Infidelity in the Custody
of Prisoners
ARTICLE 223 - CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO
EVASION.
ARTICLE 224 - EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE.
ARTICLE 225 - ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER.
Reporter: Sianber Lou S. Taray
ARTICLE 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 of Article 223
01 That the offender is a public officer.
That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner
02 either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment.
03 That such prisoner escaped from his custody.
That he was in connivance with the prisoner in
04 the latter escape.
Act Constituting The Crime
Art. 223 punishes any public officer
who shall consent to the escape of a
prisoner in his custody or charge.
Connivance with the prisoner
(agreement between the prisoner and
the public officer) in his escape is an
indispensable element of the offense
Classes of Prisoners Involved
• If the fugitive has been
sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty.
• If the fugitive is held only as
detention prisoner for any crime
or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
CASE SAMPLE
CASE SAMPLE
NOTE:
IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 157.
CASE SAMPLE
Release of detention prisoner who could not be delivered to
the judicial authority within the time fixed by law, is not
infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
The chief of police released the detention
prisoners, because he could not file a complaint
against them within the time fixed in Art. 125,
due to the absence of the justice of the peace,
Is there any crime committed?
He is not guilty of infidelity in the custody of
prisoners. (People Vs. Lancanan, 95 PHIL 375)
Leniency or Laxity is not Infidelity.
During his detention, the prisoner was allowed to eat in a restaurant near the
municipal building. During the town fiesta, the municipal president acceded to
the prisoner's request for permission to eat better meals in his house. On all
these occasions, the prisoner was duly guarded.
Is there an infidelity?
Held: This is only leniency or laxity in the performance of duty, not in excess
of his duties. (People vs. Evangelista, C.A., 38 O.G. 158)
Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons
under RA No. 9372.
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person or under the
provisions of RA No. 9372 and who by deliberate act, misconduct, or
inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of such detained person
shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of (a) 12 years and 1 day
to 20 years of imprisonment, if the detained person has already been convicted
and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court; and (b) 6 years and 1
day to 12 years imprisonment, if the detained person has not been convicted and
sentenced in a final judgment of a competent Court.
ARTICLE 224.
Evasion through negligence. — If the evasion of the
prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the
officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the
escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period and temporary special disqualification.
Elements of Article 224
01 That the offender is a public officer.
That he is charged with the conveyance or
02 custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment.
03 That such prisoner escapes through his
negligence
Illustration of absence of 2nd Element:
C was detailed as prison guard from 9:00 to 11:00 in the
evening. S was to succeed C from 11:00 of the same evening
until 1:00 the following morning. When the time came for S to
take over his duty at 11:00, he was sleeping; so C woke him
up to deliver the post to him. S did not pay attention, refused
to be bothered and continued to sleep. A prisoner escaped
while C was the one in the guard post.
Is S liable?
No, the custody of the prisoner was not yet transferred to him
by C when the evasion took place. (People vs. Silvosa, CA-
G.R. No. 12736-R, April 30, 1955)
Illustration of absence of 3rd Element:
A policeman was on guard duty. He unlocked the door of the
jail to let a detention prisoner go out to clean the premises of
the police headquarters. The prisoner went to a nearby faucet
to wash the rags. Upon his third trip to the faucet, he walked
behind the police headquarters, climbed over the wall and
escaped.
Is the policeman liable?
No, the policeman was not negligent. Not every little mistake
or distraction of a guard leading to prisoner's escape is
negligence under Art. 224. (People vs. Solis, C.A., 43 O.G.
580)
CASE SAMPLE
CASE SAMPLE
CASE SAMPLE
There is only one penalty in Art. 224.
If the prisoner escapes through the negligence of the public
officer, the latter suffers the same penalty regardless of
whether the prisoner is a convict or merely a detention
prisoner.
The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does
not afford complete exculpation.
The circumstance that the appellant by himself and without help
from other peace officers immediately went in pursuit of the
escapee and did not rest until he recaptured him three days later is
not such a circumstance as to afford complete exculpation.
(People vs. Quisel, C.A., 52 O.G. 6975)
ARTICLE 225.
Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer.
— Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody of a
prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided , who shall
commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles,
shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribe d for
the public officer .
Elements of Article 225
01 That the offender is a private person.
That the conveyance or custody of a
02 prisoner or person under arrest is confided
to him.
That the prisoner or person under arrest
03 escapes.
That the offender consents to the escape
04 of the prisoner or person under arrest, or
that the escape takes place through his
Negligence.
The penalty for a private person
liable under Art. 225 is only
imprisonment one degree lower than
that prescribed for the public officer
in Art. 223 or Art. 224.
