Title 7 - Public Officers

8/6/2019 Title 7 - Public Officers

1/21

Title SevenCRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Chapter One. Preliminary Provisions

Article 203. Who are public officers

Chapter Two. Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office

Section One Dereliction of dutyArticle 204. Knowingly rendering unjust

judgmentArticle 205. Judgment rendered through

negligenceArticle 206. Unjust interlocutory orderArticle 207. Malicious Delay in the

administration of justiceArticle 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence

& toleranceArticle 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney

revelation of secrets

Section Two BriberyArticle 210. Bribery

Article 211. Indirect briberyArticle 211-A. Qualified briberyArticle 212. Corruption of public officials

Chapter Three. Frauds and Illegal Exactions andTransactions

Article 213. Frauds against the public treasuryand similar offenses.

Article 214. Other FraudsArticle 215. Prohibited TransactionsArticle 216. Possession of prohibited interest by

a public officer

Chapter Four. Malversation of Public Funds orProperty

Article 217. Malversation of public fundsArticle 218. Failure of accountable officer to

render accountsArticle 219. Failure of accountable officer to

render accounts before leavingthe country

Article 220. Illegal use of public funds orproperty

Article 221. Failure to make delivery of publicfunds or property

Article 222. Officers included in the precedingprovisions

Chapter Five. Infidelity of Public Officers

Section One Infidelity in the custody of prisoners

Article 223. Conniving with or consenting toevasion

Article 224. Evasion through negligenceArticle 225. Escape of prisoner under the

custody of a person not apublic officer

Section Two Infidelity in the custody ofdocuments

Article 226. Removal, concealment, ordestruction of documents

Article 227. Officer breaking sealArticle 228. Opening of closed documents

Section Three Revelation of secretsArticle 229. Revelation of secrets by an officerArticle 230. Public officer revealing secrets of

private individual

Chapter Six. Other Offenses or Irregularities byPublic Officers

Section One Disobedience, refusal of assistanceand maltreatment of prisoners

Article 231. Open disobedienceArticle 232. Disobedience to order of superior

officer,when said order was suspended by inferior

officerArticle 233. Refusal of assistanceArticle 234. Refusal to discharge elective officeArticle 235. Maltreatment of prisoners

Section Two Anticipation, prolongation andabandonment of the duties and powers by public

officeArticle 236. Anticipation of duties of a public

officeArticle 237. Prolonging the performance of

duties andPowers

Article 238. Abandonment of office or position

Section Three Usurpation of powers and unlawfulappointmentsArticle 239. Usurpation of legislative powersArticle 240. Usurpation of executive functionsArticle 241. Usurpation of judicial functionsArticle 242. Disobeying request for

disqualificationArticle 243. Orders or requests by executive

officers toany judicial authority

Article 244. Unlawful appointments

Section Four Abuses against chastityArticle 245. Abuses against chastity - Penalties

Article 203. Who are public officers

Requisites to be a public officer:

1. Taking part in the performance ofpublic functions in the government;

or

Performing in said government or in any ofits branches public duties as an employee,agent or subordinate official, or any rank orclass;

2. His authority to take part in theperformance of public functions or toperform public duties must be -

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer61


2/21

a. By direct provision of the law;b. By popular election; orc. By appointment by competent

authority.

Embraces every public servant fromhighest to lowest.

Laborer, unless temporarily performsfunctions of a public officer, is not a publicofficer.

Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office

Misfeasance is the improper performanceof some act which might be lawfully done

Arts. 204-207 are misfeasances onoffice that a judge can commit

Malfesance is the performance of an actwhich ought not to be done

Arts. 210-211 are malfeasances in office

that a public officer can commit Nonfeasance is the ommission of some

act which ought to be performed

Art. 208 is a nonfeasance

Arts. 204-209 are crimes under derelictionof duty

Article 204. Knowingly render unjustjudgment

1. Offender is a judge;2. He renders a judgment in a casesubmitted to him for decision;

3. Judgment is unjust;4. The judge knows that his judgment isunjust.

Unjust judgment is the final determinationand consideration of a court of competentjurisdiction upon the matters submitted toit which is contrary to law or is notsupported by evidence or both.

When rendered knowingly An unjustjudgment must be made deliberately andmaliciously (from error, ill-will, revenge orbribery); thus no liability incurs for a mereerror in good faith.

There must be evidence that the judgeknew that his judgment is unjust

Article 205. Judgment rendered throughnegligence

1. Offender is a judge;2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted

to him for decision;

3. The judgment is manifestlyunjust;

4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence orignorance.

Manifestly unjust judgment is one somanifestly contrary to law that even aperson having a meager knowledge of thelaw cannot doubt the injustice

Abuse of discretion or mere error ofjudgment without proof of bad faith, or illmotive or improper consideration is notpunishable.

Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order

1. Offender is a judge;

2. He performs any of the following acts:a. Knowingly rendering an unjustinterlocutory order or decree; or

b. Rendering a manifestly unjustinterlocutory order or decree throughinexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Interlocutory order is a court orderbetween the commencement and the endof a suit or action and which decides somepoint or matter but which however is not afinal decision of the matter in issue.

Article 207. Malicious Delay in theadministration of justice

1. Offender is a judge;2. There is a proceeding in his court;3. He delays in the administration ofjustice;

4. The delay is malicious, that is, withdeliberate intent to inflict damage oneither party in the case. (malice must beproven)

Article 208. Prosecution of offenses;negligence & tolerance (PREVARICACION)

Acts Punishable:

1. Maliciously refraining from institutingprosecution against violators of the law;2. Maliciously tolerating the commissionof offenses.

Elements of dereliction of duty in theprosecution of offenses

1. Offender is a public officer or officer



3/21

of the law who has a duty to cause theprosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses;2. There is a dereliction of the duties ofhis office, that is, knowing the commissionof the crime, he does not cause theprosecution of the criminal, or knowing thata crime is about to be committed, he

tolerates its commission;3. Offender acts with malice anddeliberate intent to favor the violator of thelaw.

Negligence here means the neglect ofthe duties of his office by maliciouslyfailing to move the prosecution andpunishment of the delinquent. Malice is animportant element.

Officer of the law includes all thosewho by reason of the position held bythem are duty bound to cause theprosecution and punishment of the

offenders; Public officer extends to thoseofficers of the prosecution departmentwhose duty is to institute criminalproceedings for felonies upon beinginformed of their perpetration.

Fiscal who knows that there issufficient evidence to secure theconviction of the accused but drops thecase is liable and punishable under Art.206. But the fiscal is under no compulsionto file the corresponding complaint wherehe is not convinced that the evidencegathered would warrant the filing of anaction in court.

Crime committed by the law violatormust be first proved before conviction for

dereliction.

Liability of public officer who, havingthe duty of prosecuting the offender,harbored, concealed or assisted theescape of the latter is that of the principalin the crime defined and penalized underArt 208

Not applicable to revenue officers

Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney-revelation of secrets

Acts punishable:

1. Causing damage to his client, either-

a. By any malicious breach of professional duty;b. By inexcusable negligence orignorance.

Note: When the attorney acts withmalicious abuse of his employment orinexcusable negligence or ignorance, theremust be damage to his client.

2. Revealing any of the secrets of hisclient learned by him in his professional

capacity;

Note: Damage is not necessary

3. Undertaking the defense of theopposing party in the same case, withoutthe consent of his first client, after havingundertaken the defense of said first clientof after having received confidentialinformation from said client.

Note: If the client consents to theattorneys taking the defense of the otherparty, there is no crime.

There is no solicitor or procuradorjudicial under the Rules of Court.(procurador judicial a person who hadsome practical knowledge of law andprocedure, but not a lawyer, and waspermitted to represent a party in a casebefore the inferior courts)

Article 210. Direct Bribery

Acts punishable:

1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in

consideration of any offer, promise, gift orpresent - an act constituting a crime, inconnection with the performance of hisofficial duties;2. Accepting a gift in consideration of theexecution of an act which does notconstitute a crime, in connection with theperformance of his official duty;3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining,from doing something which it is his officialduty to do, in consideration of gift orpromise.

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer within thescope of Article 203;2. Offender accepts an offer or a promiseor receives a gift or present by himself orthrough another;3. Such offer or promise be accepted, orgift or present received by the publicofficer -

a. With a view to committing some crime;



4/21

orb. In consideration of the execution of an

act which does not constitute a crime,but the act must be unjust; or

c. To refrain from doing something whichit is his official duty to do.

4. The act which offender agrees toperform or which he executes beconnected with the performance of hisofficial duties.

For the purpose of punishing bribery, thetemporary performance of public functionsis sufficient to constitute a person a publicofficer.

The provisions of this article are madeapplicable to assessors, arbitrators,appraisal and claim commissioners,experts or any other persons performingpublic duties.

Gift is either voluntarily offered by aprivate person or solicited by the publicofficer, it may be received personally orthru intermediary.

Gift or present need not actually bereceived by the public officer, as anaccepted offer or promise of gift issufficient.

If there is only an offer of gift or promise togive something, the offer or promise mustbe accepted by the public officer to beliable under this article. If not accepted,only the person offering is liable underArticle 212.

It must be of some value or capable ofpecuniary estimation.

A promise to give gift to, and a promise tocommit an unlawful act by, a public officerwill be sufficient under Art. 210 [1]

Direct bribery under Art.210 [2] has thesame elements as Art 210 [1] but actintended by public officer does not amountto a crime.

Direct bribery under Art 210 [2]acceptance of the gift and theaccomplishment of act is necessary.

The commission of Art 210 [3] is byrefraining from doing something which

pertains to a public officers official duty.Prevaricacion (Art 208) is committed thesame way. But they differ in that in ART.210 [3] the offender refrained from doinghis official duty in consideration of a giftreceived or promised. This is not necessaryin Art. 208.

Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan

Manipon, a deputy sheriff assigned to execute the decisionof the labor arbiter ordering Harry Dominguez, a buildingcontractor to pay the balance of their work contract. Hesent a notice to the Comtrust Bank in Baguio Citygarnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. The bankagreed to hold the accounts. Later on Dominguez soughtManipon's help in the withdrawal of the garnished account.Manipon told Dominguez that he "can remedy the

withdrawal so they will have something for the New Year."Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon wouldwithdraw the garnished amount for a consideration.Manipon contends that the Sandiganbayan erred inconvicting him of direct bribery, in not giving credence tothe defense theory that there was novation of the moneyjudgment.

HELD: It is very strange indeed that for such an importantagreement that would be a final judgment, no one took thebother of putting it down or paper. Of course Maniponwould have us believe that there was no need for itbecause he trusted Dominguez and Tabek.

And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framedhim up because of a grudge? And if there was really anagreement to alter the judgment, why did he not informthe labor arbiter about it considering that it was the laborarbiter who had issued the order of execution? Maniponcould not give satisfactory explanations because there wasno such agreement in the first place.

Dacumos vs. Sandiganbayan

Dacumos was a BIR revenue examiner when he offered tosettle the tax liability of R. Revilla Interiors by pulling outits assessments papers from the office of the BIRCommissioner and procuring a tax clearance. For suchservice, he would require a fee of P35,000.00. Samia, themanager of the firm, pretended to go along with him butreported the matter to the National Bureau ofInvestigation, which arranged an entrapment. Dacumos

was caught and convicted of direct bribery. He argues thathe could not have promised to remove the assessmentpapers from the Commissioner's office as he had no accessto that place.

HELD: The implausibility of his promises does not meanthey were not made or that they did not appear to becredible, coming as they did from one with his longexperience in the BIR and appeared to know his wayaround. The Court finds it especially remarkable that hemet Samia at a private place instead of his office at theBIR, considering that they were supposed to be discussingofficial business and it was Samia who he says wasrequesting his assistance. The Court is not inclined tobelieve that Samia would be so vindictive as to falselyincriminate the petitioner with the serious charge ofbribery simply because the petitioner refused to reduce thetax assessment of R. Revilla Interiors. Samia was not evendirectly involved in the assessment.

Article 211. Indirect Bribery

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He accepts gifts;



5/21

3. The gifts are offered to him by reasonof his office.

Gift is usually given to thepublic officer in anticipation of future favorfrom the public officer

Essential to Art. 211 is that the

public officer must have accepted the giftor material consideration; that is, thepublic officer took the gift offered andconsidered it as his personal property.

There is no attempted orfrustrated indirect bribery

Indirect bribery is differentfrom direct bribery under Art 210 [2] inthat the former the act executed was notunjust while the former requires that theact be unjust

Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from theadministrative penalty of separation from

judicial service.

Direct bribery Indirect briberyThe public officer receives a gift

There is an agreementbetween the officer andthe gift-giver

There is no suchagreement

The offender agrees toperform an act orrefrains from doingsomething because ofthe gift or promise

It is unnecessary that theoffender should do orpromise any act as it isenough that he acceptedthe gift by reason of hisoffice

Presidential Decree No. 46MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS

AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FORPRIVATE PERSONS TO GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY

OCCASION, INCLUDING CHRISTMAS

any public official or employee,

whether of the national or local governments,

to receive, directly or indirectly,

and for private persons

to give, or offer to give, any gift, present orother valuable thing to any occasion, includingChristmas,

when such gift, present or other valuable thing isgiven by reason of his official position,

regardless of whether or not the same is for pastfavor or favors or the giver hopes or expects toreceive a favor or better treatment in the future

from the public official or employee concerned inthe discharge of his official functions.

Included within the prohibition is the throwing ofparties or entertainments in honor of the officialor employees or his immediate relatives.

Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer entrustedwith law enforcement;2. He refrains from arresting orprosecuting an offender who hascommitted a crime;

3. Offender has committed a crimepunishable by reclusion perpetua and/ordeath;4. Offender refrains from arresting orprosecuting in consideration of any offer,promise, gift, or present.

Penalty is increased if thepublic officer asks or demands such gift orpresent.

Article 212. Corruption by public officials

Elements:

1. Offendermakes offers or promises or gives gifts orpresents to a public officer;2. The offers orpromises are made or the gifts or presentsgiven to a public officer, undercircumstances that will make the publicofficer liable for direct bribery or indirectbribery.

The offender in Art. 212 is the gift-giver orofferor of promise, even if the gift wasdemanded by the public officer and the

offer was not made voluntarily prior to saiddemand; public officer is not liable unlesshe accepts the gift or consents to thepromise

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749

Granting Immunity From Prosecution To GiversOf Bribes And Other Gifts And To Their

Accomplices In Bribery And Other Graft CasesAgainst Public Officers

Who may be granted immunity under the Act?

1. Any person who voluntarily gives informationabout any violation of:

- RPC 210 (Direct Bribery), 211 (IndirectBribery), and 212 (Corruption of publicofficials);

- RA 3019



6/21

- Sec 345 of the NIRC- Sec 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code- other provisions of the said Codes

penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the partof the public officials concerned; and otherlaws, rules and regulations punishing acts ofgraft, corruption and other forms of officialabuse;

2. AND who willingly testifies against any publicofficial or employee for such violation

shall be exempt from prosecution or punishmentfor the offense with reference to which hisinformation and testimony were given, and mayplead or prove the giving of such information andtestimony in bar of such prosecution.

EVEN IF - the case where the information and

testimony are given is against a person whois not a public official but who is a principal,or accomplice, or accessory in thecommission of any of the above-mentioned

violations; or- it is the informant who offered or gave the

bribe or gift to the public official or hisaccomplice for such gift or bribe-giving.

What are the conditions for immunity?

1. The information must refer to consummatedviolations of any of the above-mentioned provisionsof law, rules and regulations;

2. The information and testimony are necessary forthe conviction of the accused public officer;

3. Such information and testimony are not yet in thepossession of the State;

4. Such information and testimony can becorroborated on its material points; and

5. The informant or witness has not been previouslyconvicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

When will immunity NOT attach?

- If it should turn out subsequently that theinformation and/or testimony (1) is false andmalicious or (2) made only for the purpose ofharassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing thepublic officer denounced

Republic Act No. 3019Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act,that term

(b) "Public officer" includes electiveand appointive officials and employees,

permanent or temporary, whether in theclassified or unclassified or exempt servicereceiving compensation, even nominal, from thegovernment as defined in the precedingsubparagraph.

(c) "Receiving any gift" includes theact of accepting directly or indirectly a gift froma person other than a member of the publicofficer's immediate family, in behalf of himself orof any member of his family or relative withinthe fourth civil degree, either by consanguinityor affinity, even on the occasion of a familycelebration or national festivity like Christmas, ifthe value of the gift is under the circumstancesmanifestly excessive.

(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicatesotherwise.

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - Inaddition to acts or omissions of public officersalready penalized by existing law, the following shallconstitute corrupt practices of any public officer andare hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencinganother public officer to perform an actconstituting a violation of rules and regulationsduly promulgated by competent authority or anoffense in connection with the official duties ofthe latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,induced, or influenced to commit such violationor offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting orreceiving any gift, present, share, percentage, orbenefit, for himself or for any other person, inconnection with any contract or transactionbetween the Government and any other part,wherein the public officer in his official capacityhas to intervene under the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting orreceiving any gift, present or other pecuniary ormaterial benefit, for himself or for another, fromany person for whom the public officer, in anymanner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or

will secure or obtain, any Government permit orlicense, in consideration for the help given or tobe given, without prejudice to Section thirteen ofthis Act.

(d) Accepting or having any memberof his family accept employment in a privateenterprise which has pending official businesswith him during the pendency thereof or withinone year after its termination.

(e) Causing any undue injury to anyparty, including the Government, or giving any



7/21

RA 1379FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF ANY

PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLYACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR

EMPLOYEE (1955)

SECTION 1. Definitions.(a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or

employee" means any person holding any publicoffice or employment by virtue of anappointment, election or contract, and anyperson holding any office or employment, byappointment or contract, in any State owned orcontrolled corporation or enterprise.

(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" meansany real or personal property, money orsecurities which the respondent has at any timeacquired by inheritance and the income thereof,or by gift inter vivos before his becoming apublic officer or employee, or any property (orincome thereof) already pertaining to him whenhe qualified for public office or employment, orthe fruits and income of the exclusive propertyof the respondent's spouse. It shall not include:

1. Property unlawfully acquired by therespondent, but its ownership is concealed by itsbeing recorded in the name of, or held by, therespondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants,relatives, or any other person.

2. Property unlawfully acquired by therespondent, but transferred by him to another personor persons on or after the effectivity of this Act.

3. Property donated to the respondentduring his incumbency, unless he can prove to thesatisfaction of the court that the donation is lawful.

SECTION 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any publicofficer or employee has acquired during his

incumbency an amount of property which ismanifestly out of proportion to his salary as suchpublic officer or employee and to his other lawfulincome and the income from legitimately acquiredproperty, said property shall be presumed primafacie to have been unlawfully acquired.

SECTION 11. Laws on prescription. - The lawsconcerning acquisitive prescription and limitation ofactions cannot be invoked by, nor shall they benefitthe respondent, in respect of any property unlawfullyacquired by him.

SECTION 12. Penalties. Any public officer oremployee who shall, after the effective date of thisAct, transfer or convey any unlawfully acquired

property shall be repressed with imprisonment for aterm not exceeding 5 years, or a fine not exceedingP10,000, or both such imprisonment and fine. Thesame repression shall be imposed upon any personwho shall knowingly accept such transfer orconveyance.

R.A. 6713Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

for Public Officials and Employees

What are Prohibited Acts and Transactions?In addition to acts and omissions of public officialsand employees now prescribed in the Constitutionand existing laws, the following shall constitute

prohibited acts and transactions of any public officialand employee and are hereby declared to beunlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest in any transactionrequiring the approval of their office.

(b) Public officials and employees during theirincumbency shall not:a. Own, control, manage or acceptemployment as officer, employee, consultant,counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee inany private enterprise regulated, supervised orlicensed by their office unless expressly allowedby law;b. Engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the Constitutionor law, provided, that such practice will notconflict or tend to conflict with their officialfunctions; orc. Recommend any person to any position in aprivate enterprise which has a regular orpending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for aperiod of one (1) year after resignation, retirement,or separation from public office, except in the case ofsubparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professionalconcerned cannot practice his profession inconnection with any matter before the office he usedto be with, in which case the one-year prohibitionshall likewise apply.

(c) Public officials and employees shall notuse or divulge, confidential or classifiedinformation officially known to them by reason oftheir office and not made available to the public,either (1)To further their private interests, orgive undue advantage to anyone; or (2)Toprejudice the public interest.

(d) Public officials and employees shall notsolicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift,gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anythingof monetary value from any person in the courseof their official duties or in connection with anyoperation being regulated by, or any transactionwhich may be affected by the functions of theiroffice.

As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, theCongress consents to:(i) The acceptance and retention by a

public official or employee of a gift of nominalvalue tendered and received as a souvenir ormark of courtesy;

(ii) The acceptance by a public official oremployee of a gift in the nature of a scholarshipor fellowship grant or medical treatment; or

(iii) The acceptance by a public official or



8/21

employee of travel grants or expenses for traveltaking place entirely outside the Philippine (suchas allowances, transportation, food, and lodging)of more than nominal value if such acceptance isappropriate or consistent with the interests ofthe Philippines, and permitted by the head ofoffice, branch or agency to which he belongs.

The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations asmay be necessary to carry out the purpose of thissubsection, including pertinent reporting anddisclosure requirements.Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict orprohibit any educational, scientific or culturalexchange programs subject to national securityrequirements.

Penalties imposed

(a) Any public official oremployee, regardless of whether or not he holdsoffice or employment in a casual, temporary,holdover, permanent or regular capacity,committing any violation of this Act shall bepunished with a fine not exceeding theequivalent of six (6) months' salary orsuspension not exceeding one (1) year, orremoval depending on the gravity of theoffense after due notice and hearing by theappropriate body or agency. If the violation ispunishable by a heavier penalty under anotherlaw, he shall be prosecuted under the latterstatute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of thisAct shall be punishable with imprisonment notexceeding five (5) years, or a fine notexceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), orboth, and, in the discretion of the court ofcompetent jurisdiction, disqualification tohold public office.

(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceedingshall be sufficient cause for removal ordismissal of a public official or employee, evenif no criminal prosecution is instituted againsthim.

(c) Private individuals whoparticipate in conspiracy as co-principals,accomplices or accessories, with public officialsor employees, in violation of this Act, shall besubject to the same penal liabilities as the publicofficials or employees and shall be tried jointlywith them.

(d) The official or employee

concerned may bring an action against anyperson who obtains or uses a report for anypurpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act.The Court in which such action is brought mayassess against such person a penalty in anyamount not to exceed twenty-five thousandpesos (P25,000). If another sanction hereunderor under any other law is heavier, the latter shallapply.

Morfe vs. Mutuc

Issue: Whether RA 3019 sec 7 was unconstitutional

HELD: No. The Anti- Graft Act of 1960 was aimed atcurtailing and minimizing the opportunities for officialcorruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in thepublic service. It is intended to further promote morality in

public administration. A public office must indeed be apublic trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal tobe pursued commands the assent of all. The conditionsthen prevailing called for norms of such character. Thetimes demanded such a remedial device. By the provisionsof the challenged section, it becomes much more difficultby those disposed to take advantage of their position tocommit acts of graft and corruption. While in theattainment of such public good, no infringement ofconstitutional rights is permissible, there must be ashowing, clear, categorical, and undeniable, that what theConstitution condemns, the statute allows.

It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractionsand to ignore the harsh and compelling realities of publicservice with its ever-present temptation to heed the call ofgreed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive arequirement as that imposed on public officials andemployees to file such sworn statement of assets andliabilities every two years after having done so uponassuming office. The due process clause is not susceptibleto such a reproach. There was therefore nounconstitutional exercise of police power.

Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan

Jaravata was an asst. principal when he informed theclassroom teachers of the approval of the release of theirsalary differentials and to facilitate its payment accusedand the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-upthe papers in Manila with the obligation on the part of theclassroom teachers to reimburse the accused of hisexpenses. He did incur expenses in the amount of P36 for

each of the 6 teachers. The teachers actually receivedtheir salary differentials and pursuant to said agreement,they, with the exception of 2 teachers, gave the accusedvarying amounts but as the administrator did not approveit, he ordered the Jaravata to return the money given tohim which he complied. Jaravata was charged andconvicted under RA 3019 SEC 3(b)

HELD: Jaravata was not in violation of RA 3019 Sec 3(b).Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public officer whoseofficial intervention is required by law in a contract ortransaction.

There is no law which invests the petitioner withthe power to intervene in the payment of the salarydifferentials of the complainants or anyone for that matter.Far from exercising any power, the petitioner played thehumble role of a supplicant whose mission was to expeditepayment of the salary differentials. In his official capacityas assistant principal, he is not required by law tointervene in the payment of the salary differentials.Accordingly, he cannot be said to have violated the lawafore-cited although he exerted efforts to facilitate thepayment of the salary differentials.

Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan



9/21

Mayor Trieste had been charged and convicted for 12violations of RA 3019 Sec 3 (h) for the purchases ofconstruction materials by his municipality from a companyof which he is allegedly the president.

HELD: No violation. Petitioner has divested his interestwith the company. Petitioner established that before heassumed office as mayor he had already sold his shares of

the company to his sister. The sale was made bycorresponding indorsements to her stock certificate whichwas duly recorded in the stock and transfer book ofthe corporation.

In as much as Treasurer Vega signed and paid thevouchers after the materials were delivered, petitioner'ssignature on the vouchers after payment is not, we submit,the kind of intervention contemplated under Section 3(h)of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in thetransaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interestin order that liability may attach. The official need notdispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does notdo anything for the firm in its contract with the office. Forthe law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence,authority and power.There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in hiscapacity as Mayor, used his influence, power, and authorityin having the transactions given to Trigen.

Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan

Mejorada was a right-of-way agent with DPWH. Petitionercontacted the persons affected by the widening of the roadand informed them that he could work out their claims forpayment of the values of their lots and/or improvementsaffected by the widening of said highway. They were paidmore than what was the value of their property. Right afterthe claimants had received the proceeds of their checks,accused accompanied them to his car where they weredivested of the amounts paid to them. All the claimantswere helpless to complaint because they were afraid of theaccused and his armed companion.

Petitioner contends that the eight informationsfiled against him before the Sandiganbayan are fatallydefective in that it failed to allege the essential ingredientsor elements constituting the offense penalized by Section3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.

HELD: Section 3s reference to "any public officer" iswithout distinction or qualification and it specifies the actsdeclared unlawful. The last sentence of paragraph (e) isintended to make clear the inclusion of officers andemployees of officers or government corporations, which,under the ordinary concept of "public officers" may notcome within the term. It is a strained construction of theprovision to read it as applying exclusively to publicofficers charged with the duty of granting licenses orpermits or other concessions.

The government suffered undue injury as a result of hisinflating the true claims of complainants which eventuallybecame the basis of payment. His contention that he hadno participation is belied by the fact that as a right-of-way-agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with propertyowners who are affected by highway constructions for thepurpose of compensating them.

On the part of the complainants, the injurycaused to them consists in their being divested of a largeproportion of their claims and receiving payment in anamount even lower than the actual damage they incurred.

They were deprived of the just compensation to which theyare entitled.

Plunder

REPUBLIC ACT No. 7080AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING

THE CRIME OF PLUNDER

Ill-gotten wealth -- means any asset, property,business enterprise or material possession of anyperson within the purview of Section 2 acquired byhim directly or indirectly through dummies,nominees, agents, subordinates and/or businessassociates by any combination or series of thefollowing means or similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation,conversion, misuse, or malversation ofpublic funds or raids on the public treasury;

2) By receiving, directly or indirectly,any commission, gift, share, percentage,kickbacks or any other form of pecuniarybenefit from any person and/or entity inconnection with any government contract orproject or by reason of the office or positionof the public officer concerned;3) By the illegal or fraudulentconveyance or disposition of assets

belonging to the National Government orany of its subdivisions, agencies orinstrumentalities or government-owned or-controlled corporations and theirsubsidiaries;4) By obtaining, receiving oraccepting directly or indirectly any shares ofstock, equity or any other form of interest orparticipation including promise of futureemployment in any business enterprise orundertaking;5) By establishing agricultural,industrial or commercial monopolies orother combinations and/or implementationof decrees and orders intended to benefitparticular persons or special interests; or6) By taking undue advantage of

official position, authority, relationship,connection or influence to unjustly enrichhimself or themselves at the expense and tothe damage and prejudice of the Filipinopeople and the Republic of the Philippines.

Who are guilty of plunder?

a) any public officer who, by himself or inconnivance with members of his family,relatives by affinity or consanguinity,business associates, subordinates or other



10/21

persons, amasses, accumulates oracquires ill-gotten wealth through acombination or series of overt orcriminal acts, in the aggregate amount ortotal value of at least Seventy-five millionpesos (P75,000,000.00)

b) any person who participated with said publicofficer in the commission of plunder shall be

punished by life imprisonment withperpetual absolute disqualification fromholding any public office.

Who has jurisdiction? -- all prosecutions under thisAct shall be within the original jurisdiction of theSandiganbayan.

How proved? -- For purposes of establishing thecrime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to proveeach and every criminal act done by the accused infurtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it beingsufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt apattern of overt or criminal acts indicative ofthe overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

Prescription -- The crime punishable under this Actshall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, theright of the State to recover properties unlawfullyacquired by public officers from them or from theirnominees or transferees shall not be barred byprescription, laches, or estoppel.

Article 213. Frauds against the publictreasury

Acts punishable:

1. Entering into an agreement with anyinterested party or speculator or makinguse of any other scheme, to defraud thegovernment, in dealing with any personwith regard to furnishing supplies, the

making of contracts, or the adjustment orsettlement of accounts relating to publicproperty or funds;

2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, thepayment of sums different from or largerthan those authorized by law, in collectionof taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;

3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, asprovided by law, for any sum of moneycollected by him officially, in the collectionof taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;

4. Collecting or receiving, directly orindirectly, by way of payment or otherwise,things or objects of a nature different fromthat provided by law, in the collection of

taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts.

Elements of frauds against public treasuryunder paragraph 1

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He has taken advantage of his office, that

is, he intervened in the transaction in hisofficial capacity;

3. He entered into an agreement with anyinterested party or speculator or made useof any other scheme with regard tofurnishing supplies, the making ofcontracts, or the adjustment or settlement

of accounts relating to public property orfunds;4. He had intent to defraud the government.

Public officer mustact in his official capacity

Crime of fraudsagainst public treasury is consummated bymerely entering into an agreement withany interested party or speculator or bymerely making use of any other scheme todefraud Government.

Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph2

1. Offender is a public officer entrusted withthe collection of taxes, licenses, fees andother imposts;

2. He is guilty of any of the following acts oromissions:

b. Demanding, directly orindirectly, the payment of sums



11/21

different from or larger than thoseauthorized by law; orc. Failing voluntarily to issue areceipt, as provided by law, for anysum of money collected by himofficially; or

d. Collecting or receiving, directlyor indirectly, by way of payment orotherwise, things or objects of a nature

different from that provided by law.

Crime of illegalexactions is consummated by meredemand for larger or different amount fromthat fixed by law.

Collecting officermust issue official receipt otherwise heldliable under this article.

When there is deceitin demanding greater fees than thoseprescribed by law, the crime is estafa notillegal exaction.

Tax collector whocollected a sum larger than that authorizedby law and spent all of them is guilty of 2crimes, namely: illegal exaction, fordemanding a greater amount; andmalversation for misappropriating theamount collected.

BIR or Customsofficers and employees not covered by Art213. NIRC or Admin Code applies to them.

Article 214. Other Frauds

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He takes advantage of his official position;3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits

enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (Estafa,other forms of swindling, swindling a minorand other deceits)

RTC has jurisdiction when Art 214 isinvolved as MTCs do not have jurisdictionto impose the principal penalty in Art. 214of disqualification

Article 215. Prohibited Transactions

Elements

1. Offender is an appointive public officer;2. He becomes interested, directly or

indirectly, in any transaction of exchangeor speculation;

3. The transaction takes place within theterritory subject to his jurisdiction;

4. He becomes interested in the transactionduring his incumbency.

Transaction must be one of exchange orspeculation such as buying regularly

securities for resale. Purchasing of stocks or shares in a

company is simply an investment and not aviolation of Art. 215.

Examples of appointive public officer whomay not engage in the commercialprofession either in person or by proxy: justices, judges or fiscals, employeesengaged in the collection andadministration of public funds.

Article 216. Possession of prohibitedinterest by a public officer

Persons liable:

1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly,became interested in any contracts orbusiness in which it was his official duty tointervene;

2. Experts, arbitrators, and privateaccountants who, in like manner, took partin any contract or transaction connectedwith the estate or property in the appraisal,distribution or adjudication of which theyhad acted;

3. Guardians and executors with respect tothe property belonging to their wards or

the estate.

This provision is applicable to experts,arbitrators and private accountants who, inlike manner, shall take part in any contractor transaction connected with the estate orproperty in appraisal distribution oradjudication of which they shall haveacted, and to the guardians and executorswith respect tom the property belonging totheir wards or estate.

Actual fraud is not necessary

Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution

No Senator or Member of the House ofRepresentatives may personally appear ascounsel before any court of justice orbefore the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi- judicial and other administrative bodies.Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, beinterested financially in any contract with,or in any franchise or special privilegegranted by the Government or any



12/21

subdivision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, including any government-ownedor controlled corporation or its subsidiary,during his term of office. He shall notintervene in any matter before any office ofthe government for his pecuniary benefit orwhere he may be called upon to act on

account of his office.

Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution

The President, Vice-President, the Membersof the Cabinet and their deputies orassistant shall not, unless otherwiseprovided in this Constitution, hold anyother office or employment during theirtenure. They shall not, during said tenure,directly or indirectly, practice any otherprofession, participate in any business, orbe financially interested in any contractwith, or in any franchise, or specialprivilege granted by the Government or

any subdivision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations or theirsubsidiaries. They shall strictly avoidconflict of interest in the conduct of theiroffice.

Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution

No member of a Constitutional Commissionshall, during his tenure, hold any office oremployment. Neither shall he engage inthe practice of any profession or in theactive management or control of any

business which in any way may be affectedby the functions of his office, nor shall hebe financially interested, directly orindirectly, in any contract with, or in anyfranchise or privilege granted by thegovernment, or any of its subdivisions,agencies, or instrumentalities, includinggovernment-owned or controlledcorporations or their subsidiaries.

Article 217. Malversation of public funds

Acts punishable:

1. Appropriating public funds or property;2. Taking or misappropriating the same;3. Consenting, or through abandonment or

negligence, permitting any other person totake such public funds or property; and

4. Being otherwise guilty of themisappropriation or malversation of suchfunds or property.

Elements common to all acts of malversationunder Article 217

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He had the custody or control of funds or

property by reason of the duties of hisoffice;

3. Those funds or property were public fundsor property for which he was accountable;

4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated orconsented or, through abandonment ornegligence, permitted another person totake them.

Also known as embezzlement

Nature of duties, not name of office iscontrolling

Funds or property must be received inofficial capacity

A public officer having only a qualifiedcharge of government property without

authority to part with physical possessionof it unless upon order from his immediatesuperior, cannot be held liable formalversation. This rule does not applywhen the accused had authority to receivemoney pertaining to the Government.

A private person conspiring with anaccountable public officer in committingmalversation is also guilty of malversation.Under Art. 222 private individuals may alsoguilty of malversation.

Private property may be involvedmalversation. This article applies toadministrators or depositories of funds or

property attached, seized, or deposited bypublic authority, even if such propertybelongs to a private individual.

In malversation not committed throughnegligence, lack of criminal intent or goodfaith is a defense.

Presumption from failure to have dulyforthcoming public funds or property upondemand is prima facie evidence that thesaid funds have been put to personal use.This may be rebutted.

Return of the funds malversed is only amitigating circumstance.

When at the very moment the shortage is

discovered, the shortage is paid by publicofficer from his pocket, he is not liable formalversation.

When the accountable officer is obliged togo out of his office and borrow the sumalleged to be the shortage and later themissing amount is found in someunaccustomed place in his office, he is notliable for malversation.



13/21

Demand not necessary in malversation inspite of the last paragraph in Art. 217 asthe latter provides only for a rule ofprocedural law, a rule of evidence and nomore.

A person whose negligence made possiblethe commission of malversation may be

held liable as principal by indispensablecooperation in the complex crime ofmalversation through falsification of apublic document by reckless negligence.

Damage to Government not necessary.Penalty is based on the amount involved,not on the amount of damage to thegovernment.

Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan

Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of theMindanao State University. She filed a leave of absence anddid not discharge her duties for the said period. When COAconducted the examination, the petitioner did not have anycash in her possession, so she was asked to produce all herrecords, books of collection, copies of official receipts andremittance advices and her monthly reports of collections.Petitioner incurred shortages. Petitioner was charged andconvicted of malversation of public funds.

HELD: Conviction upheld. Her claim that she signed theaudit report and statement of collections and depositsprepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on theunderstanding that her shortage was only P2,000.00 isbelied by the figures clearly reflected on the saiddocuments. Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecutions rebuttalwitness, confirmed that the accused filed application formaternity leave in March 1978 but continued reporting for

work during that month and that she (Guanzon) was theone assigned to collect the fees in her stead. When theaccused was physically absent from office, she also turnedover her collections to the accused in the latters housewith the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued whichthe accused signed after satisfying herself that the amountsturned over tallied with the receipts.

All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused byDirector Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casansupported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite theadmission by Director Osop of having signed some of themwere not valid disbursements. Granting that the amountsreflected in the chits were really secured by the personswho signed them, the responsibility to account for themstill rests in the accused accountable officer. Malversationconsists not only in misappropriation or converting public

funds or property to ones personal use but also byknowingly allowing others to make use of ormisappropriate them.

Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan

Estepa, then a senior paymaster lost P50,000 governmentmoney. Petitioners contention is that the facts alleged inthe information did not constitute an offense since there

can be no crime of malversation of public funds throughmere failure to count the money.

HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessaryfor conviction is proof that the accountable officer hadreceived the public funds and that he did not have them inhis possession when demand therefore was made and hecould not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An

accountable public officer may be convicted formalversation even if there is no direct evidence of personalmisappropriation, where he has not been able to explainsatisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved.

Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan

Ilogon was the acting Postmaster when the examinationshowed that the petitioner incurred a shortage in hisaccounts. He was charged and convicted of malversation ofpublic funds.

HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessaryfor conviction is proof that the accountable officer hadreceived public funds and that he did not have them in hispossession when demand 73herefore was made. There iseven no need of direct evidence of personalmisappropriation as long as there is a shortage in hisaccount and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain thesame.

The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missingfunds is not a valid defense and will not exculpate himfrom his criminal liability. And as aptly found byrespondent Sandiganbayan, the fact that (the) immediatesuperiors of the accused (petitioner herein) haveacquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances forconvenience did not legalize the disbursements.

The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount ofP118,003.10 later is of no moment. The return of fundsmalversed is not a defense. It is neither an exempting

circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accusedscriminal liability. At best, it is a mitigating circumstance.

Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business,hauling. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at theformers premises.

A Warrant of Distraint of Personal

Property was issued by the BIR to the personal property ofJaime Ancla, a delinquent taxpayer. Later on, Azarconwrote the BIR stating Ancla surreptitiously withdrew hisequipment from hiss custody. Because of this, Azarcon wascharged and convicted of malversation of public property.The issue here is whether petitioners designation by theBIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies asappointment by direct provision of law, or by competentauthority

HELD: Not a public officer. The case ofU.S. vs. Rastrollois not applicable to the case before us simply because thefacts therein are not identical, similar or analogous tothose obtaining here. While the cited case involved a

judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of attachedproperty in the hands of the debtor, the case at benchdealt with the BIRs administrative act of effectingconstructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer



14/21

Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which wasreceived by Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it wasclearly within the scope of that courts jurisdiction andjudicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and givethe depositary a character equivalent to that of a publicofficial. However, in the instant case, while the BIR hadauthority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt forthe distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to

appoint Azarcon a public officer.

People v. Wa-Acon (2006)

Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that theaccused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriatedpublic funds or property. Instead, a presumption, thoughdisputable and rebuttable, was installed that upon demandby any duly authorized officer, the failure of a publicofficer to have duly forthcoming any public funds orproperty with which said officer is accountableshould be

prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds orproperties to personal use. When these circumstances arepresent, a presumption of law arises that there wasmalversation of public funds or properties as decreed by

Article 217.

Article 218. Failure of accountable officerto render accounts

Elements:

1. Offender is public officer, whether inthe service or separated therefrom byresignation or any other cause;2. He is an accountable officer for publicfunds or property;3. He is required by law or regulation torender account to the Commission on

Audit, or to a provincial auditor;4. He fails to do so for a period of twomonths after such accounts should berendered.

Demand for accounting not necessary, it issufficient that there is a law or regulationrequiring him to render account.

The reason for this law is the enforcementby penal provision the performance of theduty incumbent upon every publicemployee who handles government fundsto render an account of all he receives ofhas in his charge by reason of his

employment. Misappropriation not necessary.

Article 219. Failure of accountable officerto render accounts before leaving thecountry

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He is an accountable officer for publicfunds or property;3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts toleave the Philippine Islands withoutsecuring a certificate from the Commissionon Audit showing that his accounts have

been finally settled.

Article 220. Illegal use of public funds orproperty (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. There are public funds or propertyunder his administration;3. Such fund or property wereappropriated by law or ordinance;4. He applies such public fund or propertyto any public use other than for which it

was appropriated for.

Also known as technical malversation

Illegal use of public funds or propertydistinguished from malversation:

1. Offenders inboth crimes are public officers2. In Illegal use,the public officer does not derivepersonal gain of profit,; Inmalversation, the offender in certaincases profits3. In Illegal use,the public fund or property is applied to

another public use; In malversation,the public fund or property is applied topersonal use.

Article 221. Failure to make delivery ofpublic funds or property

Acts punishable:

1. Failing to make payment by a public officerwho is under obligation to make suchpayment from government funds in hispossession;

2. Refusing to make delivery by a publicofficer who has been ordered by competentauthority to deliver any property in hiscustody or under his administration.

Elements of failure to make payment:

1. Public officer has government funds in hispossession;

2. He is under obligation to make paymentfrom such funds;



15/21

3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.

Refusal to make delivery of property mustbe malicious

Article 222. Officers included in the

preceding provisions

1. private individuals who, in any capacitywhatever, have charge of any national,provincial or municipal funds, revenues, orproperty

2. any administrator or depository of funds orproperty attached, seized or deposited bypublic authority, even if such propertybelongs to a private individual.

Judicial administrator (of estate ofdeceased) not covered, conversion ofeffects makes him liable for estafa.

Private property is included provided it isattached, seized or deposited by publicauthority.

Campomanes v. People (2006)

As gleaned from the parties stipulation of facts, the PSCand the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring thePSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organizethe Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSCdelivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparentlysuccessfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congresssince the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed toorganize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied withits undertaking under the contract.

There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, aforeign non-governmental entity, is obligated under thecontract to render an accounting.

There is also no showing that the PSCs charter or any lawor regulation requires the FIDE to render an accounting tothe PSC or the COA as a condition for the receipt of funds.Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liabilityon the part of the FIDEs officers under Article 222 of theRevised Penal Code which admittedly requires that theremust be a law or regulation requiring the rendering ofaccounts by private individuals.

Article 223. Conniving with or consenting

to evasion

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He had in his custody or charge aprisoner, either detention prisoner orprisoner by final judgment;3. Such prisoner escaped from hiscustody;4. He was in connivance with the prisonerin the latters escape.

Classes of prisoners involved:

1. If the fugitive has beensentenced by final judgment to anypenalty;2. If the fugitive is held only

as detention prisoner for any crime orviolation of law or municipal ordinance.

Release of detention prisoner who couldnot be delivered to the judicial authoritywithin the time fixed by law is not infidelityin the custody of the prisoner

Leniency or laxity is not infidelity.

Relaxation of imprisonment is consideredinfidelity.

Article 224. Evasion through negligence

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He is charged with the conveyance orcustody of a prisoner or prisoner by finaljudgment;3. Such prisoner escapes throughnegligence.

Detention prisonersincluded

Only the positivecarelessness that is short of deliberatenon-performance of his duties as guardthat is the gravamen of the crime under Art

224. The fact that thepublic officer recaptured the escapedprisoner does not afford completeexculpation.

Liability of escapingprisoner:1. If serving sentence by reason of final

judgment- evasion of service under Art157

2. If detention prisoner, no criminalliability.

Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan

Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed byhis superior, to escort prisoners to face trial. Whilewaiting for the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres, arelative of the husband of detention prisonerZenaida, approached the accused and requested thelatter if he could permit Zenaida to talk to herhusband. The accused consented and Zenaida had ashort talk with her husband. He consented to therequest that they eat at the canteen. While eating,the husband of Zenaida asked accused if he could



16/21

accompany his wife to the comfort room as she wasnot feeling well and felt like defecating. The accusedaccompanied Zenaida and a lady companion to theladies' comfort room. Zenaida and her ladycompanion entered the comfort room, while he stoodguard near the ladies' comfort room facing the door.Not long after, the lady companion of Zenaida cameout of the comfort room and told him that she was

going to buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After tenminutes elapsed without the lady companion ofZenaida coming back, the accused becamesuspicious and entered the comfort room. To hissurprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside thecomfort room. He immediately went out to look forthe escapee inside the building but they were notable to see her. Accused was unable to recaptureZenaida. Was the Sandiganbayan correct in holdingthe petitioner guilty of infidelity in the custody of aprisoner through negligence penalized under Art.224?

HELD:Yes. The only disputed issue is the petitioner'snegligence resulting in the escape of detentionprisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred toin the Revised Penal Code is such definite laxity as allbut amounts to a deliberate non-performance of dutyon the part of the guard. It is evident from therecords that the petitioner acted negligently andbeyond the scope of his authority when he permittedhis charge to create the situation which led to herescape. The petitioner contends that humanconsiderations compelled him to grant ZenaidaAndres' requests to take lunch and to go to thecomfort room to relieve herself. As a police officerwho was charged with the duty to return the prisonerdirectly to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearlya violation of the regulations. It is the duty of anypolice officer having custody of a prisoner to takenecessary precautions to assure the absence of anymeans of escape. A failure to undertake theseprecautions will make his act one of definite laxity or

negligence amounting to deliberate non-performanceof duty. His tolerance of arrangements whereby theprisoner and her companions could plan and makegood her escape should have aroused the suspicionof a person of ordinary prudence.

Article 225. Escape of prisoner under thecustody of a person not a public officer

Elements:

1. Offender is a private person;2. The conveyance or custody of aprisoner or person under arrest is confided

to him;3. The prisoner or person under arrestescapes;4. Offender consents to the escape, orthat the escape takes place through hisnegligence.

Inapplicable if the private person is the onewho made the arrest and he consented tothe escape of the person he arrested

Article 226. Removal, concealment, ordestruction of documents

Elements:

1.Offender is a public officer;2.He abstracts, destroys or conceals adocument or papers;3.Said document or papers should have beenentrusted to such public officer by reasonof his office;4.Damage, whether serious or not, to a thirdparty or to the public interest has beencaused.

Public officer must be officially entrustedwith the documents or papers

Documents must be complete and one bywhich a right could be established or anobligation could be extinguished

Books, periodicals and pamphlets notdocuments

Papers include checks, promissory notesand paper money

Infidelity in the custody of the documentdistinguished from malversation andfalsification: When the postmasterreceived money orders, signed thesignatures of the payees, collected andappropriated the respective amounts

thereof, the postmaster is guilty ofmalversation and falsification, the lattercrime having been committed themalversation. But when the postmasterreceives letters or envelopes containingmoney orders for transmission and themoney orders are not sent to theaddressees, the postmaster cashing thesame for his own benefit, he is guilty ofinfidelity in the custody of papers.

Money bills received as court exhibits arepapers.

Acts punishable: removing, destroying,concealing, documents or papers officially

entrusted to the offending public officer. It is not necessary that the act of removal

must be coupled with proof of intention toconceal. Accordingly, removal, destructionand concealment are distinct modes ofcommitting the offense.

The removal is for a illicit purpose whenoffender intends to (1) tamper with it or (2)profit with it of (3) commit an act



17/21

constituting a breach of trust in the officialcare thereof.

The crime of removal of public documentsin breach of official trust is consummatedupon its removal from its usual place in theoffice.

Infidelity in the custody of document by

destroying or concealing it does not requireproof of illicit purpose.

Delivering document to the wrong party isinfidelity in the custody thereof.

There must be damage, great or small,which may consist in mere alarm to thepublic or alienation of its confidence in anybranch of government service.

Article 227. Officer breaking seal

Elements:

1. Offender is a publicofficer;2. He is charged withthe custody of papers or property;3. These papers orproperty are sealed by proper authority;4. He breaks the sealor permits them to be broken.

It is the breaking of the seals, notopening of closed envelope that ispunishable under the Article.

Damage or intent to cause damageis not necessary.

Distinction between infidelity and

theft1. There is infidelity if theoffender opened the letter but didnot take the same.2. There is theft if there is intentto gain when the offender took themoney.

Note that he document must be completein legal sense. If the writings are mereform, there is no crime.

Article 228. Opening of closed documents

Elements:

1.Offender is a public officer;2.Any closed papers, documents, or objectare entrusted to his custody;3.He opens or permits to be opened saidclosed papers, documents or objects;

4.He does not have proper authority.

Custody means a guarding or keeping safe

Closed documents must be entrusted tothe custody of the accused by reason of hisoffice

Damage or intent to cause damage not anelement

If public officer broke a seal in openingclosed papers, what is the offense?Breaking the seal, because Article 228requires that the officer must not beincluded in the provisions of the nextpreceding article.

Article 229. Revelation of secrets by anofficer

Acts punishable:

1. Revealing any secrets known to theoffending public officer by reason of hisofficial capacity;

Elements1.Offender is a public officer;2.He knows of a secret by reason of hisofficial capacity;3.He reveals such secret withoutauthority or justifiable reasons;4.

Damage, great or small, is caused tothe public interest.

Secret must affect public interest

Espionage not contemplated here as thisarticle punishes minor official betrayals,infidelities of little consequence, affectingusually the administration of justice,executive or official duties, or the generalinterest of the public order

Secrets of private persons not included

2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies ofpapers of which he may have charge and

which should not be published.

Elements:1. Offender is apublic officer;2. He has chargeof papers;3. Those papersshould not be published;



18/21

4. He deliversthose papers or copies thereof to athird person;5. The delivery iswrongful;6. Damage iscaused to public interest.

Offender must have charge of papers or itscopies

Distinguish from infidelity in the custody ofdocuments or papers by removing thesame: If the papers contain secrets andtherefore should not be published, and thepublic officer having charge removes it anddelivers them wrongfully to a third personthe crime is revelation of secrets by apublic officer. If papers do not containsecrets, the removal for an illicit purpose isinfidelity in the custody of documents.

Article 230. Public officer revealingsecrets of private individual

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He knows of the secrets of a private

individual by reason of his office;3. He reveals such secrets without authority

or justifiable reason.

Revelation to one person is sufficient,public revelation not required

When the offender is an attorney at law orsolicitor Art 230 is not applicable but Art209.

Damage to private person not necessarysince the reason of the provision is touphold faith and trust in the public service

Article 231. Open disobedience

1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a

superior authority;3. Such judgment, decision or order was

made within the scope of the jurisdiction of

the superior authority and issued with allthe legal formalities;

4. He, without any legal justification, openlyrefuses to execute the said judgment,decision or order, which he is duty boundto obey.

Article 232. Disobedience to order ofsuperior officer, when said order wassuspended by inferior officer

1. Offender is a public officer;2. An order is issued by hissuperior for execution;

3. He has for any reasonsuspended the execution of such order;4. His superior disapproves thesuspension of the execution of the order;5. Offender disobeys his superiordespite the disapproval of the suspension.

This article does not apply ifthe order of the superior is illegal.

Article 233. Refusal of assistance

1. Offender is apublic officer;2. A competentauthority demands from the offender thathe lend his cooperation towards theadministration of justice or other publicservice;3. Offender failsto do so maliciously.

Damage to public interest or to a third party isessential.

Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective

office

1.Offender is elected by popular election to apublic office;2.He refuses to be sworn in or to dischargethe duties of said office;3.There is no legal motive for such refusal tobe sworn in or to discharge the duties ofsaid office.

The reason is that once an individual is

elected to an office by the will of thepeople, the discharge of the duties of saidoffice becomes a matter of duty.

Not applicable to appointive officers

Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer or employee;



19/21

2. He has under his charge a prisoner ordetention prisoner;

3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of thefollowing manners:

a. By overdoing himself in the correctionor handling of a prisoner or detention

prisoner under his charge either -

(1) By the imposition of punishment not authorized bythe regulations; or

(2) By inflicting such punishments(those authorized) in a crueland humiliating manner; or

b. By maltreating such prisoners to extorta confession or to obtain someinformation from the prisoner.

Public officer must have actual charge ofthe prisoner

Offended party must be convict ordetention prisoner

To be a detention prisoner, the arrestedperson must be in jail even for a shortwhile.

The maltreatment must (1) relate to thecorrection or handling of the prisoner or (2)be for the purpose of extorting aconfession or of obtaining someinformation from the prisoner.

Offender may also be liable for physicalinjuries or damage caused

Article 236. Anticipation of duties of apublic office

1. Offender is entitled to hold a public officeor employment, either by election orappointment;

2. The law requires that he should first besworn in and/or should first give a bond;

3. He assumes the performance of the dutiesand powers of such office;

4. He has not taken his oath of office and/orgiven the bond required by law.

Article 237. Prolonging performance ofduties and powers

1. Offender is holding a public office;2. The period provided by law, regulations or

special provision for holding such office,has already expired;

3. He continues to exercise the duties andpowers of such office.

1. A public officer who has beensuspended, separated, declaredoveraged or dismissed cannot continueto perform the duties of his office.

Article 238. Abandonment of office or

position

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He formally resigns from his position;3. His resignation has not yet been accepted;4. He abandons his office to the detriment of

the public service.

There must be a written or formalresignation, verbal statement is notallowed

The offense is qualified when theabandonment was for the purpose toevade the discharge of duties ofpreventing, prosecuting, or punishing anyof the crimes of (1) treason, (2) conspiracyand proposal to commit treason, (3)misprision of treason, (4) espionage, (5)inciting to war or giving motives forreprisal, (6) violation of neutrality, (7)correspondence with hostile country, (8)flight to enemy country, (9) piracy andmutiny, (10) rebellion, (11) coup d etat,(12) conspiracy and proposal to commitcoup d etat or rebellion, (13) disloyalty ofpublic officers, (14) inciting to rebellion,(15) sedition, (16) conspiracy to commitsedition and (17) inciting to sedition.

Art 238 distinguished from Art. 208:

1. Art. 238 is committed by any publicofficer while in Art 208 is committed bypublic officers who have the duty toinstitute prosecution for thepunishment and violation of the law

2. Art. 238 , public officer abandons officeto evade the discharge of duty, in Art208, the public officer does notabandon his office but fails toprosecute an offense by dereliction ofduty or malicious tolerance of thecommission of the offense.

Article 239. Usurpation of legislativepowers

1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations

beyond the scope of his authority or (b)attempts to repeal a law or (c) suspendsthe execution thereof.



20/21

Article 240. Usurpation of executivefunctions

1. Offender is ajudge;2. He (a) assumesa power pertaining to the executive

authorities, or (b) obstructs the executiveauthorities in the lawful exercise of theirpowers.

1. Legislative officers not liable

Article 241. Usurpation of judicialfunctions

1. Offender is an officer of the executivebranch of the government;

2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b)obstructs the execution of any order ordecision rendered by any judge within his

jurisdiction.

2. Arts 239-241 punish interference by theofficers of one of the three branches ofgovernment with functions of officers inanother department. The purpose is tomaintain the separation and independenceof the three departments.

Article 242. Disobeying request fordisqualification

1. Offender is a public officer;

2. A proceeding is pending before such publicofficer;3. There is a question brought before the

proper authority regarding his jurisdiction,which is not yet decided;

4. He has been lawfully required to refrainform continuing the proceeding;

5. He continues the proceeding.

Article 243. Orders or requests byexecutive officers to any judicial authority

1. Offender is an executive officer;2. He addresses any order or suggestion to

any judicial authority;3. The order or suggestion relates to any case

or business coming within the exclusivejurisdiction of the courts of justice.

Purpose is to maintain independence of thejudiciary

Legislative or judicial officers not liable

Article 244. Unlawful appointments (Art.244)

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He nominates or appoints a person to a

public office;3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications

therefore;4. Offender knows that his nominee or

appointee lacks the qualification at thetime he made the nomination orappointment.

Nominate is different from recommend.Recommending, knowing that the personrecommended has no qualification, is not acrime.

Article 245. Abuses against chastity

Acts punishable:

1. Soliciting or makingimmoral or indecent advances to a womaninterested in matters pending before theoffending officer for decision, or withrespect to which he is required to submit areport to or consult with a superior officer;2. Soliciting or makingimmoral or indecent advances to a womanunder the offenders custody;3. Soliciting or makingimmoral or indecent advances to the wife,daughter, sister or relative within the samedegree by affinity of any person in the

custody of the offending warden or officer.

Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer;2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent

advances to a woman;3. Such woman is -

a. interested in matters pendingbefore the offender for decision, orwith respect to which he is requiredto submit a report to or consultwith a superior officer; or

b. under the custody of the offender

who is a warden or other publicofficer directly charged with thecare and custody of prisoners orpersons under arrest; or

c. the wife, daughter, sister orrelative within the same degree byaffinity of the person in the custodyof the offender.



21/21

Solicit is to propose earnestly andpersistently something unchaste andimmoral to a woman.

Advances must be immoral or indecent

Consummated by mere proposal

Proof of solicitation not necessary whenthere is sexual intercourse

Mother of the person in the custody of theoffender not included.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer