G. Title VII – Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Art. 124. Arbitrary Detention

Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person

---

Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions

Art. 203. Who Are Public Officers

A person is a public officer if the person takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government, or performs public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official of any rank or class in the Government or any of its branches. The authority to do so must arise from:

• A direct provision of law;
• Popular election; or
• Appointment by competent authority.

Public officers include public servants of every rank who exercise public functions. A government laborer is not a public officer, but becomes one while temporarily performing public functions.

Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office

• Malfeasance: Doing an act that ought not to be done.
• Misfeasance: Improperly doing an act that may lawfully be done.
• Nonfeasance: Failing to do an act that ought to be done.

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer or employee (whose official duties include the authority to make an arrest and detain persons);
• That he Detains a person; and
• That the detention is Without legal grounds

Offender is a public officer or employee

The public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors and barangay captains. (Milo v. Salanga, GR No. L-37007)

Presidential Immunity

The President of the Philippines is entitled to immunity from suit, including criminal prosecution, if the immunity is asserted during the period of his incumbency and tenure, whether the alleged act is official or private. The immunity does not continue after the President leaves office.

Presidential immunity will assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is a job that demands undivided attention. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, Mar. 2, 2001)

Detention through Imprudence

Arbitrary detention can be committed through imprudence. [People v. Misa, G.R. No. 93485. Here, a chief of police rearrested a woman who had been released by a verbal order of the justice of peace. The officer acted without malice, but should have verified the order of release before proceeding to make the re-arrest. The officer was convicted of arbitrary detention through simple imprudence.

Takes advantage/abuse of official position

• Offender has the duty to make or prepare, or otherwise intervene in the preparation of, a document; or
• He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.

Note: Even if the offender is a public officer or employee, if the offense was not committed with abuse of office, he will be punished as a private citizen.

Document

• Any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished
• Must be complete or have the appearance of a true and genuine document
• Must be of apparent legal efficacy
• Pars. 6, 8, and the second part of par. 7 of Art. 171 require a genuine document, while the others do not

Note: Even if the document is originally a private document, if it is in the official custody of the public officer or employee or if it forms part of the official record when it is falsified by the public officer or employee, then the crime committed should be punished under this article.

1st Act: Counterfeiting or Imitating any Signature, Handwriting or Rubric

Elements:

• That the offender is a Judge;
• That there is a Proceeding in his court;
• That he Delays the administration of justice; and
• That the delay is Malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case

Note: Mere delay without malice is not punishable.

Art. 208. Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence and Tolerance

Any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses;
• That there is dereliction of the duties of his office, that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he tolerates its commission; and
• That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law

d. Those who, while being public Officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;

Offense committed by a public officer abroad must refer to the discharge of one’s functions. (Reyes, Book I)

Function-related crimes are those committed by public officer under the Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws such as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law and Plunder Law. (Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Volume I)

Who can be offenders in Art. 208

• Officer of the Law – includes all those who, by reason of the position held by them, are duty bound to cause the prosecution and punishment of offenders.
• Public Officer – extends to officers of the prosecution department whose duty is to institute criminal proceedings for felonies the perpetrations of which are made known to them

Notes:

• PREVARICACION under Art. 208 is a public officer’s malicious failure, in dereliction of duty, to institute prosecution, or tolerance of the commission of an offense.
• There must be a duty on the part of the public officer to prosecute or move for the prosecution of the offender. However, a fiscal is under no compulsion to file an information based upon a complaint if he is convinced that the evidence before him is insufficient to warrant filing an action in court.
• The crime must be proved first before an officer can be convicted of dereliction of duty. If the guilt of the law-violator is not proved, the person charged with the dereliction of duty is not liable.
• “Maliciously” signifies deliberate evil intent; a dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment or honest mistake is not punishable.
• A public officer who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of an offender, when it is his duty to prosecute him, is liable as principal in the crime of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. He is not an accessory.
• If gift/promise is a consideration for the conduct of the officer referred to in this article, the crime is direct bribery under Art. 210.

Art. 209. Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor – Revelation of Secrets

Any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who:

a) by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or

b) by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity; or

c) having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client

---

Punishable Acts:

• Causing damage to client either
• By any malicious breach of professional duty, or
• By inexcusable negligence or ignorance
• Damage is necessary
• Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity
• By any malicious breach of professional duty, or
• By inexcusable negligence or ignorance
• Damage is NOT necessary.
• Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client, after having undertaken the defense of the latter or having received confidential information from the latter
• If the client consents to the attorney’s taking of the defense of the other party, there is no crime.

Section 2. – Bribery

Art. 210. Direct Bribery

Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another,

---

Punishable Acts:

• Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of the offender’s official duties;

Notes:

• Acceptance of the offer or promise is enough to consummate the crime. If the offer is not accepted, only the person offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of a public officer.
• Gift must have a value or be capable of pecuniary estimation. It could be in the form of money, property or services.
• Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the performance of the offender’s official duty; and
• Agreeing to refrain, or refraining, from doing something which it is the offender’s official duty to do, in consideration of a gift or promise.

Note:

• Prevaricacion (Art. 208) distinguished from bribery: differs from bribery in the sense that in the latter, the offender refrains from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary in the crime of prevaricacion.

Art. 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities

Any public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver the same to the proper judicial authorities within the period provided by law

---

Elements:

• That the offender be a Public officer;
• That the offender Accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
• That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present Received by the public officer -
• With a view to committing some crime; OR
• In consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; OR
• To refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do;
• That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he Executes be connected with the performance of his official duties

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• That he has Detained a person for some Legal Ground; and
• That he FAILS to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
• 12 hours, if detained for crimes punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
• 18 hours, if detained for crimes punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; or
• 36 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their equivalent

Temporary performance of public functions make the person a public officer

For purposes of this article, temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.

Bribery exists when the gift is:

• Voluntarily offered by a private person;
• Solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person; and
• Solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of the consequences should the public officer perform his functions

Fourth element: The act which the public officer agrees to perform must be connected with the performance of his official duties. It is enough that the act is part of the established procedure of a governmental agency.

Computation of periods

The article includes Sundays, holidays and election days in the computation of the periods prescribed within which public officers should deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities, as the law does not except such days in the computation. (Soria v Desierto, GR No. 153524)

Absolutely false

• Offender must be aware of falsity
• If the statements are not altogether false, there being some colorable truth in such statements, the crime of falsification is not deemed to have been committed.

Bribery and Robbery, Distinguished

Art. 211. Indirect Bribery

Any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he Accepts gifts; and
• That the said gifts are offered to him By reason of his office.

Notes:

• The article uses the words “gift” and not “promise,” and “accept”, not just “receive”.
• The gift must be offered and accepted by reason of the public officer's office; a contemplated future favor is not required.
• There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as his own from that moment. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
• There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.

Indirect and Direct Bribery, Distinguished

Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery

Elements:

• The offender is a public officer Entrusted with law enforcement;
• He Refrains from arresting/ prosecuting an offender for crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death; and
• His refusal is in consideration of any offer, Promise or gift

Art. 212. Corruption of Public Officials

Any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles

---

Elements:

• The offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
• The offers or promises are made, or the gifts or presents are given, to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery

Notes:

• The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise. The act may or may not be accomplished.
• Under P.D. 749, givers of bribes and other gifts as well as accomplices in bribery and other graft cases are immune from prosecution if they voluntarily give any information about any commission of direct, indirect, and qualified bribery, and any corruption of public officials, provided that:
• The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;
• The information, and the informant’s testimony, are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;
• Such information and testimony are not in possession of the State;
• Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and
• Informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Chapter 3: Frauds and Illegal Transactions and Exactions

Art. 213. Frauds against the Public Treasury and Similar Offenses

Offender

• Committed by a public officer who takes advantage of his official position
• If a private individual is in conspiracy with the offender, he is guilty of this crime and incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer.

Elements:

• The offender is a public officer;
• He entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to (a) furnishing supplies ,(b) the making of contracts, or (c) the adjustment or settlement of an account relating to public property or funds;
• He should have taken advantage of his office - that is, he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity; and
• The accused had intent to defraud the government.

Notes:

• The public officer must act in his official capacity.
• The felony is consummated by merely entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or by merely making use of any scheme to defraud the Government.

Illegal Exactions

Elements:

• The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts; and
• He does any of the following acts or omissions:
• Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law,
• Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially, or
• Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.

Notes:

• Mere demand of a larger or different amount is sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence is the improper collection, and damage to the government is not required.
• Receipt of sums without a demand does not constitute the first mode of illegal exaction; failure to issue the required receipt or collection or receipt of things different from those prescribed by law may still constitute illegal exaction if the respective elements are present. If the sum is a gift rather than an unlawful collection, assess whether its acceptance constitutes indirect bribery because it was given by reason of the officer’s office (Art. 211, RPC), or direct bribery because the elements of an agreement concerning an official act are present (Art. 210, RPC).
• When there is deceit in demanding larger fees, the crime committed is estafa.
• This felony may be complexed with malversation. Ex. A tax collector who collected a sum larger than that authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty of two crimes, namely:
• illegal exaction, for demanding a greater amount; and
• malversation for misappropriating the amount collected.
• Officers and employees of the BIR and the Bureau of Customs are not covered by this article, since their acts are covered by special laws (NIRC and the Administrative Code, respectively).

Art. 214. Other Frauds

Any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he takes Advantage of his official position; and
• That he Commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Arts. 315 and 316 (Estafa, Swindling)

Note: The penalty under this Article is in addition to the penalties prescribed in the other articles violated (Arts. 315 and 316, RPC)

Art 215. Prohibited Transactions

Any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction

---

Elements of Act No. 1

• Offender is a private individual or public officer not taking advantage of his position;
• He committed any act of falsification under Art. 171
• Exception: Par.7, which by definition cannot be committed by a private individual/public officer not taking advantage of his position because the authentication of a document can be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of the original document; and
• It is a public/official/commercial document that is falsified.
• It is a public/official/commercial document that is falsified.

Elements:

• That the offender is an Appointive public officer;
• That he becomes Interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation;
• That the transaction takes place Within the territory subject to his jurisdiction; and
• That he becomes interested in the transaction during his Incumbency.

Notes:

• The transaction must be of exchange or speculation. Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation are buying and selling stocks, commodities, land, etc. wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected rise or fall in price for gain or profit, and not merely as investment
• Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple investment and not a violation of the article. However, regularly buying securities for resale is speculation.

Art. 216. Possession of Prohibited Interests by a Public Officer

A public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene. This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.

---

Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Art. 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property

---

Elements:

• That the offender be a public officer (or private person, if entrusted with public funds or if in connivance with public officers);
• That he has the custody or control of funds or property (if not accountable for the funds, crime committed is theft or qualified theft);
• That those funds or property are public funds or property (under Article 222, the malversation provisions also apply to private property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority and held by a public officer as depositary, without changing its ownership); and
• That he:
• Appropriated the funds or property;
• Took or misappropriated them; or Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any other person to take them

Meaning of misappropriate or convert

The words “misappropriate” and “convert” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. (CenizaManatan v People, GR No. 156248)

Notes:

• It is not necessary that the offender profited by his malversation. His being remiss in the duty of safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed in him.
• Public funds taken need not be misappropriated.
• It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence, although the penalty is the same. Negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable.
• In determining whether the offender is a public officer, what is controlling is the nature of his office and not the designation. He should be a public officer who receives money or property from government for which he is bound to account, and which he has authority to collect or receive
• The funds or property must be received in an official capacity. Otherwise, the crime committed is estafa.

Art. 126. Delaying Release

Any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order, or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

---

Punishable Acts:

• Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner;
• Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner; and
• Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 62)

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• That there is a Judicial Or Executive order for the RELEASE of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person;
• That the offender without good reason delays:
• the Service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
• the Performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or
• the Proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.

Note: Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision.

Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Art. 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property

Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent to, or through abandonment or negligence shall permit, any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property

---

Elements:

• That the offender be a public officer (or private person, if entrusted with public funds or if in connivance with public officers);
• That he has the custody or control of funds or property (if not accountable for the funds, crime committed is theft or qualified theft);
• That those funds or property are public funds or property (under Art. 222, the malversation provisions also apply to private property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority and held by a public officer as depositary, without changing its ownership); and
• That he:
• Appropriated the funds or property;
• Took or misappropriated them; or Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any other person to take them

Art. 127. Expulsion

Any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippines or shall compel such person to change his residence

---

Notes:

• It is not necessary that the offender profited by his malversation. His being remiss in the duty of safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed in him.
• Public funds taken need not be misappropriated.
• It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence, although the penalty is the same. Negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable.
• In determining whether the offender is a public officer, what is controlling is the nature of his office and not the designation. He should be a public officer who receives money or property from government for which he is bound to account, and which he has authority to collect or receive
• The officer must have custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of the office. Otherwise, the applicable offense depends on how the property was obtained and taken, and may be estafa or theft.

Circumstances which make private individuals liable

• When they are in conspiracy with public officers;
• When they have charge of national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property in any capacity;
• Those who are accessories or accomplices of an erring public officer; and
• When Article 222 applies to them as depositories or administrators of public funds or property, or when their participation in an Article 217 offense is established; mere custody or designation as depositary does not automatically suffice

Notes:

• When malversation is not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good faith is a defense.
• The failure of a public officer to have any dulyforthcoming public funds or property upon demand, by any authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use.
• Returning embezzled funds is not an exempting circumstance but only mitigating. However, the return of the malversed funds should be “prompt.”
• A person whose negligence made possible the commission of malversation by another can be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
• Malversation may be commited either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property or passively through negligence, by allowing another to commit such misappropriation. (People v Jose Ting Lan Uy, GR No. 157399)
• The fact that the obligation to deposit the collections of the City Treasurer's Office is not covered by appellant's official job description is of no legal consequence in a prosecution for Malversation. What is essential is that appellant had custody or control of public funds by reason of the duties of his office. (People v. Hipol, 454 Phil. 679)
• See Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 116033, Feb. 26, 1997] where the Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over a person who was given custody of distrained property. The Court said, “It is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as a depositary of the garnished dumptruck.”

Art. 218. Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Account

Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the (Insular) Auditor or to a provincial auditor, and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom;
• That he must be an Accountable officer for public funds or property;
• That he is Required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit or to a provincial auditor; and
• That he Fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered

Note: Demand and misappropriation are not necessary.

Art. 219. Failure of a Responsible Public Officer to Render Accounts before Leaving the Country

Any public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the (Insular) Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he must be an Accountable officer for public funds or property; and
• That he must have Unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled

Note: The act of leaving the Philippines must be unauthorized or not permitted by law.

Art. 220. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property (Technical Malversation)

Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property was appropriated by law or ordinance

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That there is a Public fund or property under his administration;
• That such public fund or property has been Appropriated by law or ordinance for a specific public purpose; absent such an appropriation, Article 220 does not apply, but liability under Article 217 must be assessed on its own elements, including misappropriation or negligently permitting another to take the fund or property; and
• That he Applies the same to a public use other than for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance

Notes:

• Unlike in Art. 217 (Malversation), in illegal use of public funds or property (Technical Malversation), the offender does not derive any personal gain; the funds are merely devoted to some other public use
• If the diversion results in damage or embarrassment to the public service, Article 220 prescribes the higher penalty; otherwise, its alternative penalty applies.
• Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission, based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant. (Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330)
• In relation to the second element, if the public funds are established to be part of savings, the same ceased to be appropriated by law or ordinance for any specific purpose. (Abdulla v. People, G.R. No. 150129)

Punishable Acts:

• Expelling a person from the Philippines; or
• Compelling a person to change his residence.

Elements:

• The offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• He Expels any person from the Philippines, or Compels a Person to change his residence; and
• The offender is NOT authorized by law to do so.

Illegal Use of funds or property and Malversation, Distinguished

Art. 221. Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds or Property

Any public officer who shall -

• Fail to make payment from Government funds in his possession, despite being under obligation to make such payment; or
• Refuse to make delivery despite being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration (must be malicious)

---

Elements:

• That the public officer has government funds or property in his possession
• That he is under obligation to either:3
• make payment from such funds, or
• deliver property in his custody or administration when ordered by competent authority to do so; and
• That he fails to make the required payment from government funds in his possession; or, when ordered by competent authority to deliver property in his custody or administration, maliciously refuses to deliver it.

Art. 222. Officers Included in the Preceding Provisions

Persons liable under Arts. 217 to 221:

• Private individual who, in any capacity, have charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue, or property Example: a withholding tax agent
• Administrator or depositary of funds or property that has been attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if owned by a private individual

---

Elements of Acts No. 1 and No. 2 (2)

• Offender is an officer or employee of Government, or of a private corporation engaged in service of sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone messages;
• The offender either
• Utters a fictitious message; or
• Falsifies a message

Section 1. – Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners

Art. 223. Conniving with or Consenting To Evasion

Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
• That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
• That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
• That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape

Notes:

A person becomes a detention prisoner from the moment he is “booked”. This refers to the accomplishment of the booking sheet and filling out of a form where his finger-prints are affixed. From that time on, he is already a detention prisoner even if he is not yet incarcerated. The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither does mere leniency or laxity in the performance of duty constitute infidelity.

There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment.

Art. 224. Evasion through Negligence

Any public officer charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner who, through negligence, shall allow the evasion (escape) of the prisoner

---

Art. 128. Violation of Domicile

It is committed by public officers or employees who, without judicial authorization, enter the dwelling of another person against its owner's will; search papers or other effects there without the owner's prior consent; or, after surreptitiously entering, refuse to leave when required to do so.

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he is charged with the Conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
• That such prisoner Escapes through his negligence

Punishable Acts:

• Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
• Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner; and
• Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• That he is Not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects; and
• That he Commits any of the following acts:
• Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
• Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
• Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same.

Surreptitiously – done through fraud or secret means to accomplish an object (stealth).

Notes:

• The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance of a duty.
• The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not afford him complete exculpation.
• Extent of liability of an escaping prisoner:
• if a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of service (Art. 157)
• if a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability (unless he cooperated with the offender)
• The negligent public officer suffers the same penalty regardless of whether the prisoner is a convict or merely a detention prisoner.
• Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under the provisions of this Act and who, by his deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of such detained person, shall be guilty of an offense. (RA 11479, Sec. 42)

Art. 225. Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a Person not a Public Officer

Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles

---

Punishable Acts:

• Failing to resist rebellion by all means;
• Continuing to discharge duties under the rule of rebels; or
• Accepting appointment under the rule of rebels

Elements:

• Public officers or employees
• who:
• fail to resist a rebellion by all means in their power;
• shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels; or
• accept appointment to office under them

Note: Penalty for all acts is Prision Correccional in its minimum period.

Section 2. – Infidelity in the Custody of Documents

Art. 226. Removal, Concealment or Destruction of Documents

Public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him

---

Elements:

• That the offender be a Public officer;
• That he Abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or paper;
• That the said document or paper should have been Entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; and
• That Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should have been caused.

Notes:

• The document or paper must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an obligation could be extinguished.
• “Papers” would include checks, promissory notes and paper money.
• A post office official who retained mail/letters without forwarding them to their destination is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
• Removal (“abstracting”) of a document or paper must be for an illicit purpose. There is illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is to:
• tamper with it,
• to profit by it, or
• to commit any act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof. (Kataniag v People, 74 Phil 45)
• Removal is consummated upon the removing or secreting away of the document from its usual place. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the offender has been accomplished.
• Destruction or concealment of a document or paper does not require proof of an illicit purpose. (REYES, BOOK TWO, P. 480)
• Delivering a document (a backpay certificate) to a wrong party instead of returning it to the releasing clerk after it was signed by the Treasurer, with the result that the owner could not withdraw his backpay, is infidelity in the custody thereof. (People v Irineo, CA, 53 OG 2827)

Art. 227. Officer Breaking Seal

Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken

---

Offenders

• Should be a public officer or employee. A private individual cannot violate this article, even if he accepts appointment under the rebel government.
• Should not be in conspiracy with the rebels. If there is conspiracy, he/she will be liable for rebellion.

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he is Charged with the custody of papers or property;
• That these papers or property are Sealed by proper authority; and
• That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.

Public officer searching, without warrant, outside of dwelling

A public officer’s search of a person “outside his dwelling” is not criminal merely because it was conducted without a search warrant and the person was not legally arrested for an offense. First determine whether a recognized exception to the warrant requirement justified the search, such as valid consent (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2). If no exception applies, the officer’s acts may constitute:

• Grave Coercion if, without authority of law, the officer uses violence to prevent the person from doing something not prohibited by law or to compel the person to do something against his will (Art. 286), or
• Unjust Vexation if the officer’s acts satisfy the elements of that offense (Art. 287).

Notes:

• It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is punished.
• Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary; damage is presumed.

Art. 228. Opening of Closed Documents

Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That any closed papers, documents, or objects are Entrusted to his custody;
• That He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers,documents or objects; and
• That he does Not have proper authority to do so.

Chapter 2: Other Falsities

Section 1 – Usurpation of Authority, Rank, Title, and Improper Use of Names, Uniforms, and Insignia

Art. 177. Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions

Any person who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer, without being lawfully entitled to do so.

---

Section 3. – Revelation of Secrets

Art. 229. Revelation of Secrets by an Officer

Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published

---

Punishable Acts:

• Usurpation of authority – knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, etc.
• Mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, etc., is sufficient.
• It is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public officer.
• Usurpation of official functions – doing any act pertaining to any public officer, etc. without being authorized to do so
• Essential that offender should have performed an act pertaining to a public officer

Punishable Acts:

• By revealing any secret known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity; and
• By delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published.

Offenders

• This article may be violated by both private and public officers.

Note: This article does not apply to an occupant of a public position under color of title. A usurper is “one who introduces himself into an office that is vacant, or who, without color of title, ousts the incumbent and assumes to act as an officer by exercising some of the functions of the office.” (People v. Buenaflor, et. al., CA., 72 O.G. 364)

Art. 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True Name

Any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment, or causing damage.

Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances

---

Elements of para. 1 (Secrets known by reason of his official capacity):

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he knows of a secret by reason of his Official capacity;
• That he reveals such secret Without authority or justifiable reasons.

Serious damage to the public interest calls for the higher penalty under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code.

Not authorized by judicial order

A public officer or employee is not authorized by judicial order when he is not armed with a search warrant duly issued by the Court. If the offender is a private individual or if the public officer is one whose functions do not include the duty to effect search and seizure, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling. (BOADO, RPC and SPL)

Discovering Secrets and Revealing secrets of private individual (Art. 230), Distinguished

Art. 291. Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office

Any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets

---

Art. 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained

Any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

---

Elements:

• Procure search warrant without just cause
• That the offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• That he procures a Search warrant; and
• That there is No just cause for the procurement
• Exceed Authority in Execution
• That the offender is a Public Officer or employee;
• That he has Legally procured a search warrant; and
• That he Exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same

Elements of para. 2 (wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published):

• That the offender is a public officer;
• That he has charge (custody or control) of papers;
• That those papers should not be published;
• That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person;
• That the delivery is wrongful; and

Notes:

• Charge means custody or control. If the offender is merely entrusted with the possession of papers but not with the custody thereof, he is not liable under this article.
• If the papers contain secrets which should not be published, and the public officer having charge thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a third person, the crime is revelation of secrets. On the other hand, if the papers do not contain secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody of documents.
• Damage is not an element of wrongful delivery under Article 229; serious damage to the public interest calls for the higher penalty.

Art. 230. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private Individual

Any public officer, to whom the secrets of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office, who reveals such secrets

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That he Knows of the secret of a private individual by reason of his office; and
• That he Reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.

Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers

Chapter 6: Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public Officers

Insignia, Uniform, or Dress

• Genuine insignia, uniform, or dress is not necessary. Offender can wear an imitation and still be liable.
• An exact imitation is not necessary, for as long as there is a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the general public.
• Must pertain to an actual officer or class of persons. The person is not liable if the insignia, uniform, or dress pertains to an imaginary office or class.

Section 1. – Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance, and Maltreatment of Prisoners

Art. 231. Open Disobedience

Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Judicial or executive officer;
• That there is a Judgment, decision or order of superior authority;
• That such Judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with all the legal formalities; and
• That the offender, without any legal justification, Openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or order which he is duty bound to obey.

Art. 232. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer When Said Order was Suspended by Inferior Officer

Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That an Order is issued by his superior for execution;
• That he has, for any reason, Suspended the execution of such order;
• That his Superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order; and
• That the offender Disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension.

Note:

A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior is illegal.

Art. 233. Refusal of Assistance

A public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a Public officer;
• That a Competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service; and
• That the offender fails to do so Maliciously

Notes:

• This felony involves a request from one public officer to another
• Damage is not required. Article 233 provides a higher penalty when serious damage results to the public interest or a third party.
• Demand is necessary.
• Demand must be from competent authority.

Art. 234. Refusal To Discharge Elective Office

Any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall refuse, without legal motive, to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office

---

Estafa and Malversation, Distinguished

Elements:

• That the offender is Elected by popular election to a public office;
• That he Refuses to be sworn in or discharge the duties of said office;
• That there is No legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Notes:

• If the elected person is disqualified, his refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of the office is justified.
• Refusal to discharge the duties of an appointive office is not covered by this article.

Art. 235. Maltreatment of Prisoners

Any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer or employee;
• That he has charge of a prisoner (that is, by final judgment ; a convict) or detention prisoner; and
• That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
• By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of such prisoner under his charge either –
• by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
• by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner, or
• by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the prisoner.

Notes:

• The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner in order to be held liable (not merely a charge by legal fiction).
• Offended party must be a: (1) convict by final judgment, or (2) detention prisoner.
• Maltreatment should not be due to personal grudge, otherwise, liability is for physical injuries only.
• Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries or damages caused. (The penalty provided in Article 235 is imposed in addition to penalty for injury or damage caused.) There is no complex crime of maltreatment of prisoners with serious or less serious physical injuries.
• If the person maltreated should not be a prisoner, physical injuries may be deemed committed.

Section 2. – Anticipation, Prolongation and Abandonment of the Duties and Powers of Public Office

Art. 236. Anticipation of Duties of a Public Office

Any person who shall assume the performance of the duties and powers of any public office or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond required by law

---

Elements:

• That the offender is Entitled to hold a public office or employment, either by election or appointment;
• That the Law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
• That he Assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office; and
• That he has Not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law.

Art. 237. Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers

Any public officer shall continue to exercise the duties and powers of his office, employment or commission beyond the period provided by law, regulation or special provisions applicable to the case

---

Elements:

• That the offender is holding a public office;
• That the period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office has already expired; and
• That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office.

Note:

The officers contemplated are those who have been suspended, separated, declared over-aged or dismissed.

Art. 238. Abandonment of Office or Position

Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer;
• That he formally resigns from his position;
• That his resignation has not yet been accepted; and
• That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service.

Art. 130. Searching Domicile Without Witnesses

Any public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer or employee;
• That the search is proper, whether conducted under a valid warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement
• That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person; and
• That the owner or any member of his family, or, in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality are not present

Notes:

• There must be formal or written resignation.
• If the purpose behind the abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties consisting of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes under Title One or Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two, the penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. If the duties concern any other crime, the penalty is arresto mayor (Revised Penal Code, Art. 238).

Abandonment of Office or Position and Dereliction of Duty, Distinguished

Elements:

• That the offender is an executive or judicial officer; and
• That he:
• makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or
• attempts to repeal a law, or
• suspends the execution thereof

Art. 240. Usurpation of Executive Functions

Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive authorities or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers

---

Elements:

• Statement under oath or affidavit upon material matter;
• Made before a competent officer authorized to administer such oath;
• Willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement;
• Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth; (Judge Pimentel Notes p. 76)
• It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be false or is consciously ignorant of its truth (Monfort III, et. al., v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 168301); and
• The oath is required by law or made for a legal purpose (Revised Penal Code, Art. 183)

Elements:

• That the offender is a judge; and
• That he:
• assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
• obstructs executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers

Note: Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of executive functions.

Art. 241. Usurpation of Judicial Functions

Any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction

---

Elements:

• That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government; and
• That he:
• assumes judicial powers, or
• obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction

Note: Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of judicial functions.

Art. 242. Disobeying Request for Disqualification

Any public officer who, before a question of jurisdiction by him over a proceeding is decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing

---

Art. 131. Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings

Any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit, dissolve or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting; shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending its meetings; or shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer;
• That a proceeding is pending before such public officer;
• That there is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet decided;
• That he has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding; and
• That he continues the proceeding

Art. 243. Orders or Requests by Executive Officer to Any Judicial Authority

Any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice

---

Elements:

• That the offender is an executive officer;
• That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority; and
• That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice

Note: Legislative and judicial officers are not liable under this article.

Art. 244. Unlawful Appointments

Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer;
• That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
• That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor; and
• That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualification at the time he made the nomination or appointment

Notes:

• Mere recommending, even if with the knowledge that the person recommended is not qualified, is not a crime. He must nominate.
• There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public office.

Elements:

• Offender is a Public Officer or Employee;
• He performs any of the following acts:
• Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner);
• Hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings; or
• Prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances

Estafa and Infidelity in custody of documents, Distinguished

Punishable Acts:

• By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before the offending officerfor decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer;
• By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the offender’s custody; and
• By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in custody of the offending warden or officer

Elements:

• That the offender is a public officer;
• That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman; and
• That such woman must be –
• 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
• under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public officer directly charged with care and custody of prisoners or person under arrest, or
• the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in the custody of the offender.

Notes:

• The mother of the person in the custody of the public officer is not included.
• To solicit means to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a woman.
• The crime is consummated by mere proposal.
• Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 3047, P.D. NO. 677, P.D. NO. 1288, B.P. BLG. 195 AND R.A. NO. 10910)

Interrupting meeting of municipal council

Disturbing or interrupting an ongoing meeting of the municipal council falls under Art. 144, while preventing the council from meeting by force or fraud falls under Art. 143, and is not punishable under this article.

Elements:

• Prevent attendance, expression of opinion, or casting of vote
• Means: force, intimidation, threats, or fraud;
• Purpose: To prevent any member of Congress from;
• Attending a meeting;
• Expressing opinion; or
• Casting vote.
• Arresting or searching a member of Congress while in regular or special session
• Offender: Public officer or employee;
• Arrests or searches any member of Congress;
• During regular or special session; and
• Member searched/arrested has not committed a crime punishable by prision mayor or higher.

Notes: Actual prevention not necessary

• It is not necessary that a member of Congress is actually prevented from attending, expressing his opinion, or voting
• It is sufficient that offender had the purpose and performed overt acts toward achieving such purpose

Notes:

• Determining whether the contract was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous is not merely based on consideration of the pecuniary amount involved. (Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, 1998)
• This partakes of the nature of malum prohibitum (Go v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, 2007)
• Section 3(g) of RA 3019 is for PUBLIC OFFICERS ONLY. The liability of private individuals who participated in the transaction must be established under another MORE appropriate provision, which is Section 4(b) of RA 3019, for knowingly inducing or causing the public officers to commit crimes punished under Section 3(g) where criminal intent must necessarily be proved. This is in clear recognition that Section 3(g), a malum prohibitum, specifically applies to public officers only (Go v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, 2007)
• Where the government was amply protected in the subject transaction, and consequently the contract was not grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, it was held that one of the elements of the crime, i.e., that the contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, is conspicuously missing (Froilan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115221, 2000)
• There is no need to prove the validity of the contract or transaction. (Luciano v. Estrella, G.R. No. L- 31622, 1970)
• Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.

Note: Actual intervention is required under the first alternative of Section 3(h) of RA 3019; it is not required where the Constitution or a law prohibits the public officer from having the interest.

• Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.

Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

• Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
• Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

When to file

• Within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
• on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
• within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

Public Officer

For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, a public officer is a person who, by direct provision of law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the exercise of public functions or performs public duties in the government as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, whatever the person's rank or class (Art. 203).

Ill-gotten wealth

It refers to any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

• Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
• By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
• By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
• By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
• By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
• By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

Combination

It refers to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in the definition of “ill-gotten wealth.”

Example: raids on the public treasury and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 2001)

Applicable only when offender is a public officer who takes advantage of his public position

The public officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150, 156-157)

Does not apply when the crime is committed in the presence of an agent only

Par. 2 of Art. 14 was not applied in a case where the crime was committed in the presence of the chief of police of a town, because he is not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities. (People vs. Verzo, G.R. No. L-22517)

RANK

"Rank" refers to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position. (People vs. Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156)

Confidence between offender and offended party must be immediate and personal

The mere fact that the voters had reposed confidence in the defendant by electing him to a public office does not mean that he abused their confidence when he committed estafa against them. (U.S. v. Torrida, 23 Phil. 189, 192)

REQUISITES:

• The crime was committed where public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties; it need not have occurred in a public office; and
• Public authorities are actually performing their public duties.