EN BANC
[G.R. No. 47521. April 8, 1941. ]
PEDRO REMOCAL, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Emilio Cecilio and Efrain Carlos for Petitioner.
Assistant Solicitor-General Mañalac and Solicitor Gianzon for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; NEGLIGENCE IN CUSTODY OF PRISONER. — Petitioner contends that his order to the prisoner to keep close to him while he was answering the telephone call was sufficient precaution under the circumstances. We do not agree with this view. The adequate precaution which should have been taken by him was to have locked up the prisoner before answering the telephone call. There was nothing in that call necessitating preference to petitioner’s official duty of locking up back the prisoner in jail. It was self-evident to a person of ordinary prudence that postponing the answer to such call was the safest way.
D E C I S I O N
MORAN, J.:
On May 5, 1939, between 12 and 3 p. m., one Fernando Tolentino, a prisoner in the municipal jail of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, requested the petitioner Pedro Remocal, then the only police officer on duty, to allow him to go to the toilet for personal necessity. The request was granted and petitioner unlocked the jail and let the prisoner out for the toilet. Thereafter, when petitioner was about to lock up back the prisoner, the latter asked again permission to fetch water from a nearby well. Petitioner told him to wait for another policeman, and at this juncture the telephone rang repeatedly. Petitioner, instead of locking up back the prisoner in jail, told the latter to keep close to him while he answered the telephone call. The latter, taking advantage of the situation, ran away and escaped.
The sole question is whether, upon the aforecited facts, petitioner may properly be held guilty of negligence in the custody of the escaped prisoner.
Petitioner contends that his order to the prisoner to keep close to him while he was answering the telephone call was sufficient precaution under the circumstances. We do not agree with this view. The adequate precaution which should have been taken by him was to have locked up the prisoner before answering the telephone call. There was nothing in that call necessitating preference to petitioner’s official duty of locking up back the prisoner in jail. It was self-evident to a person of ordinary prudence that postponing the answer to such call was the safest way
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur
The sole question is whether, upon the aforecited facts, petitioner may properly be held guilty of negligence in the custody of the escaped prisoner.
Petitioner contends that his order to the prisoner to keep close to him while he was answering the telephone call was sufficient precaution under the circumstances. We do not agree with this view. The adequate precaution which should have been taken by him was to have locked up the prisoner before answering the telephone call. There was nothing in that call necessitating preference to petitioner’s official duty of locking up back the prisoner in jail. It was self-evident to a person of ordinary prudence that postponing the answer to such call was the safest way
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur
