Case Digest (G.R. No. 228232)
Facts:
Police Officer 2 Arthur M. Pineda, while posted as guard at the Metropolitan Medical Center on July 30, 2010, was charged after detainee Marcelino Nicolas escaped from custody; the Metropolitan Trial Court convicted him of conniving/consenting to evasion under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code, the Regional Trial Court modified the conviction to evasion through negligence under Article 224, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
- Was the Information validly filed in view of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court?
- Was petitioner duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as guaranteed by Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 6, Rule 110?
- Was petitioner correctly convicted of Evasion through Negligence under Article 224?
Ruling:
The Court held that the Information was validly filed in conformity with Section 4, Rule 112, and petitioner’s belated objection to the prosecutor’s authority was waived. Nevertheless, the Court found the Information ambiguous and deficient to inform petitioner of the specific offense because it alleged willful acts and grave abuse inconsistent with the element of consent required by Article 223, and did not properly plead negligence essential to Article 224. Because the two offenses are distinct and the ambiguity misled petitioner’s defense, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered petitioner’s acquittal.
Ratio:
An information must allege every essential element of the offense to enable the accused to prepare a defense (per Section 6, Rule 110); the Information here failed to plead the element of consent or connivance required by Article 223 and likewise did not allege negligence required by Article 224. Conspiracy and intent intrinsic to Article 223 (dolo) are inconsistent with culpable negligence (culpa) under Article 224, so one offense does not necessarily include the other under Section 4, Rule 120; any ambiguity in the Information is resolved in favor of the accused under constitutional due process, warranting acquittal.
Doctrine:
- An information must state all essential elements of the offense to satisfy the accused’s right to be informed (Section 6, Rule 110).
- Article 223 (conniving/consenting to evasion) and Article 224 (evasion through negligence) are distinct offenses with different essential elements and mental states.
- One offense is not deemed necessarily included in the other when essential elements of the charged offense do not constitute the proved offense (Section 4, Rule 120).
- Ambiguities or deficiencies in an information are resolved in favor of the accused, and such uncertainty may require acquittal.
- A tardy objection to the prior written authority of the prosecutor under Section 4, Rule 112 is generally waived when raised after arraignment or on appeal.