Title: ALFREDO RODILLAS Y BONDOC v.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES performance of duty.
Details: G.R. No. L-58652, May 20, 1988 The arrangement with a lady friend should have aroused the petitioner’s
Topic: suspicion because the only pretext given by the prisoner was that she was
Doctrine: going to answer the call of nature. It was, therefore, unnecessary for her to
Facts: be accompanied by anyone. Despite this, the petitioner allowed the two to
1. Alfredo Rodillas is a policeman specially charged with the duty of keeping enter the comfort room without first establishing for himself that there was
under his custody one Zenaida Sacris Andres, a detention prisoner being no window or door allowing the possibility of escape. He even allowed the
tried for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. prisoner's companion to leave the premises with the excuse that there was
2. After the hearing, Rodillas allowed Zenaida to have lunch with her husband. a need to buy sanitary napkins. And he patiently waited for more than ten
While eating, Zenaida’s husband asked Rodillas if he could accompany his minutes for the companion to return. This was patent negligence on the
wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and felt like part of the police officer.
defecating. The accused accompanied Zenaida and a lady companion to The petitioner further contends that he cannot be convicted because there
the ladies’ comfort room while he stood guard along the alley facing the was no connivance between him and the prisoner. However, the petitioner
door, without first ascertaining for himself whether said comfort room is is not being charged with conniving under Article 223 but for evasion
safe and without any egress by which the said detention prisoner could through negligence under Article 224. It is, therefore, not necessary that
escape. connivance be proven to hold him liable for the crime of infidelity
3. Not long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out and told him that in the custody of prisoners.
she was going to buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes
elapsed without the lady companion of Zenaida coming back, the accused
entered the comfort room. To his surprise, he found Zenaida no longer
inside the comfort room. He noticed that the window of said comfort room
was not provided with window grills.
4. Rodillas formally reported the matter to his superior officer at the City Jail.
The Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner Thru Negligence under Article 224 of
the RPC.
Issue:
W/N Rodillas is liable for Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoner – Yes
Held:
The elements of the crime under Article 224 are: a) that the offender is a
public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody
of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer. Neither is there
any dispute as to the fact that he was charged with the custody of a
prisoner who was being tried for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.
The only disputed issue is the petitioner’s negligence resulting in the
escape of detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to is
such definite laxity as all but amounts to a deliberate non-
performance 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. As a police officer who was charged
with the duty to return the prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his
duty was clearly a violation of the regulations.
In the first place, it was improper for the petitioner to take lunch with the
prisoner and her family when he was supposed to bring his charge to the
jail. He even allowed the prisoner and her husband to talk to each other at
the request of a co-officer.
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. A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act
