G.R. No. 228232 . March 27, 2023.
POLICE OFFICER ARTHUR M. PINEDA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Police Officer 2 Arthur M. Pineda was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) with “Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion” under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on July 30, 2010, while assigned to guard detention prisoner Marcelino Nicolas at the Metropolitan Medical Center, petitioner left his post from 11:15 a.m. to 2:35 p.m., thereby giving opportunity for Nicolas to escape. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence that petitioner was absent from his post, during which time the prisoner escaped. The defense claimed petitioner left to assist barangay officials with a robbery incident. The MeTC convicted petitioner of Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the conviction to “Evasion through Negligence” under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the allegations in the Information constituted said crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Petitioner now assails his conviction, arguing his right to be informed of the accusation was violated due to the variance between the crime charged and the crime convicted, and that he should only be administratively liable.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Information was validly filed.
2. Whether petitioner was duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
3. Whether petitioner was correctly convicted of Evasion through Negligence.

RULING

1. The Information was validly filed. The Court ruled that petitioner’s new argument, raised only in his Reply, that the Information lacked the city prosecutor’s approval per Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, was a belated procedural issue that could not be entertained for the first time on appeal.
2. Petitioner was duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court held that the constitutional right to be informed is satisfied if the Information states the acts constituting the offense with sufficient definiteness. The Information in this case alleged facts that clearly constituted the crime of Evasion through Negligence—that petitioner, a public officer charged with the custody of a detention prisoner, through negligence (by leaving his post), permitted the prisoner’s escape. The variance between the caption (Article 223) and the body (alleging acts constitutive of Article 224) did not violate petitioner’s rights, as the crime is determined by the factual allegations, not the caption. Petitioner failed to object to this defect during trial, thereby waiving any objection.
3. Petitioner was correctly convicted of Evasion through Negligence. The elements of the crime under Article 224 are: (a) the offender is a public officer charged with the custody of a prisoner, either detained or sentenced; (b) the prisoner escapes; and (c) the escape is due to the officer’s negligence. All elements were proven. As a police officer detailed to guard the prisoner, petitioner was a public officer charged with custody. The prisoner escaped. The escape was due to petitioner’s negligence in abandoning his post without being properly relieved. The Court rejected the claim that petitioner should only be administratively liable, as the negligent act resulting in the escape of a detention prisoner constitutes a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed—an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and two months of prision correccional as maximum, and temporary special disqualification for eight years and one day—was affirmed.