VOL.

161,MAY20,1988
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
No.L58652.May20,1988.
ALFREDORODILLASYBONDOC,petitioner,vs.THE
HONORABLESANDIGANBAYANandTHEPEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.
*

CriminalLaw;Evidence;Admissions;Admissionsanddeclarationsinopen
courtofapersonchargedwithacrimeareadmissibleagainsthim.The
petitionerspecificallyallegesthathisconvictionbytheSandiganbayanwas
basedmerelyonhisadmissionswithouttheprosecutionpresentingevidence
toprovethisnegligence.Sec.22,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat
theact,declaration,oromissionofapartyastoarelevantfactmaybe
given in evidence against him. The admissions and declarations in open
courtofapersonchargedwithacrimeareadmissibleagainsthim.(SeeU.S.
v.ChingPo,23Phil.578).
Same;Evasionthroughnegligence;Elementsof.Therecordsshowthatthe
elementsofthecrimeforwhichthepetitionerwasconvictedarepresent
Article224oftheRevisedPenalCodestates:ART,224.Evasionthrough
negligence.Iftheevasionoftheprisonershallhavetakenplacethroughthe
negligenceoftheofficerchargedwiththeconveyanceorcustodyof the
escapingprisoner,saidofficershallsufferthepenaltiesofarrestomayorin
itsmaximumperiodto
_______________
*ENBANC.
348

348

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification. The elements of the crime under the abovementioned
articleare:a)thattheoffenderisapublicofficer;b)thatheischargedwith
theconveyanceorcustodyofaprisoner,eitherdetentionprisonerorprisoner
byfinaljudgment;andc)thatsuchprisonerescapesthroughhisnegligence
(SeeReyes,L.B.,RevisedPenalCode,BookII,1977ed.,p.407).
Same;Same;Same;Dutyofanypoliceofficerhavingcustodyofaprisoner

totakenecessaryprecautionstoassuretheabsenceofanymeansofescape.
Asapoliceofficerwhowaschargedwiththedutytoreturntheprisoner
directlytojail,thedeviationfromhisdutywasclearlyaviolationofthe
regulations.Inthefirstplace,itwasimproperforthepetitionertotakelunch
withtheprisonerandherfamilywhenhewassupposedtobringhischarge
tothejail.Heevenallowedtheprisonerandherhusbandtotalktoeach
otherattherequestofacoofficer.Itisthedutyofanypoliceofficerhaving
custodyofaprisonertotakenecessaryprecautionstoassuretheabsenceof
anymeansofescape.Afailuretoundertaketheseprecautionswillmakehis
act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non
performanceofduty.Histoleranceofarrangementswherebytheprisoner
and her companions could plan and make good her escape should have
arousedthesuspicionofapersonofordinaryprudence.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners contention that he cannot be convicted
becausetherewasnoconnivancebetweenhimandtheprisonerisuntenable
sinceheisnotbeingchargedwithconnivingunderArt.223butforevasion
through negligence under Art. 224 of the RPC.The petitioner further
contends that he cannot be convicted because there was no connivance
betweenhimandtheprisoner.Insupportofhisclaim,hecitesthecaseof
Albertov.delaCruz,(98SCRA406).Thecitation,however,iserroneous.It
createstheimpressionthatforonetobeheldliableunderArt.224,there
mustbeashowingthathefirstconnivedwiththeprisoner.Thiswasnotthe
rulinginsaidcase.Connivingorconsentingtoevasionisadistinctcrime
underArt.223oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thepetitionerhereisnotbeing
chargedwithconnivingunderArt.223butforevasionthroughnegligence
under Art. 224 of the same Code. It is, therefore, not necessary that
connivancebeproventoholdhimliableforthecrimeofinfidelityinthe
custodyofprisoners.

PETITIONtoreviewthedecisionoftheSandiganbayan.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
SantiagoR.Robinolforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.
349

VOL.161,MAY20,1988
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
GUTIERREZ,JR,J.:

ThisisapetitionbroughtbyAlfredoRodillasyBondocaskingfor
thereversalofadecisionoftheSandiganbayanwhichfoundhim
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofInfidelityinthe
CustodyofPrisonerThruNegligence(Art.224,RPC).The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Alfredo
RodillasyBondocGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtasprincipalinthe
crime of Evasion through Negligence, as defined and penalized under
Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying
circumstancetoconsider,herebysentenceshimtosufferthestraightpenalty
ofFOUR(4)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYofarrestomayor,tosuffereight
(8)yearsandone(1)dayoftemporaryspecialdisqualificationandtopaythe
costsofthisaction.
SOORDERED."(Rollo,p.30)

PetitionerRodillaswaschargedwithhavingcommittedthesaid
crimeinaninformationwhichreadsasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe27thdayofMarch,1980,intheCityofCaloocan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused,beingthenapolicemandulyappointedandqualifiedassuch,hence
a public officer, specially charged with the duty of keeping under his
custodyandvigilanceandofconductinganddeliveryfromtheCityJail,
CaloocanCitytotheCourtofFirstInstance,BranchXXXIV,CaloocanCity
andreturn,oneZenaidaSacrisdeAndres,adetentionprisonerbeingtried
for violation of Section 4, R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the
DangerousDrugsActof1972,underCrim.CaseNo.C12888,didthenand
therewithgreatcarelessnessandunjustifiablenegligence,allowandpermit
saidZenaidaSacrisdeAndrestohavesnacksandenterthecomfortroomat
thesecondflooroftheGenatoBuilding,RizalAvenue,CaloocanCityafter
thehearingofsaidcase,withoutfirstascertainingforhimselfwhethersaid
comfortroomissafeandwithoutanyegressbywhichthesaiddetention
prisonercouldescape,therebyenablingsaidZenaidaSacrisdeAndres,to
runawayandescapethruthewindowinsidethecomfortroom,asinfactshe
didrunawayandescapefromthecustodyofsaidaccused.
CONTRARYTOLAW."(Rollo,p.6)

Theprosecutionsevidenceuponwhichthecourtbaseditsfinding
ofguiltissummarizedasfollows:
350

350

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan

xxxaccusedhereinisaPatrolmanoftheIntegratedNationalPoliceForce
ofCaloocanCityandassignedwiththejailsectionthereof.OnMarch27,
1980,whenhereportedforwork,hewasdirectedbyhissuperior,Corporal
Victor Victoriano, officerincharge in assigning police officers to escort
prisoners,toescortZenaidaSacrisdeAndres,adetentionprisoner,before
thesalaofJudgeBernardoPardooftheCourtofFirstInstance,Br.XXXIV,
locatedattheGenatoBuilding,CaloocanCity,tofacetrialforanalleged
ViolationoftheDangerousDrugsActof1972,asthepolicewomanofficer
whowassupposedtoescortthesaiddetaineewasthensick.Heandthe
detaineeproceededtothecourtbuildingandarrivedthereatbetween8:30
and9:00oclockinthemorning.Whilewaitingforthearrivalofthejudgeat
thecourtroom,Pat.OrlandoAndres,whohappenedtobeinthecourtanda
relativeofthehusbandofsaiddetentionprisonerZenaida,approachedthe
accusedandrequestedthelatterifhecouldpermitZenaidatotalktoher
husband.TheaccusedconsentedandZenaidadeAndreshadashorttalk
with her husband. After a short while, the presiding judge deferred the
decisionagainstherbecauseofanewPresidentialDecreerevisingsome
provisionsregardingviolationsoftheDangerousDrugsAct.
Afterthecourthadalreadyadjourned,thehusbandofZenaidarequested
theaccusedtoallowthemtohavelunchastheywerealreadyveryhungry.
Heconsentedtotherequestandtheyproceededtothecanteenlocatedatthe
mezzaninefloor ofthecourtbuilding(Exhibit1).Hetookaseatbeside
ZenaidaandPat.Andreswhiletherelativesofsaiddetaineewereseatedata
separatetable.Whileeating,thehusbandofZenaidaaskedhimifhecould
accompanyhiswifetothecomfortroomasshewasnotfeelingwellandfelt
likedefecating.TheaccusedaccompaniedZenaidaandaladycompanionto
theladiescomfortroomlocatedatthesecondfloorofthebuilding(Exhibit
2).Zenaidaandherladycompanionenteredthecomfortroom,whilehe
stoodguardalongthealleyneartheladiescomfortroomfacingthedoor
thereof(Exhibit5).Notlongafter,theladycompanionofZenaidacameout
ofthecomfortroomandtoldHimthatshewasgoingtobuysanitarynapkins
forZenaidaasthelatterwasthenbleedingandhadamenstruationandcould
notgooutofthecomfortroom.
AftertenminuteselapsedwithouttheladycompanionofZenaidacoming
back,theaccusedbecamesuspiciousandenteredthecomfortroom.Tohis

surprise;hefoundZenaidanolongerinsidethecomfortroom.Henoticed
thatthewindowofsaidcomfortroomwasnotprovidedwithwindowgrills.
Hetriedtopeepoutofthewindowbysteppingontheflushtankwhichis
justabout3feetfromthewindowandnoticedthatoutsideofthewindow
therewasaconcreteeave
351

VOL.161,MAY20,1988
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
extendingdowntothegroundfloorofthebuildingwhichhepresumedthat
Zenaidamighthaveusedasapassageinescaping(Exhibits2A,3and4to
4C).Heimmediatelywentouttolookfortheescapeeinsidethebuilding
withthehelpofPat.Andresbuttheywerenotabletoseeher.Pat.Andres
advisedhimtogotoZenaidashouseasshemightbethere,whichhomeis
locatedatBagongBarrio,CaloocanCity,PatAndreshavingtoldhimthat
thehusbandoftheescapeeisfromRizal,NuevaEcija,theaccusedborrowed
the car of his brotherinlaw and proceeded to said town. Upon arrival
thereat,theycontactedtherelativesofZenaidaandaskedforinformationas
toherwhereabouts,buttheyansweredinthenegative.Theywentbackto
CaloocanCityandwentagaindirectlytoBagongBarriotothehouseof
Zenaida,arrivingthereatataround8:00oclockintheevening.Whileatthe
residenceofZenaida,Cpl.Victorianoarrivedandtheaccusedrelatedtohim
abouttheescapeofZenaida.Heformallyreportedthematterofhissuperior
officer at the City Jail, Capt. Leonardo Zamora. The accused declared
furtherthatasajailer,heneverhadanytrainingnorlecturebyhissuperiors
regardingthemannerofdeliveringprisoners.However,headmittedthathe
didnotinspectfirstthecomfortroombeforeheallowedZenaidatoenter
becausethereweremanyfemalesgoinginandoutofsaidcomfortroom,
andthathedidnotpromptlyreporttheescapeearlierbecausetheywerethen
pressedfortimetointerceptZenaidaatthehighway.(Rollo,pp.1821).

Thepetitionerassignsthefollowingerrors:

I
WHETHER PETITIONERS CONVICTION BY THE
SANDIGANBAYANBASEDONLYONHISADMISSIONSWITHOUT
THE PROSECUTION HAVING PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO PROVE
HlSNEGLIGENCEWILLLIE.
II
WHETHERTHEACTSOFPETITIONERCOULDBEQUALIFIEDAS

DEFINITE LAXITY AMOUNTING TO DELIBERATE NON

PERFORMANCEOFDUTYTOSUSTAINHlSCONVICTION."(Brief
forthepetitioner,p.5)

Inessence,thesolequestiontoberesolvedinthecaseatbaris
whether, under the foregoing facts and circumstances, the
respondentSandiganbayancommittedareversibleerrorinholding
the petitioner guilty of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner
throughnegligencepenalizedunderArt.224oftheRevisedPenal
Code.
352

352

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
The petitioner specifically alleges that his conviction by the
Sandiganbayanwasbasedmerelyonhisadmissionswithoutthe
prosecutionpresentingevidencetoprovehisnegligence.
Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that the act,
declaration,oromissionofapartyastoarelevantfactmaybe
giveninevidenceagainsthim.Theadmissionsanddeclarationsin
opencourtofapersonchargedwithacrimeareadmissibleagainst
him.(SeeU.S.v.ChingPo,23Phil.578).
Therecords show that theelements ofthe crime forwhichthe
petitionerwasconvictedarepresent.Article224oftheRevised
PenalCodestates:
ART.224.Evasionthroughnegligence.Iftheevasionoftheprisonershall
have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the
conveyanceorcustodyoftheescapingprisoner,saidofficershallsufferthe
penaltiesofarrestomayorinitsmaximumperiodtoprisioncorreccionalin
itsminimumperiodandtemporaryspecialdisqualification.

Theelementsofthecrimeundertheabovementionedarticleare:a)
thattheoffenderisapublicofficer;b)thatheischargedwiththe
conveyanceorcustodyofaprisoner,eitherdetentionprisoneror
prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such prisoner escapes
through his negligence (See Reyes, L.B., Revised Penal Code,
BookII,1977ed.,p.407).

Thereisnoquestionthatthepetitionerisapublicofficer.Neither
isthereanydisputeastothefactthathewaschargedwiththe
custodyofaprisonerwhowasbeingtriedforaviolationofthe
DangerousDrugsActof1972.
Theonlydisputedissueisthepetitionersnegligenceresultingin
theescapeofdetentionprisonerZenaidaAndres.Thenegligence
referredtointheRevisedPenalCodeissuchdefinitelaxityasall
butamountstoadeliberatenonperformanceofdutyonthepartof
theguard(Id.,p.408).
Itisevidentfromtherecordsthatthepetitioneractednegligently
and beyond the scope of his authority when he permitted his
charge to create the situation which led to her escape. The
petitionercontendsthathumanconsiderationscompelledhimto
grant Zenaida Andres requests to take lunch and to go to the
comfortroomtorelieveherself.
Asapoliceofficerwhowaschargedwiththedutytoreturnthe
prisonerdirectlytojail,thedeviationfromhisdutywas
353

VOL.161,MAY20,1988
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
clearlyaviolationoftheregulations.
Inthefirstplace,itwasimproperforthepetitionertotakelunch
withtheprisonerandherfamilywhenhewassupposedtobring
his charge to the jail. He even allowed the prisoner and her
husbandtotalktoeachotherattherequestofacoofficer.
Itisthedutyofanypoliceofficerhavingcustodyofaprisonerto
takenecessaryprecautionstoassuretheabsenceofanymeansof
escape.Afailuretoundertaketheseprecautionswillmakehisact
oneofdefinitelaxityornegligenceamountingtodeliberatenon
performanceofduty.Histoleranceofarrangementswherebythe
prisonerandhercompanionscouldplanandmakegoodherescape
should have aroused the suspicion of a person of ordinary
prudence.

Therequestforlunchandtheconsequentdelaywasanopportunity
fortheprisonertolearnofaplanortocarryoutanearlierplanby
whichshecouldescape.Theplanwasinfactcarriedoutwiththe
helpoftheladywhoaccompaniedtheprisonerinsidethecomfort
room.Theuseofatoiletisoneofthemostfamiliarandcommon
placemethodsofescape.Itisinconceivablethatapoliceofficer
shouldfallforthistrick.Thearrangementwithaladyfriendshould
havearousedthepetitionerssuspicionbecausetheonlypretext
givenbythepetitionerwasthatshewasgoingtoanswerthecallof
nature.Itwas,therefore,unnecessaryforhertobeaccompaniedby
anyoneespeciallybysomeonewhowasnoturgentlyinneedofa
toiletifthepurposewasmerelytorelieveherself.Despitethis,the
petitionerallowedthetwotoenterthecomfortroomwithoutfirst
establishingforhimselfthattherewasnowindowordoorallowing
the possibility of escape. He even allowed the prisoners
companiontoleavethepremiseswiththeexcusethattheprisoner
washavinghermonthlyperiodandthattherewasaneedtobuy
sanitary napkins. And he patiently waited for more than ten
minutesforthecompaniontoreturn.Thiswaspatentnegligence
andincrediblenaivetteonthepartofthepoliceofficer.
Contrary to what the petitioner claims, the escape was not a
confluenceoffactsandcircumstanceswhichwerenotforeseenand
werenotunnaturalinthecourseofthings.Notonlyshouldthey
havebeenforeseenbutthey.shouldhavebeenguardedagainst.
354

354

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
Consideringthatthecityjailwasonlyakilometerawayanditwas
only11:30a.m.,itwouldnothavebeeninhumanforthepetitioner
todenytheprisonersrequesttofirsttakelunch.Neitherwouldit
havebeeninhumanifheclearedthetoiletoffemaleoccupantsand
checkedallpossibleexistsfirstandifhedidnotallowthelady
companiontogowithZenaidaAndrestothecomfortroom.These

humanconsiderations,however,areimmaterialbecausethefact
remainsthatasapoliceofficer,heshouldhaveexercisedutmost
diligenceintheperformanceofhisduty.
Thesupposedconfluenceoffactsdoesnotalterhisliability.That
he was not trained in escorting women prisoners is likewise
unacceptableastherearenohardandfastrulesofconductunder
all conceivable situations for police officers acting as guards.
However, they are expected to use prudence, diligence, and
commonsense.ThatJudgePardodidnotimmediatelypronounce
judgment so the petitioner could have immediately brought
Zenaida back to jail is inconsequential. In the first place, the
escapewouldnothavematerializedhadheimmediatelyescorted
her back to jail after the hearing. That he cannot follow the
prisoner inside the comfort room because it would create a
commotion,hebeingamale,isalameexcuse.Thereisnothing
wronginaskingtheladiesforpermissiongohecouldcheckthe
comfortroomfirsttoinsurethattheprisonercannotescape.The
factthatthebuildingismadeofconcreteandtheoutsidewindows
coveredwithgrillsshouldnotmakeapoliceofficercomplacent
especially because wellplanned escapes are not uncommon.
Escapesare,infact,evenpresumedsomuchsothattwo(2)guards
areusuallyassignedtoaprisoner.(Tsn,August4,1981,p.40)
Thereappearstohavebeennogenuineeffortonthepartofthe
petitionertorecapturetheescapee.Insteadofpromptlyreporting
themattersothatanalarmcouldimmediatelybesentouttoall
policeagenciesandexpertproceduresfollowed,heallegedlytried
tolookforherinthelattershouseinCaloocanandfailinginthis,
proceededtoNuevaEcija.Itwasonlylaterintheeveningthathe
formallyreportedthemattertohissuperior.Thisevengavethe
escapeegreateropportunitytomakegoodherescapebecausethe
chancesofherbeingrecapturedbecamemuchless.Suchaction
requiresconcertedpolice
355

VOL.161,MAY20,1988
Rodillasvs.Sandiganbayan
effort,notaonemanjobwhichpetitionershouldhavebeenorwas
probablyawareof.
The petitioner further contends that he cannot be convicted
becausetherewasnoconnivancebetweenhimandtheprisoner.In
supportofhisclaim,hecitesthecaseofAlbertov.delaCruz,(98
SCRA 406). The citation, however, is erroneous. It creates the
impressionthatforonetobeheldliableunderArt.224,theremust
beashowingthathefirstconnivedwiththeprisoner.Thiswasnot
therulinginsaidcase.Connivingorconsentingtoevasionisa
distinctcrimeunderArt.223oftheRevisedPenalCode.
ThepetitionerhereisnotbeingchargedwithconnivingunderArt.
223butforevasionthroughnegligenceunderArt.224ofthesame
Code.Itis,therefore,notnecessarythatconnivancebeprovento
hold him liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of
prisoners.
We quote the Solicitor General that the Sandiganbayans
observation regarding escaped prisoners is relevant and timely.
TheCourtstated:
It is high time that the courts should take strict measures against law
officerstowhomhavebeenentrustedthecustodyanddetentionofprisoners,
whether detention prisoners or prisoners serving sentence. Laxity and
negligence intheperformanceof their duties resultinginthemysterious
escapesofnotoriouscriminalshavebecomecommonnewsitems,involving
asitdoesthesuspicionthatmonetaryconsiderationsmayhaveenteredinto
the arrangements which led to the successful escape of such notorious
criminalsevenfrommilitarycustody.Noquartersshouldbeextendedto
suchkindoflawofficerswho,deliberatelyorotherwise,failtoliveuptothe
standardrequiredoftheirduties,thusdirectlycontributingnotonlytothe
cloggingofjudicialdocketsbutalsototheinevitabledeteriorationofpeace
andorder.(BriefforRespondents,pp.1718)

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The

questioneddecisionoftheSandiganbayanisAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.
Yap(C.J.),Fernan,Narvasa,MelencioHerrera,Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Corts, and
GrioAquino,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondismissed.Decisionaffirmed.
356

356

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
E.Razon,Inc.vs.CourtofAppea
Note.Ifaconfessionbetrueandvoluntary,thedeliberateact
oftheaccusedwithafullcomprehensionofitssignificance,there
isnoimpedimenttoitsadmissionasevidenceanditthenbecomes
evidenceofahighorder.Sinceitissupportedbythepresumption
andknowinglyconfesshimselftobetheperpetratorofacrime,
especiallyifitbeaseriouscrime,unlesspromptedbytruthand
conscience.(Peoplevs.Zea,130SCRA77.)