RODILLAS vs SANDIGANBAYAN

161 SCRA 347

FACTS: Alfredo Rodillas y Bondoc was found guilty for the crime of Infidelity in the
Custody of Prisoner through Negligence (Art. 224, RPC). As a policeman, he was
charged with the duty of escorting a prisoner from the City Jail to the CFI on Mar. 27,
1980. By allowing the prisoner to dine with the family and go to the bathroom
without checking the premises, he enabled the prisoner to escape from his custody
with great carelessness and unjustifiable negligence. Petitioner alleged that his
conviction by the Sandiganbayan was based merely on his admissions without the
prosecution presenting evidence to prove his negligence.
ISSUE: whether or not Rodillas is guilty of the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of
Prisoner through negligence under Art. 224 of the RPC.
RULING: Yes.
RATIO: Sec.22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act, declaration, or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The
admissions and declarations in open court of a person charged with a crime are
admissible against him. The elements of the crime under Art.224 are: (a) the
offender is a public officer; (b) he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a
prisoner; and (c) such prisoner escapes through his negligence. The negligence
referred to in the Code is such definite laxity as all but amounts to a deliberate nonperformance of duty on the part of the guard. It is evident from the records that the
petitioner acted negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he
permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her escape. It is the duty of
any police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary precautions to
assure the absence of any means of escape. Failure to do the same will make his act
one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance of his
duty. Considering all the circumstance, all the elements of the crime are present.