping under
his custody one Zenaida Sacris Andres, a detention prisoner being tried for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.
After the hearing, Rodillas allowed Zenaida to have lunch with her husband. While
eating, Zenaidas husband asked Rodillas if he could accompany his wife to the comfort
room as she was not feeling well and felt like defecating. The accused accompanied
Zenaida and a lady companion to the ladies comfort room while he stood guard along
the alley facing the door, without first ascertaining for himself whether said comfort room
is safe and without any egress by which the said detention prisoner could escape.
Not long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out and told him that she was going
to buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes elapsed without the lady
companion of Zenaida coming back, the accused entered the comfort room. To his
surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the comfort room. He noticed that the
window of said comfort room was not provided with window grills.
Rodillas formally reported the matter to his superior officer at the City Jail. The
Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Infidelity in
the Custody of Prisoner Thru Negligence under Article 224 of the RPC.
Issue: W/N Rodillas is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner
Held: Yes. The elements of the crime under Article 224 are: a) that the offender is a
public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner,
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such prisoner
escapes through his negligence.
There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer. Neither is there any dispute as
to the fact that he was charged with the custody of a prisoner who was being tried for a
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
The only disputed issue is the petitioners negligence resulting in the escape of
detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to is such definite laxity
as all but amounts to a deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the
guard.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted negligently and beyond the scope
of his authority when he permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her
escape. As a police officer who was charged with the duty to return the prisoner directly
to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearly a violation of the regulations.

In the first place, it was improper for the petitioner to take lunch with the prisoner and
her family when he was supposed to bring his charge to the jail. He even allowed the
prisoner and her husband to talk to each other at the request of a co-officer.
It is the duty of any police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary
precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake
these precautions will make his act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting
to deliberate non-performance of duty.
The arrangement with a lady friend should have aroused the petitioners suspicion
because the only pretext given by the prisoner was that she was going to answer the
call of nature. It was, therefore, unnecessary for her to be accompanied by anyone.
Despite this, the petitioner allowed the two to enter the comfort room without first
establishing for himself that there was no window or door allowing the possibility of
escape. He even allowed the prisoner's companion to leave the premises with the
excuse that there was a need to buy sanitary napkins. And he patiently waited for more
than ten minutes for the companion to return. This was patent negligence on the part of
the police officer.
The petitioner further contends that he cannot be convicted because there was no
connivance between him and the prisoner. However, the petitioner is not being charged
with conniving under Article 223 but for evasion through negligence under Article 224. It
is, therefore, not necessary that connivance be proven to hold him liable for the
crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision of the
Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED.
Note: Article 224 of the RPC provides,
ART. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken
place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of
the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification.

You might also like