Short answer. Yes. Under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, if a prisoner's escape happened through the negligence of the officer charged with his conveyance or custody, that officer is criminally liable and faces both imprisonment and temporary special disqualification. Carelessness that lets a prisoner get away is itself a punishable offence.
What the law says
If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification.
Revised Penal Code, Article 224 — Evasion Through Negligence. Read the full provision →
Negligence alone is enough
Article 224 punishes a custodial officer even where he never meant for the prisoner to get away. The offence is triggered when the escape takes place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the prisoner. There is no need to show the officer connived at or intended the escape — that would be a different and more serious matter. Here the law targets carelessness: an officer who fails to exercise the vigilance his duty demands, allowing a prisoner in his charge to slip away, answers for that lapse. The duty to keep custody carries with it criminal responsibility for negligently failing to do so.
Who the article binds
The provision applies specifically to the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the prisoner — the person on whom the duty to guard or transport actually rested at the time. That is the guard, escort, or custodian responsible for the prisoner, not just anyone connected to the facility. The prisoner who escapes is dealt with under other provisions; Article 224 is aimed at the keeper who let it happen. Because liability follows the duty of custody, the key question in any case is who was actually responsible for the prisoner when he got away, and whether that person's conduct fell below the care the responsibility required.
What the officer faces
The penalty has two components. The officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period — a term of imprisonment — and temporary special disqualification. The disqualification is significant: beyond the risk of jail, a convicted officer stands to lose the office or the right to hold the kind of position he abused, for the period the law fixes. So the consequences reach both the officer's liberty and his career in public service. The law treats a negligent loss of custody as serious enough to warrant removing, for a time, the very authority that was misused through carelessness.
The limits of the offence
Article 224 covers negligent evasion; it does not reach an escape that occurs despite the officer's proper diligence, since genuine negligence — a real failure of the required care — must be shown. If, on the other hand, the officer deliberately allowed or helped the escape, that is not this article but a graver offence with heavier consequences. The provision also does not resolve, in the abstract, whether a given officer's conduct actually amounted to negligence; that is a fact-specific judgment turning on what precautions the situation demanded and what the officer did or failed to do. An officer facing such a charge should obtain individual legal advice on his particular circumstances.