Title
Supreme Court
Pineda vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 228232
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2023
Police officer convicted for evasion negligence due to prisoner escape; Supreme Court reversed due to Information defects violating right to be informed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 115455)

Background of the Case

In Criminal Case No. 462935-CR, PO2 Arthur Pineda was charged with Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion after a detention prisoner he was guarding escaped while on hospital arrest. The charge stemmed from an incident on July 30, 2010, where it was alleged that Pineda left his post for an excessive period, allowing the prisoner, Marcelino Nicolas, to abscond.

Prosecution's Case

The prosecution presented evidence, including testimony from Alicia Go Tan, the head nurse at the Metropolitan Medical Center. She confirmed that during her shift, the prisoner was stable but unsupervised due to Pineda's absence. The records indicated that Pineda left his post without being relieved, thus enabling the escape.

Defense's Argument

Pineda defended himself by asserting he was only temporarily away for a lunch break and to assist in a robbery incident. He claimed no intent or connivance existed regarding the prisoner's escape. His testimony was corroborated by other officers present.

Lower Court's Decisions

The Metropolitan Trial Court found Pineda guilty under Article 223, sentencing him to imprisonment and imposing a temporary special disqualification. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court modified the conviction to Evasion through Negligence under Article 224, stating that petitioner acted negligently by leaving his post.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, agreeing that the Information indicated a violation of Article 224 rather than Article 223. It confirmed that Pineda's negligence was evident in failing to maintain custody of the prisoner.

Petitioner's Arguments to the Supreme Court

Pineda's petition contested the validity of the Information filed, asserting it lacked proper notice of the charges and that the shift in legal theory from conniving to negligence violated his rights. He argued that even if guilty, the penalty imposed was excessive and should correlate directly to a proven infraction.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court determined that the Information was validly filed and adequately informed Pineda of the charges against him. Howeve

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.