Title Seven individual
CRIMES 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 duty
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
justice
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence &
tolerance
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney – revelation
of secrets
Section Two – Bribery
Article 210. Bribery
Article 211. Indirect bribery
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery
Article 212. Corruption of public officials
Chapter Three. Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and
similar offenses.
Article 214. Other Frauds
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer
Chapter Four. Malversation of Public Funds or Property
Article 217. Malversation of public funds
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts before leaving the country
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions
Chapter Five. Infidelity of Public Officers
Section One – Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a
person not a public officer
Section Two – Infidelity in the custody of documents
Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents
Article 227. Officer breaking seal
Article 228. Opening of closed documents
Section Three – Revelation of secrets
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private
Chapter Six. Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public
Officers
Section One – Disobedience, refusal of assistance and
maltreatment of prisoners
Article 231. Open disobedience
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
when said order was suspended by inferior officer
Article 233. Refusal of assistance
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Section Two – Anticipation, prolongation and
abandonment of the duties and powers by public office
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
Article 237. Prolonging the performance of duties and
Powers
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
Section Three – Usurpation of powers and unlawful
appointments
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
Article 244. Unlawful appointments
Section Four – Abuses against chastity
Article 245. Abuses against chastity - Penalties
Article 203. Who are public officers
Requisites to be a public officer:
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, or any rank or class;
2. 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;
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority.
· Embraces every public servant from highest to
lowest.
· Laborer, unless temporarily performs functions of
a public officer, is not a public officer.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
61
Bar Questions
Public Officers; definition (1999)
Who are public officers? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Public Officers are persons who, by direct
provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent
authority, takes part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the
Philippines, or performs in said
Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class
(Art. 203, RPC)
him for decision;
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
· Manifestly unjust judgment is one so manifestly
contrary to law that even a person having a
meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
injustice
· Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment
without proof of bad faith, or ill motive or
improper consideration is not punishable.
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order

Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office 1. Offender is a judge;

· Misfeasance is the improper performance of
some act which might be lawfully done
 Arts. 204-207 are misfeasances on office that
a judge can commit
· Malfesance is the performance of an act which
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 dereliction of
duty
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
order or decree; or
b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
· Interlocutory order is a court order between the
commencement and the end of a suit or action
and which decides some point or matter but
which however is not a final decision of the
matter in issue.

Article 204. Knowingly render unjust judgment Article 207. Malicious Delay in the
administration of justice
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted 1. Offender is a judge;
to him for decision; 2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. Judgment is unjust; 3. He delays in the administration of justice;
4. The judge knows that his judgment is 4. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate
unjust. intent to inflict damage on either party in the
case. (malice must be proven)
· Unjust judgment is the final determination and
consideration of a court of competent jurisdiction
upon the matters submitted to it which is Article 208. Prosecution of offenses;
contrary to law or is not supported by evidence negligence & tolerance (PREVARICACION)
or both.
· When rendered knowingly – An unjust judgment Acts Punishable:
must be made deliberately and maliciously (from
error, ill-will, revenge or bribery); thus no 1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution
liability incurs for a mere error in good faith. against violators of the law;
· There must be evidence that the judge knew that 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
his judgment is unjust
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenses
Article 205. Judgment rendered through
negligence 1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of,
1. Offender is a judge; or to prosecute, offenses;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to 2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his office,

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

62
 that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal, or
knowing that a crime is about to be committed,
he tolerates its commission;
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law.
· Negligence here means 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.
· Officer of the law includes all those who by
reason of the position held by them are duty
bound to cause the prosecution and punishment
of the offenders; Public officer extends to those
officers of the prosecution department whose
duty is to institute criminal proceedings for
felonies upon being informed of their
perpetration.
· Fiscal who knows that there is sufficient
evidence to secure the conviction of the accused
but drops the case is liable and punishable
under Art. 206. But the fiscal is under no
compulsion to file the corresponding complaint
where he is not convinced that the evidence
gathered would warrant the filing of an action in
court.
· Crime committed by the law violator must be
first proved before conviction for dereliction.
· Liability of public officer who, having the duty of
prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed
or assisted the escape of the latter is that of the
principal in the crime defined and penalized
under Art 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 or
ignorance.
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious
abuse of his employment or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, there must be damage
to his client.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity;
Note: 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 of after having received
confidential information from said client.
Note: If the client consents to the attorney’s
taking the defense of the other party, there is no
crime.
· There is no solicitor or procurador judicial under
the Rules of Court. (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
the inferior courts)
Article 210. Direct Bribery
Acts punishable:
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present - an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official
duties;
2. 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;
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing
something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of
Article 203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
3. 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. The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.
· For the purpose of punishing bribery, the
temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
63
· The provisions of this article are made applicable
to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim
commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties.
· Gift is either voluntarily offered by a private
person or solicited by the public officer, it may be
received personally or thru intermediary.
· Gift or present need not actually be received by
the public officer, as an accepted offer or
promise of gift is sufficient.
· If there is only an offer of gift or promise to give
something, the offer or promise must be
accepted by the public officer to be liable under
this article. If not accepted, only the person
offering is liable under Article 212.
· It must be of some value or capable of pecuniary
estimation.
· A promise to give gift to, and a promise to
commit an unlawful act by, a public officer will be
sufficient under Art. 210 [1]
· Direct bribery under Art.210 [2] has the same
elements as Art 210 [1] but act intended by
public officer does not amount to a crime.
· Direct bribery under Art 210 [2] acceptance of
the gift and the accomplishment of act is
necessary.
· The commission of Art 210 [3] is by refraining
from doing something which pertains to a public
officer’s official duty. Prevaricacion (Art 208) is
committed the same way. But they differ in that
in ART. 210 [3] the offender refrained from doing
his official duty in consideration of a gift received
or promised. This is not necessary in Art. 208.
Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan
Manipon, a deputy sheriff assigned to execute the decision
of the labor arbiter ordering Harry Dominguez, a building
contractor to pay the balance of their work contract. He
sent a notice to the Comtrust Bank in Baguio City
garnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. The bank
agreed to hold the accounts. Later on Dominguez sought
Manipon'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 would
withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration.
Manipon contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in
convicting him of direct bribery, in not giving credence to
the defense theory that there was novation of the money
judgment.
HELD: It is very strange indeed that for such an important
agreement that would be a final judgment, no one took the
bother of putting it down or paper. Of course Manipon
would have us believe that there was no need for it
because he trusted Dominguez and Tabek.
And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framed
him up because of a grudge? And if there was really an
agreement to alter the judgment, why did he not inform
the labor arbiter about it considering that it was the labor
arbiter who had issued the order of execution? Manipon
could not give satisfactory explanations because there was
no such agreement in the first place.
Dacumos vs. Sandiganbayan
Dacumos was a BIR revenue examiner when he offered to
settle the tax liability of R. Revilla Interiors by pulling out
its assessments papers from the office of the BIR
Commissioner and procuring a tax clearance. For such
service, he would require a fee of P35,000.00. Samia, the
manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but
reported the matter to the National Bureau of
Investigation, which arranged an entrapment. Dacumos
was caught and convicted of direct bribery. He argues that
he could not have promised to remove the assessment
papers from the Commissioner's office as he had no access
to that place.
HELD: The implausibility of his promises does not mean
they were not made or that they did not appear to be
credible, coming as they did from one with his long
experience in the BIR and appeared to know his way
around. The Court finds it especially remarkable that he
met Samia at a private place instead of his office at the
BIR, considering that they were supposed to be discussing
official business and it was Samia who he says was
requesting his assistance. The Court is not inclined to
believe that Samia would be so vindictive as to falsely
incriminate the petitioner with the serious charge of
bribery simply because the petitioner refused to reduce the
tax assessment of R. Revilla Interiors. Samia was not even
directly involved in the assessment.
Article 211. Indirect Bribery
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
· Gift is usually given to the public officer in
anticipation of future favor from the public officer
· Essential to Art. 211 is that the public officer
must have accepted the gift or material
consideration; that is, the public officer took the
gift offered and considered it as his personal
property.
· There is no attempted or frustrated indirect
bribery
· Indirect bribery is different from direct bribery
under Art 210 [2] in that the former the act
executed was not unjust while the former
requires that the act be unjust
· Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from
the administrative penalty of separation from
judicial service.
Direct bribery Indirect bribery
The public officer receives a gift
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
64
There is an agreement There is no such agreement
between the officer and the
gift-giver
The offender agrees to It is unnecessary that the
perform an act or refrains offender should do or
from doing something promise any act as it is
because of the gift or enough that he accepted the
promise gift by reason of his office
Bar Questions
Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001)
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of
Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by
Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in
favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he
was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs
fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of
P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt
enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The
writ was successfully enforced. a) What crime, if any, did the
sheriff commit? (3%) b) Was there any crime
committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under
the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code,
since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of
the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an
official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff
Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that
he would be implementing the writ only because of the
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be
regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as
a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty;
hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said
sheriff.
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver
of the bribe-money, the crime is Corruption of Public
Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
(2005)
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for
selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid
Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic
Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in
consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug.
Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons
whether Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%)
1.] Direct Bribery;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public
officer is called upon to perform or refrain from
performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present or
consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code),
the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he
destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official
custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of
documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.] Indirect bribery;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not
receive the bribe because of his office but in consideration of
a crime in connection with his official duty.
3.] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act);
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there
was no actual injury to the government. When there is no
specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-
Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20,
2001)
4.] Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice
although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery or
infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec.
1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of the
higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for
obstruction of justice, even if the same not constitute
another offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because
the act of destroying the evidence in his custody is already
penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty.
(Sec. 1, P.I). No. 1829)
Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime;
3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death;
4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present.
· Penalty is increased if the public
officer asks or demands such gift or present.
Article 212. Corruption by public officials
Elements:
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts
or presents to a public officer;
2. 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.
· The offender in Art. 212 is the gift-giver or
offeror of promise, even if the gift was demanded
by the public officer and the offer was not made
voluntarily prior to said demand; public officer is
not liable unless he accepts the gift or consents
to the promise
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
65
 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749
Granting Immunity From Prosecution To Givers Of
Bribes And Other Gifts And To Their Accomplices In
Bribery And Other Graft Cases Against Public Officers
Who may be granted immunity under the Act?
1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about
any violation of:
- RPC 210 (Direct Bribery), 211 (Indirect Bribery),
and 212 (Corruption of public officials);
- RA 3019
- 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 part of the public
officials concerned; and other laws, rules and
regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and
other forms of official abuse;
2. AND who willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for such violation
…shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the
offense with reference to which his information and
testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of
such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution.
EVEN IF –
- the case where the information and testimony are
given is against a person who is not a public
official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or
accessory in the commission 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 his accomplice for
such gift or bribe-giving.
Republic Act No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, that term
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in
the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government as
defined in the preceding subparagraph.
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in
behalf of himself or of any member of his family or
relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a
family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
the value of the gift is under the circumstances
manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such
violation or offense.

What are the conditions for immunity? (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of for any other person, in connection with any contract or
any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and transaction between the Government and any other
regulations; part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the
conviction of the accused public officer; (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the himself or for another, from any person for whom the
possession of the State; public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured
or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on permit or license, in consideration for the help given or
its material points; and Presidential
to be given, DecreetoNo.
without prejudice 46 thirteen of this
Section
MAKING
Act. IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
5. The informant or witness has not been previously AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (d)PERSONS
AcceptingTO or GIVE,
havingGIFTS ON ANYofOCCASION,
any member his family accept
employment INCLUDING
in a privateCHRISTMAS
enterprise which has pending
When will immunity NOT attach? official business with him during the pendency thereof
· any public official
or within one year or after
employee,
its termination.
- If it should turn out subsequently that the information · whether of the national or local governments,
and/or testimony (1) is false and malicious or (2) made only · (e) toCausing
receive,anydirectly
undueor indirectly,
injury to any party, including the
for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way · and for private persons
Government, or giving any private party any
prejudicing the public officer denounced · tounwarranted
give, or offerbenefits,
to give, any gift, present
advantage or other in the
or preference
valuable
dischargethingofto his
any occasion, including Christmas,
official administrative or judicial
· when such gift,
functions present
through or other
manifest valuableevident
partiality, thing isbad
given
faith
byorreason
gross ofinexcusable
his official position,
negligence. This provision shall
· regardless
apply toof officers
whether or andnot the same is for
employees of past favor or
offices
or 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. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
66
· Included within the prohibition is the throwing of
parties or entertainments in honor of the official or
employees or his immediate relatives.
 government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for
the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
person interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in
favor of or discriminating against any other interested
party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion
in such approval, even if he votes against the same or
does not participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its authorized
release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage
or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or
offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging
or untimely release of the confidential information
referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall,
together with the offending public officer, be punished
under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently
or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the
Court, from transacting business in any form with the
Government.
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. –
a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or
close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having
some business, transaction, application, request or
contract with the government, in which such public
official has to intervene. Family relation shall include
the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in
the third civil degree. The word "close personal
relation" shall include close personal friendship, social
and fraternal connections, and professional
employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
free access to such public officer.
b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce
or cause any public official to commit any of the
offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. - It shall be
unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity
or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of
the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the
President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or application with the
Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to
any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of
the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the same line of
business, nor to any transaction, contract or application
already existing or pending at the time of such assumption
of public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the
official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance
with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations
issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in
an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and liabilities – Every
public officer within 30 days after assuming office, and
thereafter, on or before the 15th day of April following the
close of every calendar year, as well as upon resignation or
separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office
of the corresponding department head, or in the case of a
Head of Department or a Chief of an independent office,
with the Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of
the amounts and sources of his income taxes paid for the
next preceding calendar year. Provided, that public officers
assuming office less than two months before the end of the
calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the
15th day of April following the close of the said calendar
year.
Sec. 11. Prescription of offenses. – All offenses
punishable under this act shall prescribe in 15 years.
Sec. 14. Exception. - Unsolicited gifts or presents of small
or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or
usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or
prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or
occupation by any private person or by any public officer
who under the law may legitimately practice his profession,
trade or occupation, during his incumbency, except where
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
67
the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves
conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit
any of the violations penalized in this Act.
Bar Questions
Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997)
A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information that
reads: That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, being then employed in the Office of the District
Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in
the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the
approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land
which the government had expropriated, and after the claim
was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the
approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully
appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing
undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion
to quash the information, contending that it does not charge
an offense. Is he correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to
allege that the undue injury to B and the government was
caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary
elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused
is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the
DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and
fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which
expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay.
There is no allegation in the information that the land was
overpriced or that the payment of the amount was
disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the
charge was solely based on the accused having followed up
the payment for B's land which the Government has already
appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for
himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000
for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be
merely charged administratively
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the
information because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019
applies only to officers and employees of government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a
government corporation.
2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs.
Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves a
substantially identical information as the Information quoted
in the question, the Supreme Court held that the Information
was valid. While it is true that the information quoted In the
question, failed to allege evident bad faith, gross inexcusable
negligence or manifest partiality, said Information Is
nevertheless adequate because it averred the three (3)
elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when
it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of
the commission of the crime, being employed in the Office of
the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused
undue Injury to B and the Government, with the statement
that BT the owner of the land, received only P1,000.00
instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and
(3)that in the discharge of A's official administrative
functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully
work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and
"willfully and unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance
of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use
the very words or language of the statute. It may also use
words or language of similar import.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3047
AN ACT TO AMEND Sec. SEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "THE ANTIGRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" SO AS TO EXEMPT
CLASSROOM TEACHERS, LABORERS, CASUAL AND
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, AND BARRIO OFFICIAL
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS THEREOF
Section 1. Section seven of Republic Act Numbered Thirty
hundred and nineteen is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. — Every public
officer, within thirty days after approval of this Act or after
assuming office, and within the month of January of every
other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his
term of office, or upon his resignation separation from office,
shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding
Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or
chief of an independent office, with the Office of the
President, or in the case of members of the Congress and
the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the
Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and
sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a
statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the
amounts of his personal and family expenses, and the
amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar
year: Provided, That public officer assuming office less than
two months before the end of the calendar year, may file
their first statements in the following months of January:
Provided, further, That the requirements of this section shall
not apply to classroom teachers, laborers, casual and
temporary employees, and barrio officials."
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 77
AMENDING SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5180
PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION BY PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS
AND THEIR ASSISTANTS, AND BY STATE ATTORNEYS
OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5180 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary
and except when an investigation has been conducted by a
judge of first instance, city or municipal judge or other
officer in accordance with law and the Rules of Court of the
Philippines, no information for an offense cognizable by the
Court of First Instance shall be filed by the provincial or city
fiscal or any of his assistants, or by the Chief State
Prosecutor or his assistants, without first conducting a
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
68

preliminary investigation in the following manner:
a) All complaints shall be accompanied by
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
as well as other supporting documents. The
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
shall be sworn to before the investigating fiscal or
state prosecutor. He shall examine them and
satisfy himself that their statements were
voluntarily executed and understood by them.
b) If on the basis of the complainant's sworn
statements and documents submitted there does
not appear to be prima facie case, the
investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall
dismiss the case; if a prima facie case is
established by complainant's evidence, he shall
notify the respondent by issuing a subpoena
requiring him to submit at an indicated date which
shall not be more than ten (10) days from receipt
of the subpoena, counter-affidavits and other
supporting documents. To the subpoena shall be
attached a copy of the complaint, the sworn
statements and other documents submitted. Other
evidence submitted shall be made available for
examination of the respondent or his counsel. The
statements of the respondent and his witnesses
shall also be sworn to before the investigating
fiscal.
c) Whenever necessary, the fiscal or state
prosecutor may subpoena either or both parties or
their witnesses and propound clarificatory
question, during which both complainant and
respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to be
present but without right to examine or cross-
examine.
"The investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall help both
the complaint and the respondent and their witnesses in the
preparation and execution of their affidavits if so requested
to do so.
"The fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the
information to be filed by him that he has examined the
complainant and his witnesses, that on the basis of the
sworn statements and other evidence submitted before him
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and
of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given
an opportunity to submit controverting evidence: Provided,
That no assistant fiscal or state prosecutor may file an
information except with the prior authority or approval of the
city or provincial fiscal or chief state prosecutor and only in a
case in which he himself conducted the preliminary
investigation."
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 195
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS EIGHT, NINE, TEN,
ELEVEN, AND THIRTEEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
Section 1. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 8. Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to
unexplained wealth. — If in accordance with the provisions
of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred
seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or
money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his
other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal
or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and
dependents of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits in the
name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by
the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents
including but not limited to activities in any club or
association or any ostentatious display of wealth including
frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any
public official when such activities entail expenses evidently
our of proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be
taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section,
notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The
circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid
ground for the administrative suspension of the public official
concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of
the unexplained wealth is completed.”
Sec. 2. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) any public officer
or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act
shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six
years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
disqualification from public office, and confiscation or
forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited
interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion
to his salary and other lawful income.
“Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal
prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the
accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with
priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the
amount of money or the thing he may have given to the
accused, or the fair value of such thing.
‘(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of
Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less
than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand
pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year six
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the Court.
“The violation of said section proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.”
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
69

Sec. 3. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 10. Competent Court. — Until otherwise provided by
law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”
Sec. 4. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 11. Prescription of offenses. — All offenses
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
Sec. 5. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — Any
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under
Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense
involving fraud upon government or public funds or property
whether as a simple or as complex offense and in whether
stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be
convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or
gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he
shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless
in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
“In the event that such convicted officer, who may have
already been separated from the service, has already
received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the same
to the Government.”
RA 1379
FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF ANY
PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED 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 public office
or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or
contract, and any person holding any office or
employment, by appointment or contract, in any State
owned or controlled corporation or enterprise.
(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real
or personal property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance and
the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his
becoming a public officer or employee, or any property
(or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he
qualified for public office or employment, or the fruits
and income of the exclusive property of the
respondent's spouse. It shall not include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the
name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but transferred by him to another person or persons on or
after the effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the
court that the donation is lawful.
SECTION 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever any public
officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other
lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to
have been unlawfully acquired.
SECTION 11. Laws on prescription. - The laws concerning
acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be
invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect
of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
SECTION 12. Penalties. — Any public officer or employee
who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or
convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or a
fine not exceeding P10,000, or both such imprisonment and
fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any person
who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.
R.A. 6713
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees
What are Prohibited Acts and Transactions?
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing
laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Financial and material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.
(b) Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
a. Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law;
b. Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided,
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions; or
c. Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or pending
official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one
(1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
70
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.
(c) Public officials and employees shall not use
or divulge, confidential or classified information
officially known to them by reason of their office and
not made available to the public, either (1)To further
their private interests, or give undue advantage to
anyone; or (2)To prejudice the public interest.
(d) Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity,
favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary
value from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected
by the functions of their office.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress
consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public
official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered
and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or
employee of a gift in the nature of a scholarship or
fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or
employee of travel grants or expenses for travel taking
place entirely outside the Philippine (such as
allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more
than nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or
consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and
permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to
which he belongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection,
including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit
any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs
subject to national security requirements.
Penalties imposed
(a) Any public official or
employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office
or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover,
permanent or regular capacity, committing any
violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not
exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months'
salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year,
or removal depending on the gravity of the
offense after due notice and hearing by the
appropriate body or agency. If the violation is
punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he
shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations
of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000),
or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold
public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven
in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient
cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or
employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted
against him.
(c) Private individuals who
participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices
or accessories, with public officials or employees, in
violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal
liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall
be tried jointly with them.
(d) The official or employee
concerned may bring an action against any person who
obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by
Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such
action is brought may assess against such person a
penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five
thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction
hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter
shall apply.
Plunder
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7080
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING
THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
“Ill-gotten wealth” -- means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any person
within the purview of Section 2 acquired by him directly or
indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
and/or business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of
the office or position of the public officer
concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or
-controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including promise
of future employment in any business enterprise
or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
71
Who are guilty of plunder?
a) any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates
or other persons, amasses, accumulates or
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal
acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00)
b) any person who participated with said public
officer in the commission of plunder shall be
punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding any public
office.
Who has jurisdiction? -- all prosecutions under this Act shall
be within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
How proved? -- For purposes of establishing the crime of
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy.
Prescription -- The crime punishable under this Act shall
prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the
State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
R.A. 9372.
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE
FROM TERRORISM
1. It created the crime known as terrorism and declared it
to be “ a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity,
and against the law of nations”.
II. Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of
“any of the crimes of :
A. Under the Revised Penal Code.
i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
the Philippine Waters
ii. rebellion
iii. Coup d’etat
iv. Murder
v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
B. Under Special Laws
i. Arson under P.D. 1613
ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad
Nuclear Waste Control)
iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and
Liability Act of 1968)
iv. Hijacking
v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of
Firearms/explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand”
III. Requirements for Terrorism
A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)
must commit any of the enumerated crimes
B. There results a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
i. The extent and degree of fear and panic,
including the number of people affected in order
to meet the term “populace”, are questions of
facts to be determined by the courts and on a
case to case basis.
ii. Is the term “populace’ to be interpreted as
referring to the local inhabitants where the acts
were committed, or does it refer to the national
population?
C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the
government to give into an unlawful demand
i. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover
not only political, criminal or monetarial
demands but also those which maybe
categorized as social or economic. This however
is qualified by the word “ unlawful”.
IV. Other Acts/Persons Liable
A. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. The penalty is the
same as terrorism itself ( i.e. 40 years of imprisonment)
B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
72
 or simultaneous acts (Penalty is 17 yrs. 4 months and
one day to 20 years)
C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that
under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And
one day to 12 years
1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of
exemption of accessories from liability with respect
to their relatives
V. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording
of Communications
A. Authorizes the grant of Judicial Authorization to
listen, intercept, and record, any communication,
message, conversation, discussion, or of spoken or
written words between members of (i) a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization or
association or group, or (ii) of any person charged with
or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism
1. The Judicial Authorization can only be issued by
the Court of Appeals (a) upon a written application
filed by a police or law enforcement official or
members of his team and (b). after an ex parte
hearing establishing (c). probable cause that
terrorism/conspiracy to commit terrorism has been
committed, or is being committed, or is about to be
committed ( note that the wording is not
attempted)
2. The applicant must have been authorized in
writing to file the application by the Anti Terrorism
Council ( The Body created to implement the law
and assume responsibility for the effective
implementation of the anti-terrorism[policy of the
country)
3. The Judicial Authority is effective for a maximum
period not to exceed 30 days from date of receipt of
the written order and may be extended for another
similar period
B. Punishes the act of failure to notify the person subject
of the surveillance, monitoring or interception, if no case
was filed within the 30 day period/life time of the Order
of Court authorizing the surveillance
C. Punishes any person who conducts any unauthorized
or malicious interceptions and or recording of any form
of communications, messages, conversations,
discussions or spoken or written words
VI. Provides for a Judicial Declaration of Terrorists and
Outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, by
any RTC upon application by the DOJ and upon prior notice
to the group affected.
VII. Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law
enforcement personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized
in writing by the Anti Terrorism Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or
examination of bank deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law
enforcement agent must present the suspected terrorist
before any judge at the latter’s residence or office
nearest the place of arrest, at any time of the day or
night. The judge shall, within three days, submit a
written report of the presentation to the court where the
suspect shall have been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged
or suspected as a terrorist, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge
of the nearest place of apprehension or arrest, but if the
arrest is made during non-office days or after office
hours, the written notice shall be served at the nearest
residence of the judge nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years
and one day to12 years of imprisonment
VIII. Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the moment the
person charged or suspected as terrorist has been
apprehended or arrested, detained and taken into
custody
B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may not be detained for more than three days
without the written approval of the Human Rights
Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan
or Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the
person arrested shall be brought to the residence of any
of the above named officials nearest the place of arrest.
D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected as
terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within three
days is punished by 10 years and one day to 12 years.
IX. Other Acts Punished As Offenses (punished by
imprisonment of 10 years and one day to 12 years) which
acts are related to the arrest/detention of suspected
terrorists
A. Violation of the rights of a person detained
1. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the arrest; to remain silent; to counsel
2. To communicate and confer with counsel at any
time without restriction
3. To communicate at any time and without
restrictions with members of family or relatives and
be visited by them
4. To avail of the services of a physician of choice
B. Offenses relating to an official log book:
1. Failure to keep official logbook detailing the name
of the person arrested the date and time of initial
admission for custody and arrest; state of his health;
date and time of removal from his cell, and his
return thereto; date and time of visits and by whom;
all other important data bearing on his treatment
while under arrest and custody
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
73
 2. Failure to promptly issue a certified true copy of
the entries of the log book
C. Using threat, intimidation, coercion, inflicting physical
pain, or torment or mental emotional, moral or
psychological pressure which shall vitiate the free will
D. Punishes Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons
1. The penalty is 12 years and one day to 20 years if
the person detained is a prisoner by final judgment
2. The penalty is 6 years and one day to 12 years if
the prisoner is a detention prisoner
E. Punishes the act of knowingly furnishing False
Testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any
investigation or hearing under the law ( 12 yrs and one
day to 20 years)
X. Prosecution under the Law is a bar to another prosecution
under the Revised Penal code or any other special law for
any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the
offense charged under the law
XI. If the suspect is acquitted he is entitled to P500,000.00
for every day of detention without a warrant of arrest.
A. Any person who delays the release or refuses to
release the amount shall be punished by imprisonment of 6
months
XII. Provisions on the Identity of the Informant
A. The officer to whom the name of the suspect was first
reveled shall record the real name and specific address
of the informant and shall report the same to his
superior officer who shall in turn transmit the
information to the Congressional Oversight Committee
within 5 days after the suspect was placed under arrest,
or his properties sequestered seized or frozen.
B. The data shall be considered confidential and shall not
be unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings
against the suspect shall have been terminated.
( NOTE: It would seem that the confidentiality of the
informant’s identity is not permanent but may be
revealed, not like the provisions of the Rules of Evidence
which considers the confidentiality as permanent)
XIII. Territorial Application of the law:
The law applies to any person who commits an act
covered by the law if committed:
A. Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters,
maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines
B. Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
C. On board a Philippine ship or airship
D. Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in
an official capacity
E. Against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine
descent where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor
in the commission of the crime
F. Directly against the Philippine government.
XIV. The provisions of the law shall be automatically
suspended one month before and two months after the
holding of any election.
Morfe vs. Mutuc
Issue: Whether RA 3019 sec 7 was unconstitutional
HELD: No. The Anti- Graft Act of 1960 was aimed at
curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official
corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the
public service. It is intended to further promote morality in
public administration. A public office must indeed be a
public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to
be pursued commands the assent of all. The conditions
then prevailing called for norms of such character. The
times demanded such a remedial device. By the provisions
of the challenged section, it becomes much more difficult
by those disposed to take advantage of their position to
commit acts of graft and corruption. While in the
attainment of such public good, no infringement of
constitutional rights is permissible, there must be a
showing, clear, categorical, and undeniable, that what the
Constitution condemns, the statute allows.
It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions
and to ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public
service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of
greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a
requirement as that imposed on public officials and
employees to file such sworn statement of assets and
liabilities every two years after having done so upon
assuming office. The due process clause is not susceptible
to such a reproach. There was therefore no
unconstitutional exercise of police power.
Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan
Jaravata was an asst. principal when he informed the
classroom teachers of the approval of the release of their
salary differentials and to facilitate its payment accused
and the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-up
the papers in Manila with the obligation on the part of the
classroom teachers to reimburse the accused of his
expenses. He did incur expenses in the amount of P36 for
each of the 6 teachers. The teachers actually received
their salary differentials and pursuant to said agreement,
they, with the exception of 2 teachers, gave the accused
varying amounts but as the administrator did not approve
it, he ordered the Jaravata to return the money given to
him which he complied. Jaravata was charged and
convicted 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 whose
official intervention is required by law in a contract or
transaction.
There is no law which invests the petitioner with
the power to intervene in the payment of the salary
differentials of the complainants or anyone for that matter.
Far from exercising any power, the petitioner played the
humble role of a supplicant whose mission was to expedite
payment of the salary differentials. In his official capacity
as assistant principal, he is not required by law to
intervene in the payment of the salary differentials.
Accordingly, he cannot be said to have violated the law
afore-cited although he exerted efforts to facilitate the
payment of the salary differentials.
Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
74
Mayor Trieste had been charged and convicted for 12
violations of RA 3019 Sec 3 (h) for the purchases of
construction materials by his municipality from a company
of which he is allegedly the president.
HELD: No violation. Petitioner has divested his interest
with the company. Petitioner established that before he
assumed office as mayor he had already sold his shares of
the company to his sister. The sale was made by
corresponding indorsements to her stock certificate which
was duly recorded in the stock and transfer book of
the corporation.
In as much as Treasurer Vega signed and paid the
vouchers after the materials were delivered, petitioner's
signature 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 the
transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest
in order that liability may attach. The official need not
dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does not
do anything for the firm in its contract with the office. For
the law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence,
authority and power.
There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his
capacity as Mayor, used his influence, power, and authority
in having the transactions given to Trigen.
Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan
Mejorada was a right-of-way agent with DPWH. Petitioner
contacted the persons affected by the widening of the road
and informed them that he could work out their claims for
payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements
affected by the widening of said highway. They were paid
more than what was the value of their property. Right after
the claimants had received the proceeds of their checks,
accused accompanied them to his car where they were
divested of the amounts paid to them. All the claimants
were helpless to complaint because they were afraid of the
accused and his armed companion.
Petitioner contends that the eight informations
filed against him before the Sandiganbayan are fatally
defective in that it failed to allege the essential ingredients
or elements constituting the offense penalized by Section
3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.
HELD: Section 3’s reference to "any public officer" is
without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts
declared unlawful. The last sentence of paragraph (e) is
intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and
employees of officers or government corporations, which,
under the ordinary concept of "public officers" may not
come within the term. It is a strained construction of the
provision to read it as applying exclusively to public
officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or
permits or other concessions.
The government suffered undue injury as a result of his
inflating the true claims of complainants which eventually
became the basis of payment. His contention that he had
no participation is belied by the fact that as a right-of-way-
agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with property
owners who are affected by highway constructions for the
purpose of compensating them.
On the part of the complainants, the injury
caused to them consists in their being divested of a large
proportion of their claims and receiving payment in an
amount even lower than the actual damage they incurred.
They were deprived of the just compensation to which they
are entitled.
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury
Acts punishable:
1. Entering into an agreement with any interested
party or speculator or making use of any other
scheme, to defraud the government, in dealing
with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to
public property or funds;
2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law, in collection of taxes, licenses,
fees, and other imposts;
3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees,
and other imposts;
4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects
of a nature different from that provided by law,
in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and
other imposts.
Elements of frauds against public treasury under
paragraph 1
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he
intervened in the transaction in his official
capacity;
3. He entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to furnishing supplies,
the making of contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public property
or funds;
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
· Public officer must act in his official capacity
· Crime of frauds against public treasury is
consummated by merely entering into an
agreement with any interested party or
speculator or by merely making use of any other
scheme to defraud Government.
Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts;
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or
omissions:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
75
 b. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law; or
c. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially; or
d. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by law.
· Crime of illegal exactions is consummated by
mere demand for larger or different amount from
that fixed by law.
· Collecting officer must issue official receipt
otherwise held liable under this article.
· When there is deceit in demanding greater fees
than those prescribed by law, the crime is estafa
not illegal exaction.
· Tax collector who collected a sum larger than
that authorized by law and spent all of them is
guilty of 2 crimes, namely: illegal exaction, for
demanding a greater amount; and malversation
for misappropriating the amount collected.
· BIR or Customs officers and employees not
covered by Art 213. 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 minor and other
deceits)
· RTC has jurisdiction when Art 214 is involved as
MTCs do not have jurisdiction to impose the
principal penalty in Art. 214 of disqualification
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
Elements
1. Offender is an appointive public officer;
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in
any transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. The transaction takes place within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction;
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during
his incumbency.
· Transaction must be one of exchange or
speculation such as buying regularly securities for
resale.
· Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simply an investment and not a violation of Art.
215.
· Examples of appointive public officer who may
not engage in the commercial profession either in
person or by proxy: justices, judges or fiscals,
employees engaged in the collection and
administration of public funds.
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest
by a public officer
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contracts or business in which it
was his official duty to intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants
who, in like manner, took part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or property
in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of
which they had acted;
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the estate.
· This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators
and private accountants who, in like manner,
shall take part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in
appraisal distribution or adjudication of which
they shall have acted, and to the guardians and
executors with respect tom the property
belonging to their wards or estate.
· Actual fraud is not necessary
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly
or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of
office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
upon to act on account of his office.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
76
 The President, Vice-President, the Members of
the Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall
not, unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other office or employment
during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in
any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office.
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or
control of any business which in any way may be
affected by the functions of his office, nor shall
he be financially interested, directly or indirectly,
in any contract with, or in any franchise or
privilege granted by the government, or any of
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations 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 to take
such public funds or property; and
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property.
Elements common to all acts of malversation under
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 his office;
3. Those funds or property were 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.
· Also known as embezzlement
· Nature of duties, not name of office is controlling
· Funds or property must be received in official
capacity
· A public officer having only a qualified charge of
government property without authority to part
with physical possession of it unless upon order
from his immediate superior, cannot be held
liable for malversation. This rule does not apply
when the accused had authority to receive
money pertaining to the Government.
· A private person conspiring with an accountable
public officer in committing malversation is also
guilty of malversation. Under Art. 222 private
individuals may also guilty of malversation.
· Private property may be involved malversation.
This article applies to administrators or
depositories of funds or property attached,
seized, or deposited by public authority, even if
such property belongs to a private individual.
· In malversation not committed through
negligence, lack of criminal intent or good faith is
a defense.
· Presumption from failure to have duly
forthcoming public funds or property upon
demand is prima facie evidence that the said
funds have been put to personal use. This may
be rebutted.
· Return of the funds malversed is only a
mitigating circumstance.
· When at the very moment the shortage is
discovered, the shortage is paid by public officer
from his pocket, he is not liable for malversation.
· When the accountable officer is obliged to go out
of his office and borrow the sum alleged to be
the shortage and later the missing amount is
found in some unaccustomed place in his office,
he is not liable for malversation.
· Demand not necessary in malversation in spite of
the last paragraph in Art. 217 as the latter
provides only for a rule of procedural law, a rule
of evidence and no more.
· A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation may be held liable as
principal by indispensable cooperation in the
complex crime of malversation through
falsification of a public document by reckless
negligence.
· Damage to Government not necessary. Penalty
is based on the amount involved, not on the
amount of damage to the government.
Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan
Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the
Mindanao State University. She filed a leave of absence and
did not discharge her duties for the said period. When COA
conducted the examination, the petitioner did not have any
cash in her possession, so she was asked to produce all her
records, books of collection, copies of official receipts and
remittance advices and her monthly reports of collections.
Petitioner incurred shortages. Petitioner was charged and
convicted of malversation of public funds.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
77

HELD: Conviction upheld. Her claim that she signed the
audit report and statement of collections and deposits
prepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on the
understanding that her shortage was only P2,000.00 is
belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said
documents. Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution’s rebuttal
witness, confirmed that the accused filed application for
maternity leave in March 1978 but continued reporting for
work during that month and that she (Guanzon) was the
one assigned to collect the fees in her stead. When the
accused was physically absent from office, she also turned
over her collections to the accused in the latter’s house
with the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which
the accused signed after satisfying herself that the amounts
turned over tallied with the receipts.
All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by
Director Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan
supported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite the
admission by Director Osop of having signed some of them
were not valid disbursements. Granting that the amounts
reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons
who signed them, the responsibility to account for them
still rests in the accused accountable officer. Malversation
consists not only in misappropriation or converting public
funds or property to one’s personal use but also by
knowingly allowing others to make use of or
misappropriate them.
Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan
Estepa, then a senior paymaster lost P50,000 government
money. Petitioner’s contention is that the facts alleged in
the information did not constitute an offense since there
can be no crime of malversation of public funds through
mere failure to count the money.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had
received the public funds and that he did not have them in
his possession when demand therefore was made and he
could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An
accountable public officer may be convicted for
malversation even if there is no direct evidence of personal
misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved.
Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan
Ilogon was the acting Postmaster when the examination
showed that the petitioner incurred a shortage in his
accounts. He was charged and convicted of malversation of
public funds.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had
received public funds and that he did not have them in his
possession when demand 78herefore was made. There is
even no need of direct evidence of personal
misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his
account and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the
same.
The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing
funds is not a valid defense and will not exculpate him
from his criminal liability. And as aptly found by
respondent Sandiganbayan, “the fact that (the) immediate
superiors of the accused (petitioner herein) have
acquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances for
convenience did not legalize the disbursements”.
The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of
P118,003.10 later is of no moment. The return of funds
malversed is not a defense. It is neither an exempting
circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accused’s
criminal 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 the
former’s premises. A Warrant of Distraint of Personal
Property was issued by the BIR to the personal property of
Jaime Ancla, a delinquent taxpayer. Later on, Azarcon
wrote the BIR stating Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his
equipment from hiss custody. Because of this, Azarcon was
charged and convicted of malversation of public property.
The issue here is whether petitioner’s designation by the
BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as
appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent
authority
HELD: Not a public officer. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo
is not applicable to the case before us simply because the
facts therein are not identical, similar or analogous to
those obtaining here. While the cited case involved a
judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of attached
property in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench
dealt with the BIR’s administrative act of effecting
constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer
Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was
received by Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was
clearly within the scope of that court’s jurisdiction and
judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give
“the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public
official.” However, in the instant case, while the BIR had
authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for
the 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 the
accused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated
public funds or property. Instead, a presumption, though
disputable and rebuttable, was installed that upon demand
by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public
officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
property— with which said officer is accountable—should be
prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or
properties to personal use. When these circumstances are
present, a “presumption of law” arises that there was
malversation of public funds or properties as decreed by
Article 217.
Bar Questions
Malversation (1994)
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle
(Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver. Cal. 38. After a
year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the firearms
issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
78
show up during the inspection. He went on absence without
leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI
the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with
malversation of government property before the
Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did not
appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own
use, that the delay in accounting for them does not
constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were
stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is
accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official
capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon
demand created the presumption that he converted them for
his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government
property is enough factual basis for a finding of
malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns
were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually
stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to
the authorities. (People vs. Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda
us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)
Malversation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or
property? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any
public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, (Art, 217, RPC)
Malversation (1999)
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or
property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn in
favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not
having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal
Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds,
violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution
of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal Treasurer
nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the
check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally liable as
restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may
be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or
analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73
Phil 98), He will be criminally liable for malversation.
However, if the restitution was made immediately, under
vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and
without leaving the office, he may not be criminally liable.
Malversation (2001)
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former
warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986,
the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the
owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they
constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon
their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal
agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody
and possession of the sequestered building and its contents,
including various vehicles used in the firm's operations.
After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was
discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After
demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to
give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing
or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged
with Malversation of Public Property. During the trial, the two
accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers
and, if any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa
under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. What is
the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your
answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public
Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos,
upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal agents" of
the sequestered firm and were "given custody and
possession" of the sequestered properties, including the
delivery vans which later they could not account for. They
were thus made the depositary and administrator of
properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the
duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such
properties. Such properties, having been sequestered
by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia
legis and therefore impressed with the character of public
property, even though the properties belong to a private
individual (Art. 222, RPC).
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie
evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Malversation (2006)
1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a
government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a
CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and
was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and
controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management
unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's
rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have
manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time
deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged
with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan.
He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an
employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's
contention tenable? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela
Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had
ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of the
commission of the offense, PNB was a government owned
and controlled corporation and therefore, any crime
committed by the Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public
officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(See R.A. 7975 as amended by RA. 8249).
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for
his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition
claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no
longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain
whether he may or may not be suspended. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite
holding a different public office, the PDIC, when he was
charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 applies to
any office which the officer might currently be holding and
not necessarily the office or position in relation to which he
is charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122740,
March 30,1998).
Malversation vs. Estafa (1999)
How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
79
committed by an accountable public officer involving public
funds or property under his custody and accountability; while
estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or
private individual involving funds or property for which he is
not accountable to the government.
Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005)
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona,
was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official
conference. He alighted from the government car which was
officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car
unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove
off with the car and later sold the same to his brother,
Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was worth
P800,000.00.
What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by
Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation
committed through negligence or culpa. The government car
which was assigned to him is public property under his
accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of
negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another
person, resulting in malversation, consistent with the
language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Danny
violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item
which is the subject of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing
Law) under Section 5 provides that mere possession of any
good, article, item, object or any thing of value which has
been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie,
evidence of fencing. Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took
the motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's
consent. (R.A. No. 6539)
What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make
reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he
gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny
must make reparation corresponding to the value of the car
which is P800,000.00.
Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001)
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial
Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a
civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution
duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon
and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of
Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of
cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several
lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the judgment
creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out that
several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes,
chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by
the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing
items were found in the house of accused Santos, who
reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you
were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be the nature of the
information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for
Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes,
chain and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied
upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer.
Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and
thus impressed with the character of public property,
misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said properties belonged to a private
individual (Art. 222, RPC). Juan Santos misappropriated such
properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his
own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only
borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit
as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The
fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the
police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing
items were found in the house of Santos, negates his
pretension.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the
sheriff had already deposited the properties levied upon in
the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have
already been relieved of his accountability therefor. If Juan
Santos was no longer the public officer who should be
accountable for the properties levied upon and found in his
house, his taking of such properties would no longer
constitute Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with
intent to gain, of personal property of another without the
consent of the latter.
Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996)
Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales.
On January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer,
from the Department of Public
Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 known as
the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and
Improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of Barangay Phanix
Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on
proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund
was already exhausted while the concreting of Barangay
Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the
Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth
who failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth,
who was charged with malversation of public funds, was
acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was
nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal
use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her
conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount of
P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating any law or
ordinance appropriating the said amount for any specific
purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of
public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, is
legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of
public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but
was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined
and punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer
charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of
illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because
the latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it
necessarily include the crime of malversation. The
Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided
in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the
filing of the proper Information. (Parungao us.
Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the
facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a
matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the
absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established."
So, procedurally and substantially , the Sandiganbayan's
decision suffers from serious Infirmity.
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to
render accounts
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
80

Elements:
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any
other cause;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render
account to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after
such accounts should be rendered.
· Demand for accounting not necessary, it is
sufficient that there is a law or regulation
requiring him to render account.
· The reason for this law is the enforcement by
penal provision the performance of the duty
incumbent upon every public employee who
handles government funds to render an account
of all he receives of has in his charge by reason
of his employment.
· Misappropriation not necessary.
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to
render accounts before leaving the country
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
Philippine Islands without securing a certificate
from the Commission on Audit showing that his
accounts have been finally settled.
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or
property (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There are public funds or property under his
administration;
3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law
or ordinance;
4. He applies such public fund or property to any
public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.
· Also known as technical malversation
· Illegal use of public funds or property
distinguished from malversation:
1. Offenders in both
crimes are public officers
2. In Illegal use, the
public officer does not derive personal gain
of profit,; In malversation, the offender in
certain cases profits
3. In Illegal use, the
public fund or property is applied to another
public use; In malversation, the public fund
or property is applied to personal use.
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public
funds or property
Acts punishable:
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who
is under obligation to make such payment from
government funds in his possession;
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who
has been ordered by competent authority to
deliver any property in his custody or under his
administration.
Elements of failure to make payment:
1. Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
2. He is under obligation to make payment from
such funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
· Refusal to make delivery of property must be
malicious
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions
1. private individuals who, in any capacity whatever,
have charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenues, or property
2. any administrator or depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited by public
authority, even if such property belongs to a
private individual.
· Judicial administrator (of estate of deceased) not
covered, conversion of effects makes him liable
for estafa.
· Private property is included provided it is
attached, seized or deposited by public authority.
Campomanes v. People (2006)
As gleaned from the parties’ stipulation of facts, the PSC
and the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring the
PSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organize
the Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSC
delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
81
successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress
since the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed to
organize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied with
its undertaking under the contract.
There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a
foreign non-governmental entity, is obligated under the
contract to render an accounting.
There is also no showing that the PSC’s charter or any law
or regulation requires the FIDE to render an accounting to
the PSC or the COA as a condition for the receipt of funds.
Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liability
on the part of the FIDE’s officers under Article 222 of the
Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there
must be a “law or regulation” requiring the rendering of
accounts 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 a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape.
Classes of prisoners involved:
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty;
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner
for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
· Release of detention prisoner who could not be
delivered to the judicial authority within the time
fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of the
prisoner
· Leniency or laxity is not infidelity.
· Relaxation of imprisonment is considered
infidelity.
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
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.
· Detention prisoners included
· Only the positive carelessness that is short of
deliberate non-performance of his duties as
guard that is the gravamen of the crime under
Art 224.
· The fact that the public officer recaptured the
escaped prisoner does not afford complete
exculpation.
· Liability of escaping prisoner:
1. If serving sentence by reason of final
judgment- evasion of service under Art 157
2. If detention prisoner, no criminal liability.
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan
Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed by his
superior, to escort prisoners to face trial. While waiting for
the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres, a relative of the
husband of detention prisoner Zenaida, approached the
accused and requested the latter if he could permit Zenaida
to talk to her husband. The accused consented and Zenaida
had a short talk with her husband. He consented to the
request that they eat at the canteen. While eating, the
husband of Zenaida asked accused if he could accompany
his wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and
felt like defecating. The accused accompanied Zenaida and a
lady companion to the ladies' comfort room. Zenaida and her
lady companion entered the comfort room, while he stood
guard near the ladies' comfort room facing the door. Not
long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out of the
comfort room and told him that she was going to buy
sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes elapsed
without the lady companion of Zenaida coming back, the
accused became suspicious and entered the comfort room.
To his surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the
comfort room. He immediately went out to look for the
escapee inside the building but they were not able to see
her. Accused was unable to recapture Zenaida. Was the
Sandiganbayan correct in holding the petitioner guilty of
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner through negligence
penalized under Art. 224?
HELD: Yes. The only disputed issue is the petitioner's
negligence resulting in the escape of detention prisoner
Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to in the Revised
Penal Code is such definite laxity as all but amounts to a
deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted
negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he
permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her
escape. The petitioner contends that human considerations
compelled him to grant Zenaida Andres' requests to take
lunch and to go to the comfort room to relieve herself. As a
police officer who was charged with the duty to return the
prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was
clearly a violation of the regulations. It is the duty of any
police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary
precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape.
A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act
one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate
non-performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements
whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan and
make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of
a person of ordinary prudence.
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the
custody of a person not a public officer
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
82
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.
· Inapplicable if the private person is the one who
made the arrest and he consented to the escape
of the person he arrested
Bar Questions
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners
(1996)
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that
a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal jail,
would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the
latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested
and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the
prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail
early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been
fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC,
consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which
are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody of
a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c) that
the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making
the penalty ineffectual; although the convict may not have
fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the
provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the
prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal
Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla).
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners
(1997)
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a
detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal
jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was
there any crime committed by A?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A
has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail
at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously
failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he
permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his
imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the
punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be
considered real and actual evasion of service under Article
223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29
Phil 459).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only
an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his duty
and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38
O.G. 158).
Article 226. Removal, concealment, or
destruction of documents
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.
· Public officer must be officially entrusted with the
documents or papers
· Documents must be complete and one by which
a right could be established or an obligation
could be extinguished
· Books, periodicals and pamphlets not documents
· Papers include checks, promissory notes and
paper money
· Infidelity in the custody of the document
distinguished from malversation and falsification:
When the postmaster received money orders,
signed the signatures of the payees, collected
and appropriated the respective amounts thereof,
the postmaster is guilty of malversation and
falsification, the latter crime having been
committed the malversation. But when the
postmaster receives letters or envelopes
containing money orders for transmission and the
money orders are not sent to the addressees, the
postmaster cashing the same for his own benefit,
he is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
· Money bills received as court exhibits are papers.
· 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 to conceal.
Accordingly, removal, destruction and
concealment are distinct modes of committing
the offense.
· The removal is for a illicit purpose when offender
intends to (1) tamper with it or (2) profit with it
of (3) commit an act constituting a breach of
trust in the official care thereof.
· The crime of removal of public documents in
breach of official trust is consummated upon its
removal from its usual place in the office.
· Infidelity in the custody of document by
destroying or concealing it does not require proof
of illicit purpose.
· Delivering document to the wrong party is
infidelity in the custody thereof.
· There must be damage, great or small, which
may consist in mere alarm to the public or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
83
 alienation of its confidence in any branch of 1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending
government service. public officer by reason of his official capacity;

Elements
Article 227. Officer breaking seal 1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official
Elements: capacity;
3. He reveals such secret without authority or
1. Offender is a public officer; justifiable reasons;
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or 4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the
property; public interest.
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority; · Secret must affect public interest
4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken. · Espionage not contemplated here as this article
punishes minor official betrayals, infidelities of
· It is the breaking of the seals, not little consequence, affecting usually the
opening of closed envelope that is punishable administration of justice, executive or official
under the Article. duties, or the general interest of the public order
· Damage or intent to cause damage is · Secrets of private persons not included
not necessary.
· Distinction between infidelity and theft 2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers
1. There is infidelity if the offender opened of which he may have charge and which should
the letter but did not take the same. not be published.
2. There is theft if there is intent to gain
when the offender took the money. Elements:
1. Offender is a
Note that he document must be complete in legal public officer;
sense. If the writings are mere form, there is no 2. He has charge of
crime. papers;
3. Those papers
should not be published;
Article 228. Opening of closed documents 4. He delivers those
papers or copies thereof to a third person;
Elements: 5. The delivery is
wrongful;
1. Offender is a public officer; 6. Damage is
2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are caused to public interest.
entrusted to his custody;
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed · Offender must have charge of papers or its
papers, documents or objects; copies
4. He does not have proper authority. · Distinguish from infidelity in the custody of
documents or papers by removing the same: If
· Custody means a guarding or keeping safe the papers contain secrets and therefore should
· Closed documents must be entrusted to the not be published, and the public officer having
custody of the accused by reason of his office charge removes it and delivers them wrongfully
· Damage or intent to cause damage not an to a third person the crime is revelation of
element secrets by a public officer. If papers do not
· If public officer broke a seal in opening closed contain secrets, the removal for an illicit purpose
papers, what is the offense? Breaking the seal, is infidelity in the custody of documents.
because Article 228 requires that the officer must
“not be included in the provisions of the next
preceding article”. Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of
private individual

Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer Elements:

Acts punishable: 1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

84
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 or
solicitor Art 230 is not applicable but Art 209.
· Damage to private person not necessary since
the reason of the provision is to uphold 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 all the legal
formalities;
4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses
to execute the said judgment, decision or order,
which he is duty bound to obey.
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior
officer, when said order was suspended by
inferior officer
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution;
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution
of such order;
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order;
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
· This article does not apply if the
order of the superior is illegal.
Article 233. Refusal of assistance
1. Offender is a must be in jail even for a short while.
public officer;
2. A competent
authority demands from the offender that he
lend his cooperation towards the administration
of justice or other public service;
3. Offender fails to
do so maliciously.
· Damage
to public interest or to a third party is essential.
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public
office;
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
duties of said office;
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be
sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
· The reason is that once an individual is elected to
an office by the will of the people, the discharge
of the duties of said office becomes a matter of
duty.
· Not applicable to appointive officers
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
prisoner;
3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner
under his charge either -
(1) By the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations;
or
(2) By inflicting such punishments
(those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner; or
b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a
confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner.
· Public officer must have actual charge of the
prisoner
· Offended party must be convict or detention
prisoner
· To be a detention prisoner, the arrested person
· The maltreatment must (1) relate to the
correction or handling of the prisoner or (2) be
for the purpose of extorting a confession or of
obtaining some information from the prisoner.
· Offender may also be liable for physical injuries
or damage caused
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public
office
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
employment, either by election or appointment;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
85
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in duty or malicious tolerance of the
and/or should first give a bond; commission of the offense.
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and
powers of such office;
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
the bond required by law.
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations beyond
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties the scope of his authority or (b) attempts to
and powers repeal a law or (c) suspends the execution
thereof.
1. Offender is holding a public office;
2. The period provided by law, regulations or
special provision for holding such office, has Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
already expired;
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers 1. Offender is a judge;
of such office. 2. He (a) assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or (b) obstructs the
1. A public officer who has been suspended, executive authorities in the lawful exercise of
separated, declared overaged or dismissed their powers.
cannot continue to perform the duties of his
office. 1. Legislative officers not liable

Article 238. Abandonment of office or position Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions

1. Offender is a public officer; 1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of

2. He formally resigns from his position; the government;
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted; 2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the the execution of any order or decision rendered
public service. by any judge within his jurisdiction.

· There must be a written or formal resignation, 2. Arts 239-241 punish interference by the officers
verbal statement is not allowed of one of the three branches of government with
· The offense is qualified when the abandonment functions of officers in another department. The
was for the purpose to evade the discharge of purpose is to maintain the separation and
duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing independence of the three departments.
any of the crimes of (1) treason, (2) conspiracy
and proposal to commit treason, (3) misprision of
treason, (4) espionage, (5) inciting to war or Article 242. Disobeying request for
giving motives for reprisal, (6) violation of disqualification
neutrality, (7) correspondence with hostile
country, (8) flight to enemy country, (9) piracy 1. Offender is a public officer;
and mutiny, (10) rebellion, (11) coup d’ etat, (12) 2. A proceeding is pending before such public
conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat officer;
or rebellion, (13) disloyalty of public officers, (14) 3. There is a question brought before the proper
inciting to rebellion, (15) sedition, (16) authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not
conspiracy to commit sedition and (17) inciting to yet decided;
sedition. 4. He has been lawfully required to refrain form
· Art 238 distinguished from Art. 208: continuing the proceeding;
1. Art. 238 is committed by any public officer 5. He continues the proceeding.
while in Art 208 is committed by public
officers who have the duty to institute
prosecution for the punishment and violation Article 243. Orders or requests by executive
of the law officers to any judicial authority
2. Art. 238 , public officer abandons office to
evade the discharge of duty, in Art 208, the 1. Offender is an executive officer;
public officer does not abandon his office but 2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any
fails to prosecute an offense by dereliction of judicial authority;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

86
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative
business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction within the same degree by affinity of the
of the courts of justice. person in the custody of the offender.

· Purpose is to maintain independence of the · Solicit is to propose earnestly and persistently

judiciary something unchaste and immoral to a woman.
· Legislative or judicial officers not liable · Advances must be immoral or indecent
· Consummated by mere proposal
· Proof of solicitation not necessary when there is
Article 244. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244) sexual intercourse
· Mother of the person in the custody of the
1. Offender is a public officer; offender not included.
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 the time he made the
nomination or appointment.

· Nominate is different from recommend.

Recommending, knowing that the person
recommended has no qualification, is not a
crime.

Article 245. Abuses against chastity

Acts punishable:

1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent

advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before the offending officer for decision,
or with respect to which he is required to submit
a report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody;
3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree 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 pending before the
offender for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report
to or consult with a superior officer; or
b. under the custody of the offender who
is a warden or other public officer
directly charged with the care and
custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest; or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

87