G.R. No. 228232 - Pineda vs. People

Police Officer 2 Arthur M. Pineda (petitioner), a member of the Manila Police District assigned at Raxabago Police Station (PS1), was charged with Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge arose from the escape of detainee Marcelino Nicolas, who was under hospital arrest at the Metropolitan Medical Center.
Nicolas was a detention prisoner charged with murder and confined in Room 508 of the hospital, guarded by police officers including the petitioner.
The Information alleged that petitioner willfully and unlawfully caused Nicolas’ escape by leaving his post unattended, thereby giving opportunity for Nicolas to abscond.

Alicia Go Tan, the head nurse on duty on July 30, 2010, testified that Nicolas was stable but still needed supervision. He was never handcuffed.
At around 1:30 p.m., she left the room to get a new intravenous set and discovered Nicolas had absconded upon her return.
Security logs show petitioner left his post from 11:15 a.m. to 2:35 p.m. and did not return after the escape.

Petitioner testified that he was assigned to secure Nicolas only that day, inspected the room and Nicolas’s condition, and then obtained permission from a hospital security guard to eat lunch outside.
While outside, petitioner was asked by barangay officials to assist in a snatching/robbery incident and rendered police assistance until about 2:00 p.m.
Upon return, he learned of Nicolas’s escape and coordinated for back-up to secure the hospital exits.
His account was corroborated by Police Chief Inspector Antonio Macam, PO1 Emmanuel Lapuz, and Punong Barangay Susan Duanan.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (May 16, 2012) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion under Article 223, sentencing him to arresto mayor (minimum) to prision correccional (maximum) and imposing temporary special disqualification.
It held that petitioner left his post without being properly relieved, which amounted to consent to the prisoner’s evasion.

The Regional Trial Court (Nov 26, 2012) modified the verdict, convicting petitioner instead of Evasion through Negligence under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, because the Information did not allege connivance or consent.
It noted petitioner was negligent for leaving his post unattended, thus allowing Nicolas to escape.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for Evasion through Negligence on July 14, 2016.
It agreed that the correct charge was under Article 224 despite the Information’s caption.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 14, 2016.

Petitioner contests the conviction arguing violation of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation due to errors in the Information.
He also claims he should only be administratively liable and challenges the duration of the temporary special disqualification penalty.
The Office of the Solicitor General defends the validity of the Information and sufficiency of the evidence.

Whether the Information was validly filed against petitioner under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Whether petitioner was duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Whether petitioner was correctly convicted of Evasion through Negligence under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code.