Case Summary (G.R. No. 58652)
Factual Background
Rodillas escorted Zenaida from Caloocan City Jail to the court of Judge Pardo. After court proceedings were deferred, he allowed her to have lunch and later accompanied her and a female companion to a second-floor comfort room. He stood guard outside, failed to inspect for escape routes, and permitted the companion to leave on errands. Upon re-entry, Zenaida had escaped through an ungrilled window onto a concrete eave. Rodillas delayed formal report, first searching at her home and in Nueva Ecija before notifying superiors.
Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction rested solely on the petitioner’s admissions without independent proof of negligence.
- Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to the “definite laxity” required to establish deliberate non-performance of duty under Art. 224.
Elements of the Offense
Under Art. 224, the prosecution must prove:
a) The offender is a public officer.
b) He has custody or conveyance duty over a prisoner.
c) The prisoner escapes through his negligence.
Court’s Analysis on Negligence
The Court held that admissions in open court are admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 22). All elements were satisfied: Rodillas was a public officer charged with custodial duty; Zenaida’s escape resulted from his failure to exercise required vigilance. Granting requests for lunch, permitting social visits in court, and failing to inspect the comfort room for potential exits exhibited negligence beyond mere oversight.
Duty of Diligence and Standard of Care
A guard must foresee and guard against the most common escape ruses, including the use of restroom facilities. Rodillas’ uncritical tolerance of the detainee’s arrangements and his inaction in verifying window grills or sealing the room breached the “utmost diligence” standard. His excuses—lack of training, reluctance to inspect the ladies’ comfort room, judicial delay—were insufficient to absolve liability.
Absence of Connivance Requirement
Liability under Art. 224 arises from
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 58652)
Parties and Procedural History
- Alfredo Rodillas y Bondoc (petitioner) challenged the Sandiganbayan’s conviction for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner Through Negligence under Art. 224, RPC.
- The Sandiganbayan, in G.R. No. 58652 (En Banc, May 20, 1988), found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of four months and one day arresto mayor, eight years and one day temporary special disqualification, plus costs.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for stay of execution, seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan decision on the ground that the conviction rested solely on his admissions without proof of negligence and alleging that his acts did not amount to deliberate non-performance of duty.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner was a duly appointed Patrolman of the Integrated National Police assigned to the Caloocan City jail section.
- On March 27, 1980, he was ordered to escort detention prisoner Zenaida Sacris de Andres to and from CFI Branch XXXIV in the Genato Building, Caloocan.
- While awaiting the judge, petitioner permitted the prisoner to converse with her husband and share a meal on the mezzanine canteen.
- The prisoner requested to use the ladies’ comfort room on the second floor due to menstrual bleeding; petitioner stood guard at the door while the prisoner and a companion entered.
- After ten minutes, the companion did not return; petitioner entered the comfort room to find the prisoner gone, the ungrilled window ajar, and an external concrete eave suitable for escape.
- Petitioner sea