ARTICLE 203 WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS

Requisites:
To be a public officer one must be
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or performing in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
2. That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be
a. By direct provision of the law; or
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority.

*The term public officers embraces every public servant from the highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the RPC, it obliterates
the standard distinction in the law of public officers between officer and employee.
*Temporary performance of public functions by a laborer makes him a public officer.

Misfeasance
Improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done.
Malfeasance
The performance of some act which ought not to be done.
Nonfeasance
Omission of some act which ought to be performed.
ARTICLE 204 KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is unjust; and
4. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

Judgment
It is the final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to it, in an action
or proceeding.
Unjust judgment
It is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by evidence, or both.

*An unjust judgment is rendered knowingly when it is made deliberately and maliciously.
*Knowingly means consciously, intelligently, willfully, or intentionally (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 784).

Sources of unjust judgment:

1. Error;
2. Ill-will or revenge; or
3. Bribery.

*There is no liability at all for a mere error in good faith. There must be evidence that the judgment is unjust for it cannot be
presumed and the judge knew that the judgment is unjust. The Supreme Court must have declared the judgment as unjust in a
certiorari, prohibition, or administrative proceeding.
*Art. 204 has no application to members of a collegiate court who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render
their collective judgment after due deliberation (In Re: Laureta, G.R. No. 68635, May 14, 1987).

ARTICLE 205 JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust; and
4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Manifestly Unjust Judgment

It is so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice.
Therefore, there is no need for a declaration by the Supreme Court that the same is unjust in order to result in conviction (Albert).

*Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment is NOT punishable.

ARTICLE 206 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
b. Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Interlocutory order
It is an order which is issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and whichdecides some
point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue.

*Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does
not, it is final.
*Example: An order granting preliminary injunction or an order appointing a receiver is an interlocutory order.

ARTICLE 207 MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That there is a proceeding in his court;
3. That he delays the administration of justice; and
4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in
the case.

*Mere delay without malice is NOT a felony under this article.

*If the delay is NOT malicious, but committed through gross negligence, the crime committed is that under RA 3019, Sec. 3(e).
ARTICLE 208 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Acts punished:
1. By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law.
2. By maliciously tolerating the commission of a crime.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute offenses;
2. He does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be committed he tolerates its
commission; and
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.

*Negligence is the neglect of the duties of his office by maliciously failing to move the prosecution and punishment of the
delinquent.
*Malice is an important element in this Article. Maliciously signifies deliberate intent.
*The guilt of the offender is a prejudicial question to the liability of the officer charged under this provision.

Who Can Be Offenders in Art. 208?

1. Public officer - Officers of the prosecution department, whose duty is to institute criminal proceedings for felonies upon being
informed of their perpetration.
2. Officer of the law - Includes all those who, by reason of the position held by them, are duty-bound to cause prosecution and
punishment of offenders.

*The fiscal or the city attorney, as prosecuting officer, is under no compulsion to file the corresponding information based upon as
complaint, where he is not convinced that the evidence gathered or presented would warrant the filing of an action in court.
*Liability of public officer who, having the duty of prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of the
latter, is that of the principal in the crime of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offense.
*Any person who solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender is liable under PD 1829.

ARTICLE 209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR REVELATION OF SECRETS

Acts punished:
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty; or
b. Inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity. Damage is NOT necessary.
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case without the consent of his first client after having undertaken
the defense of said first client or after having received confidential information from said client. If the client consents to the
attorneys taking the defense of the other party, there is no crime.

Procurador judicial
A person who had some practical knowledge of law and procedure, but not a lawyer, and was permitted to represent a party in a
case before an inferior court.
ARTICLE 210 DIRECT BRIBERY
Acts Punished:
1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duties.
*The acceptance of the offer or promise is enough to consummate the crime. Absent such acceptance, only the person making
the offer or promise is liable for Attempted Corruption of a Public Officer.

2. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duty.
*The gift must be accepted by the public officer. It may be received by the public officer himself or through a third person.
*If the offer is not accepted by the public officer, only the person offering the gift or present is criminally liable for attempted
corruption of public officer under Article 212 in relation to Article 6. The public officer is not liable.
*The act must be unjust.

3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of a gift or
promise.
*The third form of direct bribery differs from prevaricacion (Art. 208) in that in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his
official duty in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary in the crime of prevaricacion.

Elements of direct bribery:

1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. 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 which it is his official duty to do;
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official
duties.

*The provisions of Art. 210 are made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other
persons performing public duties (Art. 210, last par.).
*The act which the public officer agrees to perform must be connected with the performance of official duties.
*For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public
officer.
*The thing offered or accepted may be money, property, services or anything else of value. It must have a value or be capable of
pecuniary estimation (Reyes, p. 387).
ARTICLE 211 INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he accepts gifts; and
3. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.

*There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer by
reason of his office. If he does not accept the gifts, he does not commit the crime. If he accepts the gifts, it is consummated.
*It is considered indirect bribery even if there was a sort of an agreement between public officer and giver of gift.
*Receiving of gifts by public officials and employees, and giving of gifts by private persons, on any occasion, including Christmas is
punishable.
*PD 46 punishes:
1. Any public official or employee who receives, directly or indirectly; and
2. Any private person who gives, or offers to give: Any gift, present or other valuable thing to any occasion, when such gift,
present or other valuable thing is given by reason of the formers official position, whether the same is for past favors or the
giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the
discharge of his official functions.
*Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainments in honor of the official or employees or his immediate
relatives.

Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery

In both crimes the public officer receives gift.
There is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of No such agreement exists.
gift or present.
The offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains It is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or
from doing something, because of the gift or promise. even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts
offered to him by reason of his office.

ARTICLE 211-A QUALIFIED BRIBERY

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
2. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death; and *If the crime committed is punishable by a penalty less than reclusion perpetua, the public officer
is liable under Article 208 and direct bribery.
3. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or present.

*The guilt of the offender is a prejudicial question to the liability of the officer charged under this provision.
ARTICLE 212 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Elements:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the
public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

*This article is concerned with the liability of the person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts to the public
officer.
*The crime is attempted if the offer, promise, gift or present was refused and consummated if accepted.

PD 749 grants immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices if they willingly testify against
public officers or employees in bribery and other graft cases. For the immunity to be enjoyed, the following conditions must concur:
a. The information must refer to consummated violations of Arts. 210, 211, 212 of the RPC; R.A. 3019, as amended; Sec. 345 of
the Internal Revenue Code and Sec. 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of said Codes penalizing abuse or
dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption
and other forms of official abuse;
b. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;
c. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
d. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and
e. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (Sec. 1).

The immunity shall not attach if the information turned out to be false and malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing,
molesting or in any way prejudicing the public officer denounce (Sec. 2).