Conniving With or Consenting to Evasion
On Criminal Law
Conniving with or consenting to evasion
ART.223
Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
DETENTION PRISONER - A person becomes a detention prisoner from the moment he is booked. This refers to the accomplishment of the booking sheet and made to fill a form (sic) where he is finger printed. From that time on, he is already a detention prisoner even if he is not yet incarcerated.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere leniency or laxity in the performance of duty constitutes of infidelity.
There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment.
Classes of prisoners involved
1. Those who have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;
2. Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in custody for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes the prisoner’s services for domestic chores.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
Bar Exam Question (1996)
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996)
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which are
(a) he is a public officer,
(b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment,
(c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual; although the convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla).
Bar Exam Question (1997)
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).
Alternative answer:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his
duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158).
ART.223
Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
DETENTION PRISONER - A person becomes a detention prisoner from the moment he is booked. This refers to the accomplishment of the booking sheet and made to fill a form (sic) where he is finger printed. From that time on, he is already a detention prisoner even if he is not yet incarcerated.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere leniency or laxity in the performance of duty constitutes of infidelity.
There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment.
Classes of prisoners involved
1. Those who have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;
2. Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in custody for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes the prisoner’s services for domestic chores.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
Bar Exam Question (1996)
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996)
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which are
(a) he is a public officer,
(b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment,
(c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual; although the convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla).
Bar Exam Question (1997)
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).
Alternative answer:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his
duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158).
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.