Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Criminal Liabilities Under the Revised Penal Code

Introduction: Although the offenders are principally public officers, there are crimes under this title which may also be committed by private persons by themselves as such, like if the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of a Prisoner and Malversation by a Private person under Article 222. They may also be liable when they conspire with the public officer or when they participate as accomplices or accessories.

II. The term public officer, per article 203, is any person, who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the government, or shall perform in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official of any rank or class

A. There is no distinction between a public office and a public employee so long as the person: (i) takes part in performance of public functions or (ii) performs public duties B. It is not the nature of the appointment which counts but the duties performed. They may be permanent, temporary or casual officers. Hence one appointed as mere laborer but whose function is to sort and file money orders, or emergency helper but whose functions include custody of documents, is a public officer C. They include members of a special body created by law, to perform a function for the government, as in the Centennial Commission

III. Breach of Office are classified into three forms: A). Malfeasance- doing an act prohibited by law or that which ought not to be done or not supposed to be done. As in arresting a person who has not committed a crime or spending money under ones custody B). misfeasance- the improper or irregular performance of an act which is allowed to be done C). Nonfeasance- the non performance, failure or refusal to an act which one is required to do

Dereliction of Duty by Officers Related to the Administration of Justice I. Introduction: The offenses covered by Articles 204 to 209 pertain to acts by Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers ( who are officers of the Court). They are generally considered as prevaricacion or crimes involving betrayal of trust. Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. i.e one which is not in accordance with the law and the evidence: 1. Knowingly or Intentionally (i). the intention is to favor a party or to cause damage to another; or rendered due to ill will, spite, revenge, or other personal ill motive

Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Example: applying a law which has been repealed or a decision which has been reversed. Judges are required to keep abreast of latest developments in the law and in jurisprudence. Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. 1. An interlocutory order is one which decides on an issue related to the case but does not decide the case on the merit or on the evidence 2. Example: granting bail to a non-bailable offense; Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. 1. This must be malicious or that there is intent to cause damage or injury to any of the parties 2. Example: delay in the calendaring or cases; frequent grant of postponements, delaying the decision or failure to render the decision within the time allowed by law However, before a Judge can be charged for Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Unjust Interlocutory Order, there must be a final and authoritative judicial declaration that the decision or order in question is indeed unjust. The pronouncement may result from either: 1. An action for Certiorari or prohibition in the higher court impugning the validity of the judgment or 2. An administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order ( Joaquin vs. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 248)
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance.
Article 208 embraces all public officers whose official duties involve the initiation of prosecution for the punishment of law violators. They include: 1. Prosecutors and their assistants 2. BIR agents who fail to report violations of the NIRC 3. Forestry Agents who fail to apprehend and file charges against illegal loggers 4. Chiefs of Police in municipalities who are by law allowed to appear as prosecutors in the MTC/MCTC in the absence of regular Prosecutors 5. Barangay Captains

The essence of dereliction is that the public officer knows of the commission of an offense but :

1. He does not cause the prosecution thereof i.e to gather evidence and then file the appropriate charges 2. He tolerates the commission thereof. Note: if n case of an illegal numbers game, the offense would be under RA. 9286

Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor The prevaricacion includes:

1. Causing prejudice to the client through malicious breach of professional duty or inexcusable negligence. There must be damage to the client. Examples: failure to pay the appeal fee or to file an Answer or to submit a Formal Offer of Evidence 2. Revealing the Secrets of a Client learned by him in his professional duty. (Note: This is the second offense involving disclosure of secrets). Secrets are to be construed as including the lawyers advise; papers, documents and objects delivered by the client; the lawyers impressions of the client 3. Representing the opposing party without the consent of the client B. The crime is without prejudice to the administrative liability of the attorney Art. 210. Direct bribery. I. Introduction: Bribery connotes the idea of a public officer utilizing the power, influence or prestige of his office for the benefit of an individual in exchange for a consideration. The offense can not be considered bribery if there is no consideration but the act may be considered as a violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act . II. The two forms: 1. 2. Simple Bribery which is either : (a). Direct (b) Indirect Qualified Bribery

Art. 211. Indirect bribery. Concept: the crime committed by a public officer who accepts a gift given by reason of his office or position. A gift is actually received and not future promises or offers. The officer must have done an act appropriating the gift for himself, his family or employees. The essential ingredient is that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration ( Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan 507 SCRA 258)

A. Illustrations: 1. An envelope was left on top of the desk of officer. The officer called his staff and told them to use all the amount to buy food and snacks. This is indirect bribery 2. If the officer however gave it to the Jail or to some children, he is not liable 3. If he simply let the envelope drop on the floor and left it there, he is not liable. 4. If somebody pays the bill for his meal or drinks, he is not liable for indirect bribery as he did not accept any gift. 5. Receipt of cash given as share in winnings or balato are included II. The phrase by reason of his office means the gift would not have been given were it not for the fact that the receiver is a public officer. The officer need not do any act as the gift is either for past favors or to anticipate future favors, or simply to impress or earn the good will of the officer.

Art. 211A. Qualified Bribery. II. Principles. A. The offenders are limited to officers entrusted with law enforcement such as members of the regular law enforcement agencies, as well as those tasked to enforce special laws, and Prosecutors. This is similar to prevarication under Article 208 but the offense involved here which the officer refused to prosecute are graver being punished by reclusion perpetua or death B. Actual receipt of consideration is not necessary. C. The penalty for the officer is that for the offense he did not prosecute. But if it was the officer who solicited the gift, the penalty is death. However, the guilt of the person who was not prosecuted must first be proven. D. Query: (a). what crime was committed by a law enforcement agent who refused to arrest a rapist or murderer? (Ans). If it was because of a consideration the crime is qualified bribery. If there was no consideration he is an accessory to the crime Art. 212. Corruption of Public officials. 1. Concept: This is the crime committed by the bribe giver, promissory or offeror. II. It has only two stages: attempted if the gift, offer or promise was rejected and consummated if the same was accepted. FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS

Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. A. Concept: The violations punished are equivalent to cheating the public treasury. There are two kinds of frauds punished. B. Fraud under Paragraph 1: punishes any public officer who in his official capacity enters into an agreement or scheme to defraud the government. It does not matter that the government was not damaged as mere intent to defraud consummates the crime. 1. Usually, when in connivance with suppliers, the government is made to pay for more than what it has received; or there is overpricing; or paying for poor quality of articles or supplies; or for double payment; or paying for ghost deliveries 2. Also making the government refund more than what it has to refund 3.There must however be no fixed amount which was set aside or appropriated beforehand to be spend or to cover the purchase. Thus if the sum of P100,000.00 was set aside to purchase five computers, even if said computers are of poor quality and are worth only P75,000.00, there is no Fraud against the treasury. But if the officer presents a bill of P100,000.00 to pay for five computers and which amount was given, when in truth the computers are worth only P75,000.00, then this crime is committed.

C. Illegal Exaction Under paragraph 2 1. The offender is limited to those public officers entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses fees and other imposts. He is thus an accountable public officer If otherwise, the crime would be estafa. However officers under the BIR and BoC are covered by the NIRC and Customs Code or the Administrative Code. 2. There is no need for misappropriation of funds or intent to defraud because the essence of the crime is the improper or irregular manner of the collection. Art. 214. Other frauds. A. Concept: This article does not punish any offense. What is provided is the additional penalty of special disqualification upon a public officer who commits estafa by taking advantage of his official position. B. Examples: The Judge entices an accused to hand to him money which the Judge will post as cash bond but he spends it. The head of Office, who collects contributions from his employees to purchase for supplies, but spends the money for himself, if found guilty, would be imposed this additional penalty. Art. 215. Prohibited transactions.

A. Concept: This prohibits any appointive official who during his incumbency from becoming interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within his territorial jurisdiction. This is to prevent him form using his influence in his favor B. Example: A judge is not to participate in an execution sale

Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. A. Concept: This punishes the act of becoming interested or participating by a public officer virtute officii in any contract in which it is his official duty to intervene. Actual fraud is not necessary but the act is punished to prevent the possibility that the officer may commit fraud or places his interest over that of the government. B. Hence if he participated in his private capacity he is not liable. Example: The Director of the DSWD assumed the mortgage executed in favor of a creditor. He did so as a private businessman. He is not liable. C. Example: The City is need of a building to rent. The mayor approved the contract of lease with the ABC corporation, owner of the building, but he is a director of said company

MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property A. Elements: 1. The offender is a public accountable officer 2. He has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office 3. The funds or property are public funds or property for which he was accountable 4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them 1. Intentional Acts: (a). By appropriating: when the officer himself takes the property for his own use or that of his family or that of a third person (i). Thus loose changes taken by the officer constitute malversation as the loose changes properly belong to the government.

(ii). Likewise, a collector who brings home funds or property and forgot to bring them to his office, and is therefore found short by said amount, is guilty of malversation. (b). By misappropriating: the officer uses them for a different purpose even if a public purpose but is not authorized to do so (i). Thus a cashier who uses his collections to change the personal checks on employees, even at a discount, and even if the checks are good, is guilty of malversation. During the period of time the check is undergoing clearing by the back, the government is already deprived of the use of the funds.

Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts 1. Failure of Accountable to Render Accounts (Article 218) a). The accused is an accountable officer and this includes those who may have already been separated from the service b). This is a crime by omission. The gist of the offense is the failure to render ran accounting to the COA within 2 months after the accounting should have been rendered as required by law or regulation. Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. a). The gist is failure to obtain a certificate of clearance from the proper officer for his pending accounts before leaving the country b). This applies to all officers who have accounts to settle

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. Concept: This is often referred to as Juggling of Funds or Realignment of Funds. This is the crime committed by a public officer who used or applied funds earmarked or appropriated for a specific public purpose, for another public purpose. 1. The funds involved should have been reserved by an appropriation ordinance for a specific public purpose. 2. If the fund were not yet earmarked for a specific public purpose, such as the general fund, the crime is ordinary malversation 3. If the funds earmarked for a public purpose were used for a private purpose, the crime is ordinary malversation 4. It is immaterial that the other pubic use is more beneficial to the public.

5. The reason is that no public fund or property shall be spend except pursuant to an appropriation or purpose specified by law

Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property.a). The officer is obligated to make payments, or was ordered by competent authority to deliver property from out of his custody but he refuses to do so b). The refusal is malicious and must have resulted in damage to public interest (iii). Ex: (i). The Treasurer refuses to give the salary of an employee out of spite; (ii) or refuses to give the payment for the purchase of equipments on the ground the equipments are unnecessary (ii) Property Custodian who refuses to deliver a type writer to a secretary because the secretary is inept at typing. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners (Articles 223 t0 225) A. Concept: These offenses involve unfaithfulness in the performance of duties amounting to a violation of the public trust and confidence reposed in the officer. B. Kinds: (1) In the Custody of Prisoners (2) In the Custody of Documents and (3) In the keeping of Secrets A. Concept: The crime refers to the act of a custodian of a prisoner in allowing or permitting the prisoner to escape. This may be intentionally or by his negligence B. Basis of the Penalty: (i) The public or private character of the person (ii) The status of the prisoner who escaped and (iii) the circumstances under which the escape was made

2. The giving of preferential or special treatment or unjustifiable leniency to enable him to avoid the rigors resulting from his imprisonment. Examples : (a) As allowing the prisoner to eat or sleep in the house of the guard or warden (b). Allowing him to repair his cell and convert it into a luxurious room Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. 1. Conniving with or consenting to the escape a). This is committed by intentionally allowing a prisoner to escape either by active participation, such as providing him with the means to escape or simply letting him go, or by doing nothing to prevent his escape b). If the custodian was bribed, there are two separate offenses

Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. Through negligence which includes: a). Failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the escape such as by not checking on whether the facilities permits a escape; not checking on visitors who may bring in tools with which to escape; b). Becoming too familiar and friendly with the prisoners resulting to decrease in vigilance c). Laxity in escorting the prisoner or permitting him to go to places where he is not supposed to be brought, such as a restaurant d) There is no distinction between negligence which results merely to an administrative liability and that which amounts to a willful non-performance of duty Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. A. Private person pursuant to Article 225 to whom the conveyance or custody of a prisoner person or person under arrest was made Examples: (i) The escort handcuffed his prisoner to a jeepney asking the driver to watch over the prisoner because the escort went to help a blind man cross the street. The driver removed the handcuffs when the wife of the prisoner paid him. He is liable for infidelity and bribery (ii) A policeman arrested a robber whom he entrusted to X as the policeman still had to chase the other robbers. X let the robber go. X committed infidelity

Infidelity in the Custody of Documents Kinds: 1. 2. 3. Through removal, concealment or destruction(Art. 226) By Breaking the /seal (Art. 227) By opening of closed documents ( Art. 228)

(Art. 226) A. Persons principally liable: 1. Public officers

(a) Those who are officially entrusted with the custody of documents it being their function to take care of documents , such as: a). The Clerk of Court as regards the records of cases b). The Post Master as to mail matters c). The Local Civil Registrar d). The Register of Deeds or The Assessor e). The Election Registrar (b). or officers who are specially entrusted by their superior officers or by competent authority, with the care and custody of certain documents even if their primary functions do not pertain to the keeping of documents Note: If the officer is not the custodian the crime is different i.e theft if he abstracts or takes the documents; malicious mischief or estafa if he destroys or conceals 2. Private persons who conspire or who participate as an accomplice or accessory

Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. A. Concept; It is the crime committed by a public officer, charged with the custody of papers or documents, who breaks the seal placed thereon by proper authorities on the documents or permits the seal to be broken. The gist is the fact of breaking the seal even if the contents are not tampered with. B. Example: Destroying the seal placed on ballot Boxes Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. A. Concept: The crime committed by a public officer who has custody of closed documents, papers or objects, who opens or permits to be opened the closed papers, documents or objects without nay proper authority to do so. B. Examples: (i). Closed envelopes containing election returns (ii). Communications in closed envelopes or folders hand carried by personnel officers to Manila.

Revelation of Secrets Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. A. First Kind: Revelation of Secrets Interest by an Officer Under Art. 229 1. The Secrets refer to those affecting public interest of minor consequence which are not punished by any other provision of law 2. These secrets must be known to him virtute officii

3. If the accused is a private person, the crime would be under the article on Unlawful Means of Publication 4. Damage to public interest is not required

5. This articled is violated in two ways: (a) by the actual revelation of secrets or (b) wrongful delivery of papers or copies of papers the contents of which should not be known 6. Examples: (a) the Secretary who reveals the decision of the Court/QuasiJudicial/Administrative body prior to its promulgation (b) personnel who informs an applicant of the who has been appointed (c) a prosecutor who reveals the evidence to be presented to court Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. B. Second Kind: Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private Individuals (Art. 230) 1. The secret revealed pertains to private secrets which the public official came to know in his official capacity 2. Examples: (a) Revelation of matters known by Probation Officers or Personnel of the DSWD who conduct background checks on accused or parties to a case (b) revelation of what a PAO Lawyer or Prosecution learned about a person he has interviewed as a witness Art. 231. Open disobedience Open Disobedience or Inceptive Disobedience (Art. 231) a). Crime by a judicial or executive officer who openly refuses to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority within the scope of his jurisdiction and issued with all the legal formalities i.e perfectly valid b). Examples: (i) Refusal of a trial court Judge to comply with the order of the Supreme Court to remand for the reception of additional evidence (ii) Refusal to reinstate dismissed employee despite Order of the Civil Service Commission (iii) Refusal to Proclaim the winning candidate as found by the Court

Art. 232. Disobedience to the Countermanding Order of Superior (Art. 232) a). The subordinate suspended the execution of the Order of a superior by asking for a reconsideration but suspension was disapproved by the superior and still, the subordinate refuses to carry out the order b). Example: The Secretary of Justice reversed the Resolution of Dismissal of the City Prosecutor and ordered him to file the Information in Court. The City Prosecution initially did not carry out as he filed a reconsideration or objection but were denied, and yet he refuses to comply.

Art. 233 Disobedience in the form of a Refusal of Assistance (Art. 233) a). The crime committed by a public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public services. b). The refusal must be unjustified c). Examples: (i) The Chief of Police who refuses to cause the service of subpoena issued by the Prosecutor (ii) a government doctor who refuses to testify as a witness on request of the Prosecutor or the Court (iii) A government doctor who refuses to conduct anti-dengue vaccinations despite request of the City Mayor Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office a). The crime by an elected public official who shall refuse without legal motives i.e valid justification to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of his office b). He is not liable if his ground is due to a legal consideration, such as when he was arrested for committing an offense and is imprisoned, or supervening factual reasons, as when he has to go abroad for medical reasons Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners Maltreatment of Prisoners Under Article 235. a). The offender is a public officer who has actual charge or custody of a prisoner and is responsible for the prisoner b). The maltreatment is in two forms:

(i). By overdoing himself in the correction or handling a prisoner such as by physical beatings or deprivation of food, or hanging a sign around his neck (ii). By the imposition of unauthorized punishments or if so authorized, by inflicting such punishments in a cruel or humiliating manner . Examples: punishments such as prevention of visits as punishments or solitary confinements or tying him up or deprivation of sleep, or deprivation of conjugal rights. Or where cleaning the premises is allowed as punishment, by ordering the cleaning at night without sleep, or by ordering the prisoner to clean naked;

c). If injuries or damages were suffered, they are separate offenses

d). If the purpose of the maltreatment is to compel the prisoner to confess to a crime or to obtain some information, the crime is qualified maltreatment e). The term prisoner is the same as in the prisoner subject of Infidelity i.e one by final judgment or detention prisoner; one who has already been finger printed and booked and placed inside the jail

f ). Other Related Crimes Upon A Person In Police Custody i). Physical Injuries: if the person is merely in arrest or is a suspect and is not yet a prisoner and is beaten up ii). Slander by Deed if the person under arrest is paraded with a note on his body saying I am a drug pusher iii). Coercion if the purpose is to compel the person under arrest or suspect to confess or to make incriminatory admissions

Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. 1. Anticipation of duties (Art. 236): the crime by a person who shall assume the performance of the duties and powers of the public office without first being sworn in or given bond.

Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. Prolonging Performance of duties and powers: (Article 238) the crime committed by a public officer who continues to exercise the duties and powers of his office beyond the period

provided

by

law,

regulations

or

special

provisions

applicable

to

the

case

a). Exercise of powers ceases upon termination of the fixed term or when the purposes is achieved (functus officio) or the office is abolished b). Except when the officer is allowed to continue in a hold over capacity

Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position Abandonment of Office or position: the crime committed by a public officer who before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service. a). It is essentially that the officer has filed a formal resignation to the appointing power b). Resignation to be effective requires an intent to relinquish the position, the act of relinquishment and the acceptance by the appointing authority. Hence the resignation must be accepted, even if the resignation says Effective immediately and meantime the officer must continue discharging the functions of his office c). If the officer simply goes AWOL without filing any formal resignation, he maybe held liable under the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. This is abandonment as a ground for dismissal but is not the crime of abandonment d) The penalty is higher if the purpose is to avoid prosecuting or acting on a crime Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. D. Usurpation of Powers: These crimes refer to the interference by an officer of one department with the functions of the officials of the other departments of government in violation of the principle of separation of powers. They are different form the crime of Usurpation of Authority which is usually committed by private persons. a). Committed by any executive or judicial officer who: (i). make general rules or regulations beyond the scope of their authority (ii). attempts to repeal a law or suspend the execution thereof b). Example: A Mayor who in the guise of an Administrative Order establishes a curfew hour; or directs the Municipal Treasurer to release money to fund a certain project Art. 240. Usurpation of executive functions. a). Committed only by a Judge who assumes a power pertaining to the executive or who obstructs the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers.

b) Such as accepting official visitors and presenting them the key to the city. Maybe committed by the issuance of baseless injunctions against purely administrative matters, Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. a). committed by executive officers who: (i) assumes judicial powers (ii) obstructs execution of any order or decision rendered by any Judge within his jurisdiction b). Example: (i). A Mayor who arbitrates and decides conflicts between his constituents (ii) The Mayor sends his bodyguards and policemen to stop the execution of a writ of execution or prevent the service of warrants Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. 1. Committed by any officer who has been formally asked to inhibit or refrain from taking action upon a matter but who continues with the proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain 2. The offender is an officer before whom there is pending a judicial quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding and the issue of jurisdiction ( can he hear the case?) has been raised and is still under consideration but he continues with the proceeding. This does not apply when the officer is asked to inhibit due to personal bias or loss of trust and confidence in him. Art. 243. Orders or request by executive officers to any judicial authority. 1. Crime consists of an executive officer giving an order or suggestion to any judicial authority in respect to any case or business within the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial authority 2. Also punished under RA 3019 3. Example: Suggesting who to be appointed as Clerk of Court or how much bail bond to require or who to appoint as de oficio counsel Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. 1. By any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications 2. But the mere act of recommending is not covered as it simply an act of presenting whereas nominating is vouching for the qualifications of a person 3. To stop political patronage Art. 245. Abuses against chastity Penalties. A. Introduction. This is different from Crimes Against Chastity which are private crimes and require a complaint to be prosecuted.

There are three situations when the crime is committed and in all three a woman is the victim. B. First: by soliciting or making immoral advances to a woman interested in matters pending before the public officer, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior 1. The offender is any public officer including a female officer 2. To solicit is to demand, suggest, proposed or ask for sexual favors. It must be characterized by earnestness and persistence, not just a casual remark even if improper. Mere solicitation consumates the crime even if the solicitation or advances had been rejected. 3. If as a consequence the officer succeeds in committing an immoral act, the same is a separate offense D. Second: The solicitation is upon a woman prisoner 1. The offender is any person who is directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners, or persons under arrest such as Jail Guards and law enforcers who have arrested a woman who has not yet been turned over to the jail. Female guards and law enforcers are included 2. If the woman succumbs or consented the jailer is liable

E. Third: Upon a female relative who is the sister, daughter or relative by affinity in the same line of a prisoner. Note the mother is not included.

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee, or notaryor ecclesiastic minister I. Coverage: this article provides: (1) the penalty of falsification if committed by a public officer or employee or a notary or an ecclesiastical minister. The penalty is higher than if committed by a private person. The document may be any document. (2) And the eight acts of falsification. A. The public officer must take advantage of his official position or that there was abuse of office. By this is meant that his functions include participating in the preparation, recording, keeping, publishing or sending out to the public of the falsified document otherwise he will be punished as a private person. As for instance: secretaries, the Clerk of Court; the record officers; those who issue receipts or licenses; the Register of Deeds; Local Civil Registrar. B. As for an ecclesiastic, the document he falsified must affect the civil status of a person, else he will be considered as a private person. The usual document involved is a marriage contract II. The acts of falsification:

A. By counterfeiting, imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric. To counterfeit a handwriting or signature is to create one that is so similar to the genuine as to make it difficult to distinguish and thus easily fool the public. This act includes creating or simulating a fictitious handwriting or signature B. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate 1). There is no need to imitate the signature or handwriting 2). This includes simulating a public document like a Warrant of Arrest as having been issued by a judge 3) Examples: impersonating a person in a document; voting in place of a registered voter, posing as payee if a negotiable instrument in order to encash the same C. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. 1). This is twisting the statements or putting words into the mouth of another 2). Substituting a forged will where the accused is now named as an heir in lieu of the original where he was not so named 3). Where the accused was instructed to prepare a Special Power of Attorney over a parcel of land, with himself as the agent but he instead prepared a deed of sale with himself as the vendee D. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts 1). This require that (i) the accused knows that what he imputes is false (ii) the falsity involves a material fact (iii) there is a legal obligation for him to disclose the truth and (iv) such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement required by law to be sworn to. 2). by legal obligation is meant that the law requires a full disclosure of facts such as in a public officials Statements of Assets and Liabilities; the Personal Data Sheet submitted to the NBI; the contents of an Application for Marriage; the Community Tax Certificate 3). Narration of facts means an assertion of a fact and does not include statements of opinion or conclusions of law. Thus when the accused placed himself as eligible in his statement of candidacy when in truth he is disqualified, this is not a narration of fact but a conclusion of law. Similarly, the accused as claimant to a land stated in his application that he entitled to the ownership when under the law he is disqualified, is not liable 4). There is no falsification if there is some colorable truth in the statement of facts by the accused

5). False statements in an application form of the Civil Service, which was under oath, for police examination is perjury not falsification 6). But when a third person, not the Affiant, alters a prepared Affidavit, the crime committed by him is falsification under mode number 6

E. Altering true dates. This requires that the date must be material as in the date of birth or marriage; date of arrest; date when a search warrant was issued; date of taking the oath of office

F. Making alterations or intercalations in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The change must affect the integrity of the document. It must make the document speak something false so that alterations to make it speak the truth cannot be falsification. 1. Changing the grades in ones Transcript of Records 2. Changing ones time of arrival in the DTR 3. Changing the stated consideration a deed of sale 4. Deleting a condition in a contract of lease

G. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be an original when no such original exist, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original. 1. This can only be committed by the Official Custodian of documents 2. Example: Issuing a Certified True Copy of a birth certificate of a person when no such certificate exists or 3. Issuing a true copy of a title and indicating therein the land is mortgaged when no such encumbrance exist on the original on file with the office

H. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book 1. Example: Inserting a Birth Certificate in the recorded of the Civil Registrar to make it appear the birth was recorded

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person. Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff. Nonfeasance is a term used in Tort Law to describe inaction that allows or results in harm to a person or to property. An act of nonfeasance can result in liability if (1) the actor owed a duty of care toward the injured person, (2) the actor failed to act on that duty, and (3) the failure to act resulted in injury.