INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Section One. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.

. Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty. 2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance. Connivance the furtive consent of one person to cooperate with another in the commission of an unlawful act or crime. ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender is a public officer 2. That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment 3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody 4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latters escape Classes of Prisoners Involved: 1. Fugitive sentenced by final judgment to any penalty 2. Fugitive held only as detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance Detention Prisoner - is a person in legal custody, arrested for, and charged with, some crime or public office. Connivance with the prisoner in his escape is an indispensable element of the offense. Thus a policeman who allowed a prisoner under his guard to go and buy some cigarette at a nearby store , thereby making possible the escape of the prisoner, is not connivance with the latter, the policeman not knowing that he would escape. Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification. Negligence is the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation. ELEMENTS: 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;

3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence. Example: A policeman who, assigned to guard a prisoner, falls asleep, with the result that the prisoner escapes, is guilty of negligence in custody of a prisoner. A guard who left the toilet, where a prisoner was answering a call of nature, and went to the front door of the municipal building where he stayed for about 5 minutes, when the prisoner escaped, the guard is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence. Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer. ELEMENTS 1. Offender is a private person; 2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him; 3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes; 4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the escape takes place through his negligence. The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners or persons under arrest if the offender involved is the custodian of the prisoner. If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoners escaping from confinement, whether the prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners from jail under Article156. The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed only by the custodian of a prisoner. Example: A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. After the court hearing, this policeman was shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner from his custody. The policeman fought the attacker but he was fatally wounded. When he could no longer control the prisoner, he went to a nearby house, talked to the head of the family of that house and asked him if he could give the custody of the prisoner to him. He said yes. After the prisoner was handcuffed in his hands, the policeman expired. Thereafter, the head of the family of that private house asked the prisoner if he could afford to give something so that he would allow him to go. The prisoner said, Yes, if you would allow me to leave, you can come with me and I will give the money to you. This private persons went with the prisoner and when the money was given, he allowed him to go. This private person is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners.

Section Two. Infidelity in the custody of document

Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. Any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest. 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious. In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual disqualification shall be imposed.
ELEMENTS

1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers; 3. Said document or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; 4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest has been caused. Crimes falling under the section on infidelity in the custody of public documents can only be committed by the public officer who is made the custodian of the document in his official capacity. If the officer was placed in possession of the document but it is not his duty to be the custodian thereof, this crime is not committed. Example: The simple act of retaining the mail without forwarding the letters to their destination even though without opening them or taking the moneys they contained, already constitutes infidelity on the part of the post office official. If any citizen goes to a public office, desiring to go over public records and the custodian of the records had concealed the same so that this citizen is required to go back for the record to be taken out, the crime of infidelity is already committed by the custodian who removed the records and kept it in a place where it is not supposed to be kept. Here, it is again the breach of public trust which is punished. The removal must be for illicit purpose. The removal is for illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is to: a. To tamper with it, or b. To profit by it, or c. To commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof. Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

ELEMENTS

1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property; 3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority; 4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken. If the official document is sealed or otherwise placed in an official envelope, the element of damage is not required. The mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the document would already bring about infidelity even though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large. The offender does not have to misappropriate the same. Just trying to discover or look what is inside is infidelity already. Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos. ELEMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. The offender is a public officer That any closed papers, documents, or objects are entrusted to his custody That he opens or permits to be opened said close papers, documents or objects That he does not have proper authority

Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of the offense. Section Three. Revelation of secrets Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed. Acts punished 1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity; 2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published. ELEMENTS OF NO. 1 (a) Offender is a public officer; (b) He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity; (c) He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons;

(d) Damage, great or small, is caused to the public interest. If the secret revealed does not affect public interest, the revelation would constitute no crime. A peace officer who revealed instructions received by them for the arrest of the culprit, thereby enabling him to escape and resulting in the failure of the law and authority. ELEMENTS OF NO. 2 (a) Offender is a public officer; (b) He has charge of papers; (c) Those papers should not be published; (d) He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person; (e) The delivery is wrongful; (f) Damage is caused to public interest. A provincial fiscal who made copies of records of all investigation conducted by him and delivered the same to the defendant who thereby learned of the evidence of the prosecution is liable for revelation of secrets. Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. Any public officer to whom the secrets of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. 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. It is not necessary that damage is suffered by private individuals. The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and trust in public service.