People v. Bandino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leon Bandino, a municipal policeman, was charged with faithlessness in the custody of prisoners committed with reckless negligence. The charge stemmed from an incident where Bandino, while guarding Juan Lescano, a prisoner serving a sentence, granted Lescano permission to go out and buy cigarettes. Lescano took advantage of the situation and escaped. Procedural History: A complaint was filed in the justice of the peace court, which was transmitted to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal filed an information. The defense filed a demurrer, arguing that the facts did not constitute a crime and proved innocence. The court sustained the demurrer, finding no connivance. The fiscal amended the complaint to include "in tacit connivance." The defense again demurred, asserting the complaint was not in conformity with legal provisions and the facts did not constitute a cause of action. The trial court sustained the second demurrer and dismissed the case, ordering the accused's release. The provincial fiscal appealed this dismissal. The Appeal: The provincial fiscal appealed the dismissal of the case, arguing that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The fiscal contended that the facts alleged, particularly the granting of permission to the prisoner to leave custody, constituted faithlessness in the custody of prisoners, either through direct connivance or reckless negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused, Leon Bandino, is guilty of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners under Article 358 of the Penal Code when he allowed a prisoner under his charge to leave the municipal jail to buy cigarettes, and the prisoner subsequently escaped. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked the order appealed from, remanding the record to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court held that the prisoner's escape, facilitated by the custodian's permission to leave the jail, constituted faithlessness in custody, implying connivance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the accused, Leon Bandino, could be liable for faithlessness in the custody of prisoners under Article 358 of the Penal Code. The Court emphasized that "connivance" is an essential element of this crime. While the accused might not have had direct knowledge that the prisoner would escape, his act of permitting the prisoner to leave the jail, even for a short period to buy cigarettes, afforded the prisoner an opportunity to flee. This permission was deemed to be "tolerance" of the prisoner's potential escape, which, in the context of the law, is considered connivance. The Court cited Escriche's definition of connivance as "dissimulation or tolerance" of infractions. Therefore, the prisoner's escape was effected through the tolerance of his custodian, implying connivance. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The lower court's conclusion that there was no connivance was premature, as the facts presented, including the granting of permission to leave custody which led to escape, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of faithlessness in custody. The Supreme Court stated that even if the accused committed the crime with carelessness or culpable negligence, the case should not have been dismissed. The revocation of the order of dismissal and the remand of the case for further proceedings indicate that the appellate court believed the allegations, if proven, could sustain a conviction.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that the crime of faithlessness in the custody of prisoners, as defined under Article 358 of the Penal Code, necessitates the presence of "connivance" on the part of the public officer charged with the custody of the prisoner. Connivance, defined as dissimulation or tolerance of infractions by subordinates, implies a degree of consent or intentional allowance of the prisoner's escape. Without such proof of connivance, the custodian cannot be held liable for this specific offense, even if the escape occurred due to his carelessness or imprudence.