Title 7 Public Officers

Title Seven individual
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Chapter Six. Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public
Chapter One. Preliminary Provisions Officers
Article 203. Who are public officers Section One – Disobedience, refusal of assistance and
maltreatment of prisoners
Chapter Two. Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office Article 231. Open disobedience
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
Section One – Dereliction of duty when said order was suspended by inferior officer
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment Article 233. Refusal of assistance
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
justice Section Two – Anticipation, prolongation and
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence & abandonment of the duties and powers by public office
tolerance Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney – revelation Article 237. Prolonging the performance of duties and
of secrets Powers
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
Section Two – Bribery
Article 210. Bribery Section Three – Usurpation of powers and unlawful
Article 211. Indirect bribery appointments
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
Article 212. Corruption of public officials Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
Chapter Three. Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Transactions Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and Article 244. Unlawful appointments
similar offenses.
Article 214. Other Frauds Section Four – Abuses against chastity
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions Article 245. Abuses against chastity - Penalties
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer
Article 203. Who are public officers
Chapter Four. Malversation of Public Funds or Property
Article 217. Malversation of public funds Requisites to be a public officer:

Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts 1. Taking part in the performance of public
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render functions in the government;
accounts before leaving the country
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property or
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding Performing in said government or in any of its
provisions branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, or any rank or class;
Chapter Five. Infidelity of Public Officers
2. His authority to take part in the performance
Section One – Infidelity in the custody of prisoners of public functions or to perform public duties
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion must be -
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a
person not a public officer a. By direct provision of the law;
b. By popular election; or
Section Two – Infidelity in the custody of documents c. By appointment by competent authority.
Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents · Embraces every public servant from highest to
Article 227. Officer breaking seal lowest.
Article 228. Opening of closed documents · Laborer, unless temporarily performs functions of
Section Three – Revelation of secrets
a public officer, is not a public officer.
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

61
Bar Questions him for decision;
Public Officers; definition (1999) 3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
Who are public officers? (2%) 4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ignorance.
Public Officers are persons who, by direct
provision of the law, popular election or · Manifestly unjust judgment is one so manifestly
appointment by competent contrary to law that even a person having a
authority, takes part in the performance of meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
public functions in the Government of the injustice
· Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment
Philippines, or performs in said
without proof of bad faith, or ill motive or
Government or in any of its branches
improper consideration is not punishable.
public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class
(Art. 203, RPC) 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 2. He performs any of the following acts:
 Arts. 204-207 are misfeasances on office that a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
a judge can commit order or decree; or
· Malfesance is the performance of an act which b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory
ought not to be done order or decree through inexcusable
 Arts. 210-211 are malfeasances in office that negligence or ignorance.
a public officer can commit
· Nonfeasance is the ommission of some act · Interlocutory order is a court order between the
which ought to be performed commencement and the end of a suit or action
 Art. 208 is a nonfeasance and which decides some point or matter but
· Arts. 204-209 are crimes under dereliction of which however is not a final decision of the
duty 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,

62
that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he 3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal, or the same case, without the consent of his first
knowing that a crime is about to be committed, client, after having undertaken the defense of
he tolerates its commission; said first client of after having received
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to confidential information from said client.
favor the violator of the law.
Note: If the client consents to the attorney’s
· Negligence here means the neglect of the duties taking the defense of the other party, there is no
of his office by maliciously failing to move the crime.
prosecution and punishment of the delinquent.
Malice is an important element. · There is no solicitor or procurador judicial under
· Officer of the law includes all those who by the Rules of Court. (procurador judicial – a
reason of the position held by them are duty person who had some practical knowledge of
bound to cause the prosecution and punishment law and procedure, but not a lawyer, and was
of the offenders; Public officer extends to those permitted to represent a party in a case before
officers of the prosecution department whose the inferior courts)
duty is to institute criminal proceedings for
felonies upon being informed of their
perpetration. Article 210. Direct Bribery
· Fiscal who knows that there is sufficient
evidence to secure the conviction of the accused Acts punishable:
but drops the case is liable and punishable
under Art. 206. But the fiscal is under no 1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
compulsion to file the corresponding complaint consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
where he is not convinced that the evidence present - an act constituting a crime, in
gathered would warrant the filing of an action in connection with the performance of his official
court. duties;
· Crime committed by the law violator must be 2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution
first proved before conviction for dereliction. of an act which does not constitute a crime, in
· Liability of public officer who, having the duty of connection with the performance of his official
prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed duty;
or assisted the escape of the latter is that of the 3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing
principal in the crime defined and penalized something which it is his official duty to do, in
under Art 208 consideration of gift or promise.
· Not applicable to revenue officers
Elements:
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney 1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of
-revelation of secrets Article 203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
Acts punishable: receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
1. Causing damage to his client, either- 3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
present received by the public officer -
a. By any malicious breach of
professional duty; a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. By inexcusable negligence or b. In consideration of the execution of an act
ignorance. which does not constitute a crime, but the
act must be unjust; or
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious c. To refrain from doing something which it is
abuse of his employment or inexcusable his official duty to do.
negligence or ignorance, there must be damage
to his client. 4. The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned performance of his official duties.
by him in his professional capacity;
· For the purpose of punishing bribery, the
Note: Damage is not necessary temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.

63
· The provisions of this article are made applicable arbiter who had issued the order of execution? Manipon
to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim could not give satisfactory explanations because there was
no such agreement in the first place.
commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties.
· Gift is either voluntarily offered by a private Dacumos vs. Sandiganbayan
person or solicited by the public officer, it may be
received personally or thru intermediary. Dacumos was a BIR revenue examiner when he offered to
· Gift or present need not actually be received by settle the tax liability of R. Revilla Interiors by pulling out
its assessments papers from the office of the BIR
the public officer, as an accepted offer or Commissioner and procuring a tax clearance. For such
promise of gift is sufficient. service, he would require a fee of P35,000.00. Samia, the
· If there is only an offer of gift or promise to give manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but
something, the offer or promise must be reported the matter to the National Bureau of
accepted by the public officer to be liable under Investigation, which arranged an entrapment. Dacumos
this article. If not accepted, only the person was caught and convicted of direct bribery. He argues that
he could not have promised to remove the assessment
offering is liable under Article 212. papers from the Commissioner's office as he had no access
· It must be of some value or capable of pecuniary to that place.
estimation.
· A promise to give gift to, and a promise to HELD: The implausibility of his promises does not mean
commit an unlawful act by, a public officer will be they were not made or that they did not appear to be
credible, coming as they did from one with his long
sufficient under Art. 210 [1]
experience in the BIR and appeared to know his way
· Direct bribery under Art.210 [2] has the same around. The Court finds it especially remarkable that he
elements as Art 210 [1] but act intended by met Samia at a private place instead of his office at the
public officer does not amount to a crime. BIR, considering that they were supposed to be discussing
· Direct bribery under Art 210 [2] acceptance of official business and it was Samia who he says was
the gift and the accomplishment of act is requesting his assistance. The Court is not inclined to
believe that Samia would be so vindictive as to falsely
necessary.
incriminate the petitioner with the serious charge of
· The commission of Art 210 [3] is by refraining bribery simply because the petitioner refused to reduce the
from doing something which pertains to a public tax assessment of R. Revilla Interiors. Samia was not even
officer’s official duty. Prevaricacion (Art 208) is directly involved in the assessment.
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 Article 211. Indirect Bribery
or promised. This is not necessary in Art. 208.
Elements:
Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan 1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He accepts gifts;
Manipon, a deputy sheriff assigned to execute the decision
of the labor arbiter ordering Harry Dominguez, a building 3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
contractor to pay the balance of their work contract. He office.
sent a notice to the Comtrust Bank in Baguio City
garnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. The bank · Gift is usually given to the public officer in
agreed to hold the accounts. Later on Dominguez sought anticipation of future favor from the public officer
Manipon's help in the withdrawal of the garnished account.
· Essential to Art. 211 is that the public officer
Manipon told Dominguez that he "can remedy the
withdrawal so they will have something for the New Year." must have accepted the gift or material
Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon would consideration; that is, the public officer took the
withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration. gift offered and considered it as his personal
Manipon contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in property.
convicting him of direct bribery, in not giving credence to · There is no attempted or frustrated indirect
the defense theory that there was novation of the money
bribery
judgment.
· Indirect bribery is different from direct bribery
HELD: It is very strange indeed that for such an important under Art 210 [2] in that the former the act
agreement that would be a final judgment, no one took the executed was not unjust while the former
bother of putting it down or paper. Of course Manipon requires that the act be unjust
would have us believe that there was no need for it · Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from
because he trusted Dominguez and Tabek.
the administrative penalty of separation from
And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framed judicial service.
him up because of a grudge? And if there was really an
agreement to alter the judgment, why did he not inform Direct bribery Indirect bribery
the labor arbiter about it considering that it was the labor The public officer receives a gift

64
There is an agreement There is no such agreement a crime in connection with his official duty.
between the officer and the 3.] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
gift-giver Corrupt Practices Act);
The offender agrees to It is unnecessary that the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
perform an act or refrains offender should do or See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there
from doing something promise any act as it is was no actual injury to the government. When there is no
because of the gift or enough that he accepted the specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-
promise gift by reason of his office Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20,
2001)
Bar Questions 4.] Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice
Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery or
Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec.
favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of the
was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for
fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of obstruction of justice, even if the same not constitute
P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt another offense.
enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
writ was successfully enforced. a) What crime, if any, did the Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because
sheriff commit? (3%) b) Was there any crime the act of destroying the evidence in his custody is already
committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty.
(2%) (Sec. 1, P.I). No. 1829)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code,
since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of Elements:
the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an
official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER; 1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff enforcement;
Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that 2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
he would be implementing the writ only because of the offender who has committed a crime;
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be 3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by
regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as reclusion perpetua and/or death;
a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty; 4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in
hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
sheriff.
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver present.
of the bribe-money, the crime is Corruption of Public
Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code. · Penalty is increased if the public
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents officer asks or demands such gift or present.
(2005)
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for
selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) Article 212. Corruption by public officials
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 Elements:
consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug.
Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons 1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts
whether Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%) or presents to a public officer;
1.] Direct Bribery; 2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: presents given to a public officer, under
Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and circumstances that will make the public officer
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
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 offender in Art. 212 is the gift-giver or
the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he offeror of promise, even if the gift was demanded
destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official by the public officer and the offer was not made
custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of voluntarily prior to said demand; public officer is
documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code. not liable unless he accepts the gift or consents
2.] Indirect bribery; to the promise
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not
receive the bribe because of his office but in consideration of

65
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749 Republic Act No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Granting Immunity From Prosecution To Givers Of
Bribes And Other Gifts And To Their Accomplices In Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, that term
Bribery And Other Graft Cases Against Public Officers
Who may be granted immunity under the Act? (b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in
1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
any violation of: compensation, even nominal, from the government as
- RPC 210 (Direct Bribery), 211 (Indirect Bribery), defined in the preceding subparagraph.
and 212 (Corruption of public officials);
- RA 3019 (c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
- Sec 345 of the NIRC directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
- Sec 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code member of the public officer's immediate family, in
- other provisions of the said Codes penalizing behalf of himself or of any member of his family or
abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
officials concerned; and other laws, rules and consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a
regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
other forms of official abuse; the value of the gift is under the circumstances
manifestly excessive.
2. AND who willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for such violation (d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
…shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the
offense with reference to which his information and Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In
testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution. penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
EVEN IF – declared to be unlawful:
- the case where the information and testimony are
given is against a person who is not a public (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
accessory in the commission of any of the above- and regulations duly promulgated by competent
mentioned violations; or authority or an offense in connection with the official
- it is the informant who offered or gave the bribe duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
or gift to the public official or his accomplice for persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such
such gift or bribe-giving. 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 capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or
licenses or permits or other concessions. close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, pecuniary advantage from any other person having
without sufficient justification, to act within a some business, transaction, application, request or
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for contract with the government, in which such public
the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any official has to intervene. Family relation shall include
person interested in the matter some pecuniary or the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in
material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of the third civil degree. The word "close personal
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in relation" shall include close personal friendship, social
favor of or discriminating against any other interested and fraternal connections, and professional
party. employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
free access to such public officer.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly or cause any public official to commit any of the
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
public officer profited or will profit thereby.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. - It shall be
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity
interest in any business, contract or transaction in or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Constitution or by any law from having any interest. Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or application with the
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion dealing with the Government along the same line of
in such approval, even if he votes against the same or business, nor to any transaction, contract or application
does not participate in the action of the board, already existing or pending at the time of such assumption
committee, panel or group. of public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance
those public officers responsible for the approval of with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
which they belong.
Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and liabilities – Every
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, public officer within 30 days after assuming office, and
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified thereafter, on or before the 15th day of April following the
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, close of every calendar year, as well as upon resignation or
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled. of the corresponding department head, or in the case of a
Head of Department or a Chief of an independent office,
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential with the Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn
character, acquired by his office or by him on account statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or the amounts and sources of his income taxes paid for the
releasing such information in advance of its authorized next preceding calendar year. Provided, that public officers
release date. assuming office less than two months before the end of the
calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage 15th day of April following the close of the said calendar
or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or year.
offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging Sec. 11. Prescription of offenses. – All offenses
or untimely release of the confidential information punishable under this act shall prescribe in 15 years.
referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall,
together with the offending public officer, be punished Sec. 14. Exception. - Unsolicited gifts or presents of small
under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or
Court, from transacting business in any form with the usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Government.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. – prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or
occupation by any private person or by any public officer
a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or who under the law may legitimately practice his profession,
close personal relation with any public official to trade or occupation, during his incumbency, except where

67
the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves (3)that in the discharge of A's official administrative
conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully
any of the violations penalized in this Act. 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
Bar Questions words or language of similar import.
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 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3047
reads: That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig AN ACT TO AMEND Sec. SEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
accused, being then employed in the Office of the District OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "THE ANTIGRAFT AND
Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" SO AS TO EXEMPT
the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then CLASSROOM TEACHERS, LABORERS, CASUAL AND
and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, AND BARRIO OFFICIAL
approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land FROM THE REQUIREMENTS THEREOF
which the government had expropriated, and after the claim
was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the Section 1. Section seven of Republic Act Numbered Thirty
approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully hundred and nineteen is hereby amended to read as
appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing follows:
undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion
to quash the information, contending that it does not charge "Sec. 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. — Every public
an offense. Is he correct? officer, within thirty days after approval of this Act or after
SUGGESTED ANSWER: assuming office, and within the month of January of every
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his
allege that the undue injury to B and the government was term of office, or upon his resignation separation from office,
caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding
faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or
elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section chief of an independent office, with the Office of the
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused President, or in the case of members of the Congress and
is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the
DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and
fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a
expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the
There is no allegation in the information that the land was amounts of his personal and family expenses, and the
overpriced or that the payment of the amount was amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar
disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the year: Provided, That public officer assuming office less than
charge was solely based on the accused having followed up two months before the end of the calendar year, may file
the payment for B's land which the Government has already their first statements in the following months of January:
appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for Provided, further, That the requirements of this section shall
himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 not apply to classroom teachers, laborers, casual and
for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft temporary employees, and barrio officials."
and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be
merely charged administratively
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 77
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the
information because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 AMENDING SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5180
applies only to officers and employees of government PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PRELIMINARY
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or INVESTIGATION BY PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS
other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a AND THEIR ASSISTANTS, AND BY STATE ATTORNEYS
government corporation. OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs.
Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves a
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5180 is hereby amended to
substantially identical information as the Information quoted
read as follows:
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 "Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary
negligence or manifest partiality, said Information Is and except when an investigation has been conducted by a
nevertheless adequate because it averred the three (3) judge of first instance, city or municipal judge or other
elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when officer in accordance with law and the Rules of Court of the
it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of Philippines, no information for an offense cognizable by the
the commission of the crime, being employed in the Office of Court of First Instance shall be filed by the provincial or city
the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused fiscal or any of his assistants, or by the Chief State
undue Injury to B and the Government, with the statement Prosecutor or his assistants, without first conducting a
that BT the owner of the land, received only P1,000.00
instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and

68
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
preliminary investigation in the following manner:
Section 1. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
a) All complaints shall be accompanied by
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
as well as other supporting documents. The “Section 8. Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to
statements of the complainant and his witnesses unexplained wealth. — If in accordance with the provisions
shall be sworn to before the investigating fiscal or of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred
state prosecutor. He shall examine them and seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have
satisfy himself that their statements were acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
voluntarily executed and understood by them. 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
b) If on the basis of the complainant's sworn
or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and
statements and documents submitted there does
dependents of such public official may be taken into
not appear to be prima facie case, the
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall
means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits in the
dismiss the case; if a prima facie case is
name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by
established by complainant's evidence, he shall
the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents
notify the respondent by issuing a subpoena
including but not limited to activities in any club or
requiring him to submit at an indicated date which
association or any ostentatious display of wealth including
shall not be more than ten (10) days from receipt
frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any
of the subpoena, counter-affidavits and other
public official when such activities entail expenses evidently
supporting documents. To the subpoena shall be
our of proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be
attached a copy of the complaint, the sworn
taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section,
statements and other documents submitted. Other
notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The
evidence submitted shall be made available for
circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid
examination of the respondent or his counsel. The
ground for the administrative suspension of the public official
statements of the respondent and his witnesses
concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of
shall also be sworn to before the investigating
the unexplained wealth is completed.”
fiscal.
Sec. 2. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby

c) Whenever necessary, the fiscal or state
amended to read as follows:
prosecutor may subpoena either or both parties or
their witnesses and propound clarificatory
question, during which both complainant and “Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) any public officer
respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to be or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
present but without right to examine or cross- omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act
examine. 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
"The investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall help both
forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited
the complaint and the respondent and their witnesses in the
interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion
preparation and execution of their affidavits if so requested
to his salary and other lawful income.
to do so.
“Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal

"The fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the
prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the
information to be filed by him that he has examined the
accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with
complainant and his witnesses, that on the basis of the
priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the
sworn statements and other evidence submitted before him
amount of money or the thing he may have given to the
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
accused, or the fair value of such thing.
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 ‘(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of
an opportunity to submit controverting evidence: Provided, Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less
That no assistant fiscal or state prosecutor may file an than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand
information except with the prior authority or approval of the pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year six
city or provincial fiscal or chief state prosecutor and only in a months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the
case in which he himself conducted the preliminary discretion of the Court.
investigation."
“The violation of said section proven in a proper
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 195 administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS EIGHT, NINE, TEN, removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
ELEVEN, AND THIRTEEN OF REPUBLIC ACT prosecution is instituted against him.”
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-GRAFT AND

69
but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the
Sec. 3. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants,
amended to read as follows: descendants, relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but transferred by him to another person or persons on or
“Section 10. Competent Court. — Until otherwise provided by
after the effectivity of this Act.
law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”
incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the
court that the donation is lawful.
Sec. 4. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows: 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
“Section 11. Prescription of offenses. — All offenses
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to
Sec. 5. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby have been unlawfully acquired.
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 11. Laws on prescription. - The laws concerning
“Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — Any acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense
involving fraud upon government or public funds or property SECTION 12. Penalties. — Any public officer or employee
whether as a simple or as complex offense and in whether who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or
stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or a
convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or fine not exceeding P10,000, or both such imprisonment and
gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any person
shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless
in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
R.A. 6713
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
“In the event that such convicted officer, who may have for Public Officials and Employees
already been separated from the service, has already
received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the same What are Prohibited Acts and Transactions?
to the Government.” 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
RA 1379
FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF ANY hereby declared to be unlawful:
PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE (a) Financial and material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.
(1955)
(b) Public officials and employees during their incumbency
SECTION 1. Definitions.
(a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or shall not:
employee" means any person holding any public office a. Own, control, manage or accept employment as
or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
contract, and any person holding any office or trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
employment, by appointment or contract, in any State supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly
owned or controlled corporation or enterprise. allowed by law;
(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real b. Engage in the private practice of their profession
or personal property, money or securities which the unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided,
respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance and that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his with their official functions; or
becoming a public officer or employee, or any property
(or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he c. Recommend any person to any position in a
qualified for public office or employment, or the fruits private enterprise which has a regular or pending
and income of the exclusive property of the official transaction with their office.
respondent's spouse. It shall not include:
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)

70
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient
profession in connection with any matter before the office he cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or
used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted
likewise apply. against him.
(c) Public officials and employees shall not use (c) Private individuals who
or divulge, confidential or classified information participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices
officially known to them by reason of their office and or accessories, with public officials or employees, in
not made available to the public, either (1)To further violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal
their private interests, or give undue advantage to liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall
anyone; or (2)To prejudice the public interest. be tried jointly with them.
(d) Public officials and employees shall not (d) The official or employee
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, concerned may bring an action against any person who
favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by
value from any person in the course of their official Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such
duties or in connection with any operation being action is brought may assess against such person a
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five
by the functions of their office. thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction
hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress shall apply.
consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public
official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered Plunder
and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or REPUBLIC ACT No. 7080
employee of a gift in the nature of a scholarship or AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING
fellowship grant or medical treatment; or THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or
employee of travel grants or expenses for travel taking “Ill-gotten wealth” -- means any asset, property,
place entirely outside the Philippine (such as business enterprise or material possession of any person
allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more within the purview of Section 2 acquired by him directly or
than nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and and/or business associates by any combination or series of
permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to the following means or similar schemes:
which he belongs. 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be treasury;
necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection, 2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements. commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs person and/or entity in connection with any
subject to national security requirements. government contract or project or by reason of
the office or position of the public officer
Penalties imposed concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
(a) Any public official or disposition of assets belonging to the National
employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, instrumentalities or government-owned or
permanent or regular capacity, committing any -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not 4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, form of interest or participation including promise
or removal depending on the gravity of the of future employment in any business enterprise
offense after due notice and hearing by the or undertaking;
appropriate body or agency. If the violation is 5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he commercial monopolies or other combinations
shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations and/or implementation of decrees and orders
of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with intended to benefit particular persons or special
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a interests; or
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), 6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
or both, and, in the discretion of the court of authority, relationship, connection or influence to
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
public office. expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
(b) Any violation hereof proven

71
Who are guilty of plunder? R.A. 9372.
a) any public officer who, by himself or in connivance AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or FROM TERRORISM
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates
or other persons, amasses, accumulates or 1. It created the crime known as terrorism and declared it
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a to be “ a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity,
combination or series of overt or criminal and against the law of nations”.
acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00) II. Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of
b) any person who participated with said public “any of the crimes of :
officer in the commission of plunder shall be
punished by life imprisonment with perpetual A. Under the Revised Penal Code.
absolute disqualification from holding any public i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
office. the Philippine Waters
ii. rebellion
Who has jurisdiction? -- all prosecutions under this Act shall iii. Coup d’etat
be within the original jurisdiction of the iv. Murder
Sandiganbayan. v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
How proved? -- For purposes of establishing the crime of B. Under Special Laws
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every i. Arson under P.D. 1613
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill- Nuclear Waste Control)
gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts Liability Act of 1968)
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or iv. Hijacking
conspiracy. v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of
Prescription -- The crime punishable under this Act shall Firearms/explosives)
prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the
State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public thereby sowing and creating a condition of
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or the populace, in order to coerce the government to
estoppel. 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

72
or simultaneous acts (Penalty is 17 yrs. 4 months and examination of bank deposits
one day to 20 years)
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law
C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that enforcement agent must present the suspected terrorist
under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And before any judge at the latter’s residence or office
one day to 12 years nearest the place of arrest, at any time of the day or
night. The judge shall, within three days, submit a
1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of written report of the presentation to the court where the
exemption of accessories from liability with respect suspect shall have been charged.
to their relatives
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged
V. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording or suspected as a terrorist, the police or law
of Communications enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge
of the nearest place of apprehension or arrest, but if the
A. Authorizes the grant of Judicial Authorization to arrest is made during non-office days or after office
listen, intercept, and record, any communication, hours, the written notice shall be served at the nearest
message, conversation, discussion, or of spoken or residence of the judge nearest the place of arrest
written words between members of (i) a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization or D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years
association or group, or (ii) of any person charged with and one day to12 years of imprisonment
or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism VIII. Period of Detention has been extended to three days
1. The Judicial Authorization can only be issued by A. The three day period is counted from the moment the
the Court of Appeals (a) upon a written application person charged or suspected as terrorist has been
filed by a police or law enforcement official or apprehended or arrested, detained and taken into
members of his team and (b). after an ex parte custody
hearing establishing (c). probable cause that
terrorism/conspiracy to commit terrorism has been B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
committed, or is being committed, or is about to be suspects may not be detained for more than three days
committed ( note that the wording is not without the written approval of the Human Rights
attempted) Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan
or Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
2. The applicant must have been authorized in
writing to file the application by the Anti Terrorism C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the
Council ( The Body created to implement the law person arrested shall be brought to the residence of any
and assume responsibility for the effective of the above named officials nearest the place of arrest.
implementation of the anti-terrorism[policy of the
country) D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected as
terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within three
3. The Judicial Authority is effective for a maximum days is punished by 10 years and one day to 12 years.
period not to exceed 30 days from date of receipt of
the written order and may be extended for another IX. Other Acts Punished As Offenses (punished by
similar period imprisonment of 10 years and one day to 12 years) which
acts are related to the arrest/detention of suspected
B. Punishes the act of failure to notify the person subject terrorists
of the surveillance, monitoring or interception, if no case
was filed within the 30 day period/life time of the Order A. Violation of the rights of a person detained
of Court authorizing the surveillance 1. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the arrest; to remain silent; to counsel
C. Punishes any person who conducts any unauthorized 2. To communicate and confer with counsel at any
or malicious interceptions and or recording of any form time without restriction
of communications, messages, conversations, 3. To communicate at any time and without
discussions or spoken or written words restrictions with members of family or relatives and
be visited by them
VI. Provides for a Judicial Declaration of Terrorists and 4. To avail of the services of a physician of choice
Outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, by
any RTC upon application by the DOJ and upon prior notice B. Offenses relating to an official log book:
to the group affected.
1. Failure to keep official logbook detailing the name
VII. Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested of the person arrested the date and time of initial
admission for custody and arrest; state of his health;
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law date and time of removal from his cell, and his
enforcement personnel provided: return thereto; date and time of visits and by whom;
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized all other important data bearing on his treatment
in writing by the Anti Terrorism Council while under arrest and custody
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or

73
2. Failure to promptly issue a certified true copy of
the entries of the log book Morfe vs. Mutuc
C. Using threat, intimidation, coercion, inflicting physical Issue: Whether RA 3019 sec 7 was unconstitutional
pain, or torment or mental emotional, moral or
psychological pressure which shall vitiate the free will HELD: No. The Anti- Graft Act of 1960 was aimed at
curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official
D. Punishes Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the
1. The penalty is 12 years and one day to 20 years if public service. It is intended to further promote morality in
the person detained is a prisoner by final judgment public administration. A public office must indeed be a
2. The penalty is 6 years and one day to 12 years if public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to
the prisoner is a detention prisoner 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
E. Punishes the act of knowingly furnishing False
of the challenged section, it becomes much more difficult
Testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any
by those disposed to take advantage of their position to
investigation or hearing under the law ( 12 yrs and one
commit acts of graft and corruption. While in the
day to 20 years)
attainment of such public good, no infringement of
constitutional rights is permissible, there must be a
X. Prosecution under the Law is a bar to another prosecution showing, clear, categorical, and undeniable, that what the
under the Revised Penal code or any other special law for Constitution condemns, the statute allows.
any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions
offense charged under the law and to ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public
service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of
XI. If the suspect is acquitted he is entitled to P500,000.00 greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a
for every day of detention without a warrant of arrest. requirement as that imposed on public officials and
employees to file such sworn statement of assets and
A. Any person who delays the release or refuses to liabilities every two years after having done so upon
release the amount shall be punished by imprisonment of 6 assuming office. The due process clause is not susceptible
months to such a reproach. There was therefore no
unconstitutional exercise of police power.
XII. Provisions on the Identity of the Informant
A. The officer to whom the name of the suspect was first Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan
reveled shall record the real name and specific address
of the informant and shall report the same to his Jaravata was an asst. principal when he informed the
superior officer who shall in turn transmit the classroom teachers of the approval of the release of their
information to the Congressional Oversight Committee salary differentials and to facilitate its payment accused
within 5 days after the suspect was placed under arrest, and the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-up
or his properties sequestered seized or frozen. 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
B. The data shall be considered confidential and shall not
each of the 6 teachers. The teachers actually received
be unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings
their salary differentials and pursuant to said agreement,
against the suspect shall have been terminated.
they, with the exception of 2 teachers, gave the accused
( NOTE: It would seem that the confidentiality of the
varying amounts but as the administrator did not approve
informant’s identity is not permanent but may be it, he ordered the Jaravata to return the money given to
revealed, not like the provisions of the Rules of Evidence him which he complied. Jaravata was charged and
which considers the confidentiality as permanent) convicted under RA 3019 SEC 3(b)
XIII. Territorial Application of the law: 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
The law applies to any person who commits an act official intervention is required by law in a contract or
covered by the law if committed: transaction.
There is no law which invests the petitioner with
A. Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, the power to intervene in the payment of the salary
maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines differentials of the complainants or anyone for that matter.
B. Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines Far from exercising any power, the petitioner played the
C. On board a Philippine ship or airship humble role of a supplicant whose mission was to expedite
D. Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises payment of the salary differentials. In his official capacity
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in as assistant principal, he is not required by law to
an official capacity intervene in the payment of the salary differentials.
E. Against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine Accordingly, he cannot be said to have violated the law
descent where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor afore-cited although he exerted efforts to facilitate the
in the commission of the crime payment of the salary differentials.
F. Directly against the Philippine government.
XIV. The provisions of the law shall be automatically Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan
suspended one month before and two months after the
holding of any election.

74
Mayor Trieste had been charged and convicted for 12 They were deprived of the just compensation to which they
violations of RA 3019 Sec 3 (h) for the purchases of are entitled.
construction materials by his municipality from a company
of which he is allegedly the president. Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury
HELD: No violation. Petitioner has divested his interest
with the company. Petitioner established that before he Acts punishable:
assumed office as mayor he had already sold his shares of
the company to his sister. The sale was made by 1. Entering into an agreement with any interested
corresponding indorsements to her stock certificate which party or speculator or making use of any other
was duly recorded in the stock and transfer book of scheme, to defraud the government, in dealing
the corporation.
with any person with regard to furnishing
In as much as Treasurer Vega signed and paid the
vouchers after the materials were delivered, petitioner's supplies, the making of contracts, or the
signature on the vouchers after payment is not, we submit, adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to
the kind of intervention contemplated under Section 3(h) public property or funds;
of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the 2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest sums different from or larger than those
in order that liability may attach. The official need not
authorized by law, in collection of taxes, licenses,
dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does not
do anything for the firm in its contract with the office. For fees, and other imposts;
the law aims to prevent the dominant use of influence, 3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
authority and power. by law, for any sum of money collected by him
There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees,
capacity as Mayor, used his influence, power, and authority and other imposts;
in having the transactions given to Trigen.
4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects
Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan of a nature different from that provided by law,
in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and
Mejorada was a right-of-way agent with DPWH. Petitioner other imposts.
contacted the persons affected by the widening of the road
and informed them that he could work out their claims for
Elements of frauds against public treasury under
payment of the values of their lots and/or improvements
affected by the widening of said highway. They were paid paragraph 1
more than what was the value of their property. Right after
the claimants had received the proceeds of their checks, 1. Offender is a public officer;
accused accompanied them to his car where they were 2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he
divested of the amounts paid to them. All the claimants intervened in the transaction in his official
were helpless to complaint because they were afraid of the
capacity;
accused and his armed companion.
Petitioner contends that the eight informations 3. He entered into an agreement with any
filed against him before the Sandiganbayan are fatally interested party or speculator or made use of any
defective in that it failed to allege the essential ingredients other scheme with regard to furnishing supplies,
or elements constituting the offense penalized by Section the making of contracts, or the adjustment or
3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. settlement of accounts relating to public property
or funds;
HELD: Section 3’s reference to "any public officer" is
without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts 4. He had intent to defraud the government.
declared unlawful. The last sentence of paragraph (e) is
intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and · Public officer must act in his official capacity
employees of officers or government corporations, which, · Crime of frauds against public treasury is
under the ordinary concept of "public officers" may not consummated by merely entering into an
come within the term. It is a strained construction of the
provision to read it as applying exclusively to public
agreement with any interested party or
officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or speculator or by merely making use of any other
permits or other concessions. scheme to defraud Government.
The government suffered undue injury as a result of his Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2
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-
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the
agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with property collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
owners who are affected by highway constructions for the imposts;
purpose of compensating them. 2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or
On the part of the complainants, the injury omissions:
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.

75
b. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the · Transaction must be one of exchange or
payment of sums different from or larger speculation such as buying regularly securities for
than those authorized by law; or resale.
c. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as · Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simply an investment and not a violation of Art.
provided by law, for any sum of money
215.
collected by him officially; or
· Examples of appointive public officer who may
d. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
not engage in the commercial profession either in
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
person or by proxy: justices, judges or fiscals,
objects of a nature different from that
employees engaged in the collection and
provided by law. administration of public funds.
· Crime of illegal exactions is consummated by

mere demand for larger or different amount from Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest
that fixed by law. by a public officer
· Collecting officer must issue official receipt
otherwise held liable under this article. Persons liable:
· When there is deceit in demanding greater fees
than those prescribed by law, the crime is estafa 1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
not illegal exaction. interested in any contracts or business in which it
· Tax collector who collected a sum larger than was his official duty to intervene;
that authorized by law and spent all of them is 2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants
guilty of 2 crimes, namely: illegal exaction, for who, in like manner, took part in any contract or
demanding a greater amount; and malversation transaction connected with the estate or property
for misappropriating the amount collected. in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of
· BIR or Customs officers and employees not which they had acted;
covered by Art 213. NIRC or Admin Code applies 3. Guardians and executors with respect to the
to them. property belonging to their wards or the estate.
· This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators

Article 214. Other Frauds and private accountants who, in like manner,
shall take part in any contract or transaction
Elements: connected with the estate or property in
appraisal distribution or adjudication of which
1. Offender is a public officer; they shall have acted, and to the guardians and
2. He takes advantage of his official position; executors with respect tom the property
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits belonging to their wards or estate.
enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (Estafa, other · Actual fraud is not necessary
forms of swindling, swindling a minor and other
deceits) Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
· RTC has jurisdiction when Art 214 is involved as No Senator or Member of the House of
MTCs do not have jurisdiction to impose the Representatives may personally appear as
principal penalty in Art. 214 of disqualification counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special
Elements privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
1. Offender is an appointive public officer; including any government-owned or controlled
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of
any transaction of exchange or speculation; office. He shall not intervene in any matter
3. The transaction takes place within the territory before any office of the government for his
subject to his jurisdiction; pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during upon to act on account of his office.
his incumbency.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution

76
The President, Vice-President, the Members of · Funds or property must be received in official
the Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall capacity
not, unless otherwise provided in this · A public officer having only a qualified charge of
Constitution, hold any other office or employment government property without authority to part
during their tenure. They shall not, during said with physical possession of it unless upon order
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other from his immediate superior, cannot be held
profession, participate in any business, or be liable for malversation. This rule does not apply
financially interested in any contract with, or in when the accused had authority to receive
any franchise, or special privilege granted by the money pertaining to the Government.
Government or any subdivision, agency or · A private person conspiring with an accountable
instrumentality thereof, including government- public officer in committing malversation is also
owned or controlled corporations or their guilty of malversation. Under Art. 222 private
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of individuals may also guilty of malversation.
interest in the conduct of their office. · Private property may be involved malversation.
This article applies to administrators or
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution depositories of funds or property attached,
seized, or deposited by public authority, even if
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, such property belongs to a private individual.
during his tenure, hold any office or employment. · In malversation not committed through
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any negligence, lack of criminal intent or good faith is
profession or in the active management or a defense.
control of any business which in any way may be · Presumption from failure to have duly
affected by the functions of his office, nor shall forthcoming public funds or property upon
he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, demand is prima facie evidence that the said
in any contract with, or in any franchise or funds have been put to personal use. This may
privilege granted by the government, or any of be rebutted.
its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, · Return of the funds malversed is only a
including government-owned or controlled mitigating circumstance.
corporations or their subsidiaries. · 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.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds · When the accountable officer is obliged to go out
of his office and borrow the sum alleged to be
Acts punishable: the shortage and later the missing amount is
found in some unaccustomed place in his office,
1. Appropriating public funds or property; he is not liable for malversation.
2. Taking or misappropriating the same; · Demand not necessary in malversation in spite of
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or the last paragraph in Art. 217 as the latter
negligence, permitting any other person to take provides only for a rule of procedural law, a rule
such public funds or property; and of evidence and no more.
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or · A person whose negligence made possible the
malversation of such funds or property. commission of malversation may be held liable as
principal by indispensable cooperation in the
Elements common to all acts of malversation under complex crime of malversation through
Article 217 falsification of a public document by reckless
negligence.
1. Offender is a public officer; · Damage to Government not necessary. Penalty
2. He had the custody or control of funds or is based on the amount involved, not on the
property by reason of the duties of his office; amount of damage to the government.
3. Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the
negligence, permitted another person to take Mindanao State University. She filed a leave of absence and
did not discharge her duties for the said period. When COA
them. conducted the examination, the petitioner did not have any
cash in her possession, so she was asked to produce all her
· Also known as embezzlement records, books of collection, copies of official receipts and
· Nature of duties, not name of office is controlling remittance advices and her monthly reports of collections.
Petitioner incurred shortages. Petitioner was charged and
convicted of malversation of public funds.

77
respondent Sandiganbayan, “the fact that (the) immediate
HELD: Conviction upheld. Her claim that she signed the superiors of the accused (petitioner herein) have
audit report and statement of collections and deposits acquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances for
prepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on the convenience did not legalize the disbursements”.
understanding that her shortage was only P2,000.00 is
belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of
documents. Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution’s rebuttal P118,003.10 later is of no moment. The return of funds
witness, confirmed that the accused filed application for malversed is not a defense. It is neither an exempting
maternity leave in March 1978 but continued reporting for circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accused’s
work during that month and that she (Guanzon) was the criminal liability. At best, it is a mitigating circumstance.
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 Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan
with the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which
the accused signed after satisfying herself that the amounts Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business,
turned over tallied with the receipts. hauling. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-
contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the
All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by former’s premises. A Warrant of Distraint of Personal
Director Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan Property was issued by the BIR to the personal property of
supported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite the Jaime Ancla, a delinquent taxpayer. Later on, Azarcon
admission by Director Osop of having signed some of them wrote the BIR stating Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his
were not valid disbursements. Granting that the amounts equipment from hiss custody. Because of this, Azarcon was
reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons charged and convicted of malversation of public property.
who signed them, the responsibility to account for them The issue here is whether petitioner’s designation by the
still rests in the accused accountable officer. Malversation BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as
consists not only in misappropriation or converting public appointment by direct provision of law, or by competent
funds or property to one’s personal use but also by authority
knowingly allowing others to make use of or
misappropriate them. 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
Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan those obtaining here. While the cited case involved a
judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of attached
Estepa, then a senior paymaster lost P50,000 government property in the hands of the debtor, the case at bench
money. Petitioner’s contention is that the facts alleged in dealt with the BIR’s administrative act of effecting
the information did not constitute an offense since there constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer
can be no crime of malversation of public funds through Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was
mere failure to count the money. received by Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was
clearly within the scope of that court’s jurisdiction and
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had “the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public
received the public funds and that he did not have them in official.” However, in the instant case, while the BIR had
his possession when demand therefore was made and he authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for
could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to
accountable public officer may be convicted for appoint Azarcon a public officer.
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. People v. Wa-Acon (2006)
Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the

Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan accused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated
public funds or property. Instead, a presumption, though
Ilogon was the acting Postmaster when the examination disputable and rebuttable, was installed that upon demand
showed that the petitioner incurred a shortage in his by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public
accounts. He was charged and convicted of malversation of officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
public funds. property— with which said officer is accountable—should be
prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary properties to personal use. When these circumstances are
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had present, a “presumption of law” arises that there was
received public funds and that he did not have them in his malversation of public funds or properties as decreed by
possession when demand 78herefore was made. There is
Article 217.
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 Bar Questions
same. Malversation (1994)
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle
The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing (Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver. Cal. 38. After a
funds is not a valid defense and will not exculpate him year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the firearms
from his criminal liability. And as aptly found by issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not

78
show up during the inspection. He went on absence without give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing
leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged
the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with with Malversation of Public Property. During the trial, the two
malversation of government property before the accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers
Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did not and, if any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa
appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. What is
use, that the delay in accounting for them does not the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your
constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were answer. (5%)
stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos,
accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal agents" of
capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon the sequestered firm and were "given custody and
demand created the presumption that he converted them for possession" of the sequestered properties, including the
his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of delivery vans which later they could not account for. They
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government were thus made the depositary and administrator of
property is enough factual basis for a finding of properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the
malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such
were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually properties. Such properties, having been sequestered
stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia
the authorities. (People vs. Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda legis and therefore impressed with the character of public
us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992) property, even though the properties belong to a private
Malversation (1999) individual (Art. 222, RPC).
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory
property? (2%) explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie
SUGGESTED ANSWER: evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any Malversation (2006)
public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is 1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a
accountable for public funds or property, shall take or government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management
or property, (Art, 217, RPC) unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's
Malversation (1999) rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time
property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn in deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged
favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan.
having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an
Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds, employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's
violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution contention tenable? (2.5%)
of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal Treasurer SUGGESTED ANSWER:
nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit? The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela
Explain. (2%) Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of the
Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the commission of the offense, PNB was a government owned
check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally liable as and controlled corporation and therefore, any crime
restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may committed by the Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public
be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 (See R.A. 7975 as amended by RA. 8249).
Phil 98), He will be criminally liable for malversation. 2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for
However, if the restitution was made immediately, under his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition
vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no
without leaving the office, he may not be criminally liable. longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain
Malversation (2001) whether he may or may not be suspended. (2.5%)
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former SUGGESTED ANSWER:
warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986, Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite
the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the holding a different public office, the PDIC, when he was
owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 applies to
constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon any office which the officer might currently be holding and
their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal not necessarily the office or position in relation to which he
agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody is charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122740,
and possession of the sequestered building and its contents, March 30,1998).
including various vehicles used in the firm's operations. Malversation vs. Estafa (1999)
After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After SUGGESTED ANSWER:
demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is

79
committed by an accountable public officer involving public properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his
funds or property under his custody and accountability; while own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only
estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit
private individual involving funds or property for which he is as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The
not accountable to the government. fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the
Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005) police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, items were found in the house of Santos, negates his
was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official pretension.
conference. He alighted from the government car which was ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the
unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove sheriff had already deposited the properties levied upon in
off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have
Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was worth already been relieved of his accountability therefor. If Juan
P800,000.00. Santos was no longer the public officer who should be
What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by accountable for the properties levied upon and found in his
Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain. house, his taking of such properties would no longer
SUGGESTED ANSWER: constitute Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation intent to gain, of personal property of another without the
committed through negligence or culpa. The government car consent of the latter.
which was assigned to him is public property under his Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996)
accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales.
negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another On January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer,
person, resulting in malversation, consistent with the from the Department of Public
language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Danny Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 known as
violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and
which is the subject of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of Barangay Phanix
Law) under Section 5 provides that mere possession of any Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on
good, article, item, object or any thing of value which has proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund
been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie, was already exhausted while the concreting of Barangay
evidence of fencing. Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the
the motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth
consent. (R.A. No. 6539) who failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth,
What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? who was charged with malversation of public funds, was
Explain. (5%) acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her
reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount of
gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating any law or
must make reparation corresponding to the value of the car ordinance appropriating the said amount for any specific
which is P800,000.00. purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001) established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable?
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Explain.
Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of
duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, is
and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of
Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but
cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined
lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the judgment and punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer
creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out that charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of
several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because
chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it
the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing necessarily include the crime of malversation. The
items were found in the house of accused Santos, who Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided
reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the
were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be the nature of the filing of the proper Information. (Parungao us.
information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%) Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a
Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the
chain and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established."
upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer. So, procedurally and substantially , the Sandiganbayan's
Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and decision suffers from serious Infirmity.
thus impressed with the character of public property,
misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to
malversation although said properties belonged to a private render accounts
individual (Art. 222, RPC). Juan Santos misappropriated such

80
2. In Illegal use, the
Elements: public officer does not derive personal gain
of profit,; In malversation, the offender in
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service certain cases profits
or separated therefrom by resignation or any 3. In Illegal use, the
other cause; public fund or property is applied to another
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or public use; In malversation, the public fund
property; or property is applied to personal use.
3. He is required by law or regulation to render
account to the Commission on Audit, or to a
provincial auditor; Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after funds or property
such accounts should be rendered.
Acts punishable:
· Demand for accounting not necessary, it is
sufficient that there is a law or regulation 1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who
requiring him to render account. is under obligation to make such payment from
· The reason for this law is the enforcement by government funds in his possession;
penal provision the performance of the duty 2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who
incumbent upon every public employee who has been ordered by competent authority to
handles government funds to render an account deliver any property in his custody or under his
of all he receives of has in his charge by reason administration.
of his employment.
· Misappropriation not necessary. Elements of failure to make payment:
1. Public officer has government funds in his

Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to possession;
render accounts before leaving the country 2. He is under obligation to make payment from
such funds;
Elements: 3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
1. Offender is a public officer; · Refusal to make delivery of property must be

2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or malicious
property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
Philippine Islands without securing a certificate Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
from the Commission on Audit showing that his provisions
accounts have been finally settled.
1. private individuals who, in any capacity whatever,
have charge of any national, provincial or
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or municipal funds, revenues, or property
property (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION) 2. any administrator or depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited by public
Elements: authority, even if such property belongs to a
private individual.
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There are public funds or property under his · Judicial administrator (of estate of deceased) not
administration; covered, conversion of effects makes him liable
3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law for estafa.
or ordinance; · Private property is included provided it is
4. He applies such public fund or property to any attached, seized or deposited by public authority.
public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.
Campomanes v. People (2006)
· Also known as technical malversation
As gleaned from the parties’ stipulation of facts, the PSC
· Illegal use of public funds or property and the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring the
distinguished from malversation: PSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organize
1. Offenders in both the Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSC
crimes are public officers delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently

81
successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress · The fact that the public officer recaptured the
since the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed to escaped prisoner does not afford complete
organize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied with
exculpation.
its undertaking under the contract.
· Liability of escaping prisoner:
There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a 1. If serving sentence by reason of final
foreign non-governmental entity, is obligated under the judgment- evasion of service under Art 157
contract to render an accounting. 2. If detention prisoner, no criminal liability.
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. Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan
Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liability
on the part of the FIDE’s officers under Article 222 of the Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed by his
Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there superior, to escort prisoners to face trial. While waiting for
must be a “law or regulation” requiring the rendering of the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres, a relative of the
accounts by private individuals. 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
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to request that they eat at the canteen. While eating, the
evasion husband of Zenaida asked accused if he could accompany
his wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and
1. Offender is a public officer; felt like defecating. The accused accompanied Zenaida and a
2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either lady companion to the ladies' comfort room. Zenaida and her
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; lady companion entered the comfort room, while he stood
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody; guard near the ladies' comfort room facing the door. Not
long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out of the
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the
comfort room and told him that she was going to buy
latter’s escape. sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes elapsed
without the lady companion of Zenaida coming back, the
Classes of prisoners involved: accused became suspicious and entered the comfort room.
To his surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final comfort room. He immediately went out to look for the
judgment to any penalty; escapee inside the building but they were not able to see
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner her. Accused was unable to recapture Zenaida. Was the
Sandiganbayan correct in holding the petitioner guilty of
for any crime or violation of law or municipal
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner through negligence
ordinance. penalized under Art. 224?
· Release of detention prisoner who could not be HELD: Yes. The only disputed issue is the petitioner's
delivered to the judicial authority within the time negligence resulting in the escape of detention prisoner
fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of the Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to in the Revised
prisoner Penal Code is such definite laxity as all but amounts to a
· Leniency or laxity is not infidelity. deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted
· Relaxation of imprisonment is considered
negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he
infidelity. 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
Article 224. Evasion through negligence lunch and to go to the comfort room to relieve herself. As a
police officer who was charged with the duty to return the
Elements: 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.
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act
a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence. non-performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements
whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan and
· Detention prisoners included make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of
· Only the positive carelessness that is short of a person of ordinary prudence.
deliberate non-performance of his duties as
guard that is the gravamen of the crime under
Art 224. Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the
custody of a person not a public officer

82
Elements: Article 226. Removal, concealment, or
destruction of documents
1. Offender is a private person;
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or Elements:
person under arrest is confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes; 1. Offender is a public officer;
4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the 2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or
escape takes place through his negligence. papers;
3. Said document or papers should have been
· Inapplicable if the private person is the one who entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
made the arrest and he consented to the escape office;
of the person he arrested 4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party
or to the public interest has been caused.
Bar Questions
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners · Public officer must be officially entrusted with the
(1996) documents or papers
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that
· Documents must be complete and one by which
a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal jail,
would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the
a right could be established or an obligation
latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested could be extinguished
and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the · Books, periodicals and pamphlets not documents
prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail · Papers include checks, promissory notes and
early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been paper money
fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? · Infidelity in the custody of the document
Explain. distinguished from malversation and falsification:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When the postmaster received money orders,
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC,
consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which signed the signatures of the payees, collected
are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody of and appropriated the respective amounts thereof,
a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c) that the postmaster is guilty of malversation and
the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance. falsification, the latter crime having been
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making committed the malversation. But when the
the penalty ineffectual; although the convict may not have postmaster receives letters or envelopes
fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the containing money orders for transmission and the
provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the
money orders are not sent to the addressees, the
prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal
Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla). postmaster cashing the same for his own benefit,
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners he is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
(1997) · Money bills received as court exhibits are papers.
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a · Acts punishable: removing, destroying,
detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal concealing, documents or papers officially
jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to entrusted to the offending public officer.
8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was · It is not necessary that the act of removal must
there any crime committed by A?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be coupled with proof of intention to conceal.
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a Accordingly, removal, destruction and
prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A concealment are distinct modes of committing
has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail the offense.
at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously · The removal is for a illicit purpose when offender
failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he intends to (1) tamper with it or (2) profit with it
permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his of (3) commit an act constituting a breach of
imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the
trust in the official care thereof.
punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be
considered real and actual evasion of service under Article
· The crime of removal of public documents in
223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29 breach of official trust is consummated upon its
Phil 459). removal from its usual place in the office.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: · Infidelity in the custody of document by
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only destroying or concealing it does not require proof
an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his duty of illicit purpose.
and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 · Delivering document to the wrong party is
O.G. 158).
infidelity in the custody thereof.
· There must be damage, great or small, which
may consist in mere alarm to the public or

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;

84
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason. 1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public
office;
· Revelation to one person is sufficient, public 2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
revelation not required duties of said office;
· When the offender is an attorney at law or 3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be
solicitor Art 230 is not applicable but Art 209. sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
· Damage to private person not necessary since
the reason of the provision is to uphold faith and · The reason is that once an individual is elected to
trust in the public service an office by the will of the people, the discharge
of the duties of said office becomes a matter of
duty.
Article 231. Open disobedience · Not applicable to appointive officers
1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;

2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
superior authority;
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made Elements:
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the
superior authority and issued with all the legal 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
formalities; 2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses prisoner;
to execute the said judgment, decision or order, 3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
which he is duty bound to obey. following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or

Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner
officer, when said order was suspended by under his charge either -
inferior officer
(1) By the imposition of punishment
1. Offender is a public officer; not authorized by the regulations;
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution; or
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution (2) By inflicting such punishments
of such order; (those authorized) in a cruel and
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the humiliating manner; or
execution of the order;
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a
disapproval of the suspension. confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner.
· This article does not apply if the
order of the superior is illegal. · Public officer must have actual charge of the
prisoner
· Offended party must be convict or detention
Article 233. Refusal of assistance prisoner
· To be a detention prisoner, the arrested person
1. Offender is a must be in jail even for a short while.
public officer; · The maltreatment must (1) relate to the
2. A competent correction or handling of the prisoner or (2) be
authority demands from the offender that he for the purpose of extorting a confession or of
lend his cooperation towards the administration obtaining some information from the prisoner.
of justice or other public service; · Offender may also be liable for physical injuries
3. Offender fails to or damage caused
do so maliciously.
· Damage Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public

to public interest or to a third party is essential. office
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or

Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office employment, either by election or appointment;

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;

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;
advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody;
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:

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

87

Title 7 Public Officers

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 7 Public Officers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 7 Public Officers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Seven individual

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Article 217. Malversation of public funds Requisites to be a public officer:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan 1. Offender is a public officer;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Sec. 2. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby

“Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

III. Requirements for Terrorism

A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)

B. There results a condition of widespread and

C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the

IV. Other Acts/Persons Liable

B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

· Crime of illegal exactions is consummated by

· This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

1. Public officer has government funds in his

1. Offender is a public officer; · Refusal to make delivery of property must be

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer Elements:

Acts punishable: 1. Offender is a public officer;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;

a. By overdoing himself in the correction or

· Damage Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public

1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

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

· Nominate is different from recommend.

Article 245. Abuses against chastity

1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent

1. Offender is a public officer;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

You might also like