Case Summary (G.R. No. 228232)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (specifically Section 14(2), Article III — right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation); Rules of Court provisions applied: Rule 112, Section 4 (prior written authority to file information), Rule 110, Section 6 (sufficiency of information), Rule 120, Section 4 (variance between allegation and proof); Penal law provisions at issue: Article 223 (Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion) and Article 224 (Evasion through Negligence) of the Revised Penal Code.
Core Facts — Prosecution Version
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily through the hospital head nurse Alicia Go Tan, establishes that on July 30, 2010 Marcelino Nicolas, confined under hospital arrest and guarded by police officers, absconded from Metropolitan Medical Center after an interval during which police guard coverage was absent. The incident report and security log purportedly reflect that the posted police officer (petitioner) left his place of assignment between 11:15 a.m. and 2:35 p.m., giving Nicolas the opportunity to escape. The nurse testified that Nicolas had been under continuous supervision and was not handcuffed.
Core Facts — Defense Version
Petitioner testified he was assigned to guard Nicolas only on that day, inspected the room and possible exits, observed Nicolas to be weak, and sought and obtained permission from a hospital security guard to take lunch. While outside, he assisted barangay tanods and the barangay captain in investigating a snatching/robbery and rendered police assistance until approximately 2:00 p.m., lacking a radio or immediate means to call for backup. Upon return he learned of Nicolas’s escape and summoned back-up. His testimony was corroborated by certain police witnesses and the barangay captain.
Trial Court and Regional Trial Court Rulings
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicted petitioner of Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion (Article 223) and imposed an indeterminate penalty and temporary special disqualification. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, modified the conviction to Evasion through Negligence (Article 224), reasoning that the Information’s factual allegations more appropriately described negligence (leaving post without proper relief) than connivance or consent, and imposed a corresponding penalty and disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the RTC was denied.
Court of Appeals Disposition and Issues Brought to the Supreme Court
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s determination that the charge was effectively for Article 224, Evasion through Negligence, despite the Information being captioned as a violation of Article 223. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court raising, among others: (1) whether the Information was validly filed under Rule 112, Section 4; (2) whether petitioner was duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation given the variance between the charged offense and the offense proved; and (3) whether conviction for Evasion through Negligence was correct on the facts.
Legal Framework on Sufficiency and Variance of Information
- Rule 112, Section 4 requires prior written authority or approval of the city or provincial prosecutor (or authorized deputy) for filing an information; the Court’s precedents treat belated objections to lack of approval as waived if not timely raised before arraignment.
- Rule 110, Section 6 and constitutional right (Art. III, Sec. 14(2)) mandate that an information must state the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting it, approximate date and place, and the name of the offended party, so the accused can prepare a defense.
- Rule 120, Section 4 allows conviction for an offense necessarily included in the charged offense when the proved offense is included in or necessarily includes the offense charged; sufficiency to invoke this provision depends on whether essential elements of one offense constitute the other.
Elements and Distinction Between Articles 223 and 224
Article 223 (Conniving/Consenting to Evasion) elements: (1) offender is a public officer; (2) custody or charge of a detention/prisoner; (3) prisoner escaped; and (4) offender consented to or connived with the prisoner in the escape — an element entailing deliberate assent or agreement (dolus). Article 224 (Evasion through Negligence) elements: (1) public officer; (2) custody/charge of prisoner; (3) prisoner escaped; and (4) escape resulted from the officer’s negligence (culpa) — lack of required diligence. The two offenses are separate, distinct, and require different mental states: dolus and agreement for Article 223 versus culpa for Article 224.
Application of Law to Facts and Court’s Reasoning
- On Rule 112, Section 4: The Information bore the approval notation “Approved for the City Prosecutor” signed by a senior assistant prosecutor. The Supreme Court followed precedent holding that an asserted delegation of authority to sign “for the City Prosecutor” stands unless timely challenged; because petitioner raised the Rule 112 objection only belatedly (in reply to the OSG’s comment), the Court treated the procedural defect as waived.
- On sufficiency and variance: The Information’s language was inconsistent and contradictory: it was captioned as Article 223 (connivance/consent) but its factual allegations described acts and wording (“willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse and infidelity”) that did not clearly allege either consent/connivance or negligence. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and Rule
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228232)
The Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Court of Appeals dispositions in CA‑G.R. CR No. 35683: (1) Decision dated July 14, 2016 affirming petitioner PO2 Arthur M. Pineda’s conviction for Evasion through Negligence under Article 224, Revised Penal Code; and (2) Resolution dated November 14, 2016 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Petition filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance and denial of reconsideration.
Antecedents: Information, Arraignment, and Charge
- Criminal Case No. 462935‑CR (later recorded as Criminal Case No. 12‑291698) charged petitioner with “Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion” (captioned as Violation of Article 223, Revised Penal Code) alleging that on or about July 30, 2010, in Manila, petitioner, a member of the Manila Police District‑PNP assigned at Raxabago Police Station and while performing official duties and entrusted with custody of detention prisoner Marcelino Nicolas confined at Metropolitan Medical Center (Room 508), “did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with grave abuse and infidelity, cause the escape of the said accused, by then and there leaving his place of assignment at the hospital from 11:15 a.m. to 2:35 p.m. … thereby giving opportunity to said accused to escape.”
- On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution’s Version (Key Testimony and Facts)
- Alicia Go Tan (head nurse, Metropolitan Medical Center) testified:
- On relevant date she was on duty on the fifth floor from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- Patient Marcelino Nicolas had been under hospital arrest for about two weeks and was guarded by police officers posted outside his room by shift.
- At about 1:30 p.m., she removed Nicolas’s intravenous line per his request and Dr. Marietta Tanchoco Tan’s instruction; although stable, Nicolas remained in critical stage and needed supervision; he had never been handcuffed.
- She went to the hospital pharmacy to request a new intravenous set; upon return she discovered Nicolas had absconded.
- She reported the escape to her superior, to the Security Office (Officer‑in‑Charge Joemar Boquiren), and signed an Incident Report submitted to the Medical Director’s Office.
- She did not see petitioner in his post between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. on that date; petitioner left his post for two hours and thirty minutes and she did not see him return after Nicolas escaped.
Defense’s Version (Petitioner’s Testimony and Corroboration)
- Petitioner’s account:
- Arrived in complete police uniform and was detailed to secure Nicolas only for that day.
- Inspected possible entries and exits of Nicolas’s room and checked Nicolas, who appeared very weak.
- Sought permission from a hospital security guard to eat lunch in a nearby canteen and then went outside the hospital.
- While outside he was approached by two barangay tanods and Punong Barangay Susan Duanan to assist regarding a snatching/robbery incident; he searched for the robber and rendered police assistance until about 2:00 p.m.
- He had no radio or means of communication to call for backup at the time.
- Upon return to the hospital he learned Nicolas had absconded; he called Police Chief Inspector Antonio Macam to request backup; PO1 Emmanuel Lapuz and PO1 Prado arrived and posted at possible exits but failed to locate Nicolas.
- Corroboration:
- Petitioner's testimony was corroborated by PCI Macam, PO1 Lapuz, and Punong Barangay Duanan.
Metropolitan Trial Court Decision (Presiding Judge Phoeve C. Meer)
- By Decision dated May 16, 2012, the Metropolitan Trial Court found petitioner guilty of Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion (Article 223, RPC).
- Sentence imposed:
- Indeterminate penalty: four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum.
- Temporary special disqualification for eight (8) years and one (1) day (to be served simultaneously with imprisonment).
- Deprivation of office, employment, profession or calling affected and disqualification from holding similar offices; loss of right to vote and hold public office during disqualification.
- MeTC’s factual and legal basis:
- Found that all elements of Article 223 were established: (1) petitioner is a public officer; (2) per Memorandum dated July 23, 2010 he was in charge of Nicolas, a detention prisoner; (3) Nicolas escaped from his custody; and (4) petitioner consented to the evasion when he left his post without being properly relieved, since relaxation of imprisonment is considered infidelity.
Regional Trial Court Ruling (Presiding Judge Alfredo D. Ampuan)
- By Decision dated November 26, 2012, the Regional Trial Court modified the MeTC decision and found petitioner guilty of Evasion through Negligence (Article 224, RPC) rather than Article 223.
- Sentence imposed:
- Indeterminate penalty: three (3) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum.
- Temporary special disqualification for eight (8) years and one (1) day.
- RTC’s reasoning:
- Observed the Information did not allege that petitioner connived with or consented to the prisoner’s escape; rather, the allegations in the Information constituted the offense under Article 224.
- Held petitioner committed negligence when he left his post without being properly relieved, thereby allowing Nicolas to escape.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC under Order dated April 12, 2013.
Court of Appeals Ruling (Assailed Decision and Resolution)
- Court of Appeals Decision dated July 14, 2016 affirmed the RTC’s modification and conviction for Evasion through Negligence (Article 224, RPC).
- CA’s reasoning:
- Agreed that despite captioning the Information as a violation of Article 223, the allegations in fact suggested Article 224.
- Affirmed presence of all the elements of Evasion through Negligence.
- CA Resolution dated November 14, 2016 denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Procedural History Before the Supreme Court; Parties’ Contentions in SC
- Petitioner’s primary claims before the Supreme Court:
- Information did not bear the correct charge; thus his constitutional rig