Title 7 Chapter 5

Question 1

What are the crimes classified under infidelity of public officers?

Answer 1

1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners. (Arts. 223 and 224)
2. Infidelity in the custody of documents. (Arts. 226 to 228)
3. Revelation of secrets. (Arts. 229 and 230)

Question 2

What are the crimes under infidelity in the custody of prisoners?

Answer 2

1. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. (Art. 223
2. Evasion through negligence. (Art. 224)
3. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public
   officer. (Art. 225)

Question 3

Elements of Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.

Answer 3

1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment.
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody.
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape. (U.S. vs. Bandino, 29 Phil. 459)

Question 4

What is anindispensable element of the offense of Art 223?

Answer 4

Connivance with the prisoner (agreement between the prisoner and the public officer) in his escape is an indispensable element of the offense. (U.S. vs. Bandino, 29 Phil. 459)

Question 5

Classes of prisoners involved.

Answer 5

a. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
b. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any crime or
violation of law or municipal ordinance.

Question 6

What is a detention prisoner?

Answer 6

A detention prisoner is a person in legal custody, arrested for, and charged with, some crime or public offense.

Question 7

What is theprinciple in People vs. Lancanan,

Answer 7

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.

Thus, where 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, he is not guilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoners.

Question 8

Elements of. Art. 224. Evasion
through negligence.

Answer 8

1. That the offender is a public officer.
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 escapes through his negligence.

Question 9

What happened in the case people vs. Sodits.

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Is detention in prisoner ended in Art 224?

Answer 10

Yes. In the cases ofPeople vs. Solis, supra, and People vs. Flosa, supra, the persons who escaped were merely detention prisoners.

Question 11

What happened in pp vs. nava?

Answer 11

Facts: A policeman permitted a prisoner under his guard to answer a call of nature in a hidden shed outside of the building. The policeman remained near the prisoner by the door. The prisoner escaped through the back of the bath which was in a tumbledown condition.

Held: Not every little mistake or distraction of a guard leading to prisoner’s taking advantage of a dilapidated condition of the building he finds in, is negligence under Art. 224. This neglect may be dealt with administratively only.

Question 12

Examples of infidelity thru negligence:

Answer 12

1. A policeman who, assigned to guard a prisoner, falls asleep, with the result that the prisoner escapes, is guilty of negligence in the custody of a prisoner. (People vs. Guiab, G.R. No. 39631, May 6, 1934)
2. The guard in permitting the prisoner, who later escaped, to go to the nursery to gather gabi, considering that the place was grassy and tall talahib was growing therein, was liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners thru negligence because the guard must have seen immediately that it was as it had been a choice place for any prisoner who may want to escape. (People vs. Lagata, 83 Phil. 159)
3. The accused contended that his order to the prisoner to keep close to him while he was answering the telephone call was sufficient precaution under the circumstances. Held: Untenable. The adequate precaution which should have been taken by him was to lock up the prisoner before answering the telephone call. (Remocal vs. People, 71 Phil. 429)

Question 13

What is the penalty for arti 224?

Answer 13

arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and temporary special

Question 14

Liability of escaping prisoner:

Answer 14

1. If the fugitive is serving sentence by reason of final judgment, he is liable for evasion of the service of the sentence under Art. 157.
2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability.

Question 15

Elements of Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer.

Answer 15

1. That the offender is a private person.
2. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is
   confided to him.
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes.
4. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape takes place through his negligence.

Question 16

What are the crimes under infidelity in the custody of documents?

Answer 16

Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. (Art. 226)
Officer breaking seal. (Art. 227)
Opening of closed documents. (Art. 228

Question 17

Elements of Article 226 removal concealment or destruction of documents

Answer 17

1. That the offender be a public officer.
2. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers.
3. That the said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office.
4. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should have been caused.

Question 18

Acts punishable in infidelity in the custody of documents:

Answer 18

By removing, or
By destroying, or
By concealing, documents orpapers officially entrusted to the offending public officer.

Question 19

Kataniag vs. People, illicit purpose

Answer 19

The removal is for an illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is —
(a) to tamper with it, or
(b) to profit by it, or
(c) to commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.

Question 20

Art 226 when deemed consummated

Answer 20

The crime of removal of public document in breach of official trust is consummated upon its removal or secreting away from its usual place in the office and after the offender had gone out and locked the door, it being immaterial whether he has or has not actually accomplished the illicit purpose for which he removed said document.

Question 21

Elements Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual.

Answer 21

1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his
   office.
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority orjustifiable reason.

Question 22

What are the crimes under revelation of secrets by public officers?

Answer 22

1. Revelation of secrets by an officer. (Art. 229)
2. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. (Art. 230)

Question 23

Elements of Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.

Answer 23

1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment.
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody.
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape. (U.S. vs. Bandino, 29 Phil. 459)