Rodillas, a police officer, was tasked with guarding a detainee charged with a drug crime. Rodillas allowed the detainee to have lunch with his husband and later use the bathroom alone. After 10 minutes, Rodillas checked the bathroom and discovered the detainee had escaped. The court found Rodillas guilty of infidelity in custody of prisoners because any police officer is responsible for preventing prisoner escape and Rodillas failed to take necessary precautions through his negligent actions.
Rodillas, a police officer, was tasked with guarding a detainee charged with a drug crime. Rodillas allowed the detainee to have lunch with his husband and later use the bathroom alone. After 10 minutes, Rodillas checked the bathroom and discovered the detainee had escaped. The court found Rodillas guilty of infidelity in custody of prisoners because any police officer is responsible for preventing prisoner escape and Rodillas failed to take necessary precautions through his negligent actions.
Rodillas, a police officer, was tasked with guarding a detainee charged with a drug crime. Rodillas allowed the detainee to have lunch with his husband and later use the bathroom alone. After 10 minutes, Rodillas checked the bathroom and discovered the detainee had escaped. The court found Rodillas guilty of infidelity in custody of prisoners because any police officer is responsible for preventing prisoner escape and Rodillas failed to take necessary precautions through his negligent actions.
Rodillas, a police officer, was tasked with guarding a detainee charged with a drug crime. Rodillas allowed the detainee to have lunch with his husband and later use the bathroom alone. After 10 minutes, Rodillas checked the bathroom and discovered the detainee had escaped. The court found Rodillas guilty of infidelity in custody of prisoners because any police officer is responsible for preventing prisoner escape and Rodillas failed to take necessary precautions through his negligent actions.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Infidelity of Public Officer
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan
161 SCRA 347
FACTS: Accused Rodillas was charged with infidelity in the custody of prisoners. The accused, a police officer, was tasked with the custody of a detention prisoner charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. After the hearing, the husband of the accused sought permission from the accused to have lunch with the detainee. The accused consented. Later on, the detainee asked to go to the comfort room. After 10 minutes, the accused became suspicious and entered the comfort room. Thereafter, he realized that the detainee had already escaped.
HELD/RATIO: The accused was found guilty. In the crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners, the offender may be liable even if he acted negligently or even if he did not connive with the prisoner. 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 one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non- performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan and make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence.