Crim-Law-Book-2-module-2.pdf

CRIM LAW BOOK 2 TITLE VII CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. 204); 2. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art. 205); 3. Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206); 4. Mali...

CRIM LAW BOOK 2 TITLE VII CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. 204); 2. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art. 205); 3. Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206); 4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice (Art. 207); 5. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance (Art. 208); 6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – Revelation of secrets (Art. 209); 7. Direct bribery (Art. 210); 8. Indirect bribery (Art. 211); 9. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A); 10. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212); 11. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses (Art. 213); 12. Other frauds (Art. 214); 13. Prohibited transactions (Art. 215); 14. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art. 216); 15. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation (Art. 217) 16. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218); 17. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country (Art. 219); 18. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220); 19. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221); 20. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art. 223); 21. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224); 22. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer (Art. 225); 23. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art. 226); 24. Officer breaking seal (Art. 227); 25. Opening of closed documents (Art. 228); 26. Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229); 27. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual (Art. 230); 28. Open disobedience (Art. 231); 29. Disobedience to order of superior officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer (Art. 232); 30. Refusal of assistance (Art. 233); 31. Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234); 32. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235); 33. Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236); 34. Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237); 35. Abandonment of office or position (Art. 238); 36. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239); 37. Usurpation of executive functions (Art. 240); 38. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art. 241); 39. Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242); 40. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority (Art. 243); 41. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244); and 42. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245). The designation of the title is misleading. Crimes under this title can be committed by public officers or a non-public officer, when the latter become a conspirator with a public officer, or an accomplice, or accessory to the crime. The public officer has to be the principal. In some cases, it can even be committed by a private citizen alone such as in Article 275 (infidelity in the custody of a prisoner where the offender is not a public officer) or in Article 222 (malversation). Requisites to be a public officer under Article 203 1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government; or 2. Performing in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, or any rank or class; 3. His authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be –  a. By direct provision of the law; b. By popular election; or c. By appointment by competent authority. Originally, Title VII used the phrase “public officer or employee” but the latter word has been held meaningless and useless because in criminal law, “public officer” covers all public servants, whether an official or an employee, from the highest to the lowest position regardless of rank or class; whether appointed by competent authority or by popular election or by direct provision of law. Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), the term public officer is broader and more comprehensive because it includes all persons whether an official or an employee, temporary or not, classified or not, contractual or otherwise. Any person who receives compensation for services rendered is a public officer. Breach of oath of office partakes of three forms: (1) Malfeasance - when a public officer performs in his public office an act prohibited by law. Example: bribery. (2) Misfeasance - when a public officer performs official acts in the manner not in accordance with what the law prescribes. (3) Nonfeasance - when a public officer willfully refrains or refuses to perform an official duty which his office requires him to perform. Article 204 Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment 1. Offender is a judge; 2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; 3. Judgment is unjust; 4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust. Article 205 Judgment Rendered through Negligence 1. Offender is a judge; 2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; 3. The judgment is manifestly unjust; 4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Article 206 Unjust Interlocutory Order 1. Offender is a judge; 2. He performs any of the following acts: a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or decree; or b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance. The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, or knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order, may be committed only by a judge of a trial court and never of an appellate court. The reason for this is that in appellate court, not only one magistrate renders or issues the interlocutory order. An appellate court functions as a division and the resolutions thereof are handed down only after deliberations among the members of a division so that it cannot be said that there is malice or inexcusable negligence or ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or order that is supposedly unjust as held by the Supreme Court in one administrative case. There is more injustice done in cases of judgment than mere interlocutory order that is why the penalty is higher in the first case. Article 207 Malicious Delay in the Administration of Justice 1. Offender is a judge; 2. There is a proceeding in his court; 3. He delays in the administration of justice; 4. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case. Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the delay is sought to favor one party to the prejudice of the other. These have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer only to judges of the trial court. Article 208 Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence and Tolerance Acts Punished 1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law; 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses. Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses 1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses; 2. There is a 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; 3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law. A public officer engaged in the prosecution of offenders shall maliciously tolerate the commission of crimes or refrain from prosecuting offenders or violators of the law. This crime can only be committed by a public officer whose official duty is to prosecute offenders, that is, state prosecutors. Hence, those officers who are not duty bound to perform these obligations cannot commit this crime in the strict sense. When a policeman tolerates the commission of a crime or otherwise refrains from apprehending the offender, such peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they can be prosecuted as: (1) An accessory to the crime committed by the principal in accordance with Article 19, paragraph 3; or (2) He may become a fence if the crime committed is robbery or theft, in which case he violates the Anti-Fencing Law; or (3) He may be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, in distant provinces or municipalities where there are no municipal attorneys, the local chief of police is the prosecuting officer. If he is the one who tolerates the violations of laws or otherwise allows offenders to escape, he can be prosecuted under this article. This is also true in the case of a barangay chairman. They are supposed to prosecute violators of laws within their jurisdiction. If they do not do so, they can be prosecuted for this crime. Prevaricacion This used to be a crime under the Spanish Codigo Penal, wherein a public officer regardless of his duty violates the oath of his office by not carrying out the duties of his office for which he was sworn to office, thus, amounting to dereliction of duty. But the term prevaricacion is not limited to dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenders. It covers any dereliction of duty whereby the public officer involved violates his oath of office. The thrust of prevaricacion is the breach of the oath of office by the public officer who does an act in relation to his official duties. While in Article 208, dereliction of duty refers only to prosecuting officers, the term prevaricacion applies to public officers in general who is remiss or who is maliciously refraining from exercising the duties of his office. Illustration: The offender was caught for white slavery. The policeman allowed the offender to go free for some consideration. The policeman does not violate Article 208 but he becomes an accessory to the crime of white slavery. But in the crime of theft or robbery, where the policeman shared in the loot and allowed the offender to go free, he becomes a fence. Therefore, he is considered an offender under the Anti-Fencing Law. Relative to this crime under Article 208, consider the crime of qualified bribery. Among the amendments made by Republic Act No. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is a new provision which reads as follows: Article. 211-A. Qualified Bribery – If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by Reclusion Perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery where the bribe, offer, promise, gift or present has a consideration on the part of the public officer, that is refraining from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration for such offer, promise, gift or present. In a way, this new provision modifies Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on direct bribery. However, the crime of qualified bribery may be committed only by public officers “entrusted with enforcement” whose official duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute offenders. Apparently, they are peace officers and public prosecutors since the nonfeasance refers to “arresting or prosecuting.” But this crime arises only when the offender whom such public officer refrains from arresting or prosecuting, has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death. If the crime were punishable by a lower penalty, then such nonfeasance by the public officer would amount to direct bribery, not qualified bribery. If the crime was qualified bribery, the dereliction of the duty punished under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code should be absorbed because said article punishes the public officer who “maliciously refrains from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law or shall tolerate the commission of offenses”. The dereliction of duty referred to is necessarily included in the crime of qualified bribery. On the other hand, if the crime was direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, the public officer involved should be prosecuted also for the dereliction of duty, which is a crime under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, because the latter is not absorbed by the crime of direct bribery. This is because in direct bribery, where the public officer agreed to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties, Article 210 expressly provides that the liability thereunder shall be “in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the crime shall have been committed. Illustration: A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from prosecuting a person charged before him. If the penalty for the crime involved is reclusion perpetua, the fiscal commits qualified bribery. If the crime is punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, the crime is direct bribery. In the latter situation, three crimes are committed: direct bribery and dereliction of duty on the part of the fiscal; and corruption of a public officer by the giver. Article 209 Betrayal of Trust by An Attorney or Solicitor – Revelation of Secrets Acts punished 1. Causing damage to his client, either— a. By any malicious breach of professional duty; b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance, there must be damage to his client. 2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity; 3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client of after having received confidential information from said client. Under the rules on evidence, communications made with prospective clients to a lawyer with a view to engaging his professional services are already privileged even though the client-lawyer relationship did not eventually materialize because the client cannot afford the fee being asked by the lawyer. The lawyer and his secretary or clerk cannot be examined thereon. That this communication with a prospective client is considered privileged, implies that the same is confidential. Therefore, if the lawyer would reveal the same or otherwise accept a case from the adverse party, he would already be violating Article 209. Mere malicious breach without damage is not violative of Article 209; at most he will be liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Illustration: B, who is involved in the crime of seduction wanted A, an attorney at law, to handle his case. A received confidential information from B. However, B cannot pay the professional fee of A. C, the offended party, came to A also and the same was accepted. A did not commit the crime under Article 209, although the lawyer’s act may be considered unethical. The client-lawyer relationship between A and B was not yet established. Therefore, there is no trust to violate because B has not yet actually engaged the services of the lawyer A. A is not bound to B. However, if A would reveal the confidential matter learned by him from B, then Article 209 is violated because it is enough that such confidential matters were communicated to him in his professional capacity, or it was made to him with a view to engaging his professional services. Here, matters that are considered confidential must have been said to the lawyer with the view of engaging his services. Otherwise, the communication shall not be considered privileged and no trust is violated. Illustration: A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have a document notarized. A narrated to B the detail of the criminal case. If B will disclose what was narrated to him there is no betrayal of trust since B is acting as a notary public and not as a counsel. The lawyer must have learned the confidential matter in his professional capacity. Several acts which would make a lawyer criminally liable: (1) Maliciously causing damage to his client through a breach of his professional duty. The breach of professional duty must be malicious. If it is just incidental, it would not give rise to criminal liability, although it may be the subject of administrative discipline; (2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to the client; (3) Inexcusable negligence; (4) Revelation of secrets learned in his professional capacity; (5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in a case without the consent of the first client whose defense has already been undertaken. Note that only numbers 1, 2 and 3 must approximate malice. A lawyer who had already undertaken the case of a client cannot later on shift to the opposing party. This cannot be done. Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the confidential matters or information was confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity. It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice on the commission of a future crime. It is, therefore, not privileged in character. The lawyer is not bound by the mandate of privilege if he reports such commission of a future crime. It is only confidential information relating to crimes already committed that are covered by the crime of betrayal of trust if the lawyer should undertake the case of opposing party or otherwise divulge confidential information of a client. Under the law on evidence on privileged communication, it is not only the lawyer who is protected by the matter of privilege but also the office staff like the secretary. The nominal liability under this article may be constituted either from breach of professional duties in the handling of the case or it may arise out of the confidential relation between the lawyer and the client. Breach of professional duty Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for which reason the case was dismissed for being non-prosecuted; or tardiness on the part of the defense counsel leading to declaration of default and adverse judgment. Professional duties – Lawyer must appear on time. But the client must have suffered damage due to the breach of professional duty. Otherwise, the lawyer cannot be held liable. If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was dismissed as non-prosecuted, but he filed a motion for consideration which was granted, and the case was continued, the lawyer is not liable, because the client did not suffer damage. If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer, and his client declared in default, and there was an adverse judgment, the client suffered damages. The lawyer is liable. Breach of confidential relation Revealing information obtained or taking advantage thereof by accepting the engagement with the adverse party. There is no need to prove that the client suffered damages. The mere breach of confidential relation is punishable. In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed the confidential information to other people, he would be criminally liable even though the client did not suffer any damage. The client who was suing his wife disclosed that he also committed acts of unfaithfulness. The lawyer talked about this to a friend. He is, thus, liable. Article 210 Direct Bribery Acts punished 1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present – an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties; 2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duty; 3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of gift or promise. Elements 1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article 203; 2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; 3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer – a. With a view to committing some crime; or b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do. 4. The act which offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties. It is a common notion that when you talk of bribery, you refer to the one corrupting the public officer. Invariably, the act refers to the giver, but this is wrong. Bribery refers to the act of the receiver and the act of the giver is corruption of public official. Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery Bribery is direct when a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in exchange for the gift, present or consideration given to him. If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position, the crime is indirect bribery. Bear in mind that the gift is given "by reason of his office", not "in consideration" thereof. So never use the term “consideration.” The public officer in Indirect bribery is not to perform any official act. Note however that what may begin as an indirect bribery may actually ripen into direct bribery. Illustration: Without any understanding with the public officer, a taxi operator gave an expensive suiting material to a BLT registrar. Upon receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable suiting material, he asked who the giver was. He found out that he is a taxi operator. As far as the giver is concerned, he is giving this by reason of the office or position of the public officer involved. It is just indirect bribery. If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates and said to take care of the taxis of the taxi operator so much so that the registration of the taxis is facilitated ahead of the others, what originally would have been indirect bribery becomes direct bribery. In direct bribery, consider whether the official act, which the public officer agreed to do, is a crime or not. If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the consideration or the doing of the act. The moment there is a meeting of the minds, even without the delivery of the consideration, even without the public officer performing the act amounting to a crime, bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer. Corruption is already committed on the part of the supposed giver. The reason is that the agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. The mere agreement is a felony already. If the public officer commits the act which constitutes the crime, he, as well as the corruptor shall be liable also for that other crime. Illustrations: (1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to a custodian of a public record to remove certain files, the mere agreement, without delivery of the consideration, brings about the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public official.  If the records were actually removed, both the public officer and the corruptor will in addition to the two felonies above, will also be liable for the crime committed, which is infidelity in the custody of the public records for which they shall be liable as principals; one as principal by inducement, the other as principal by direct participation. (2) A party litigant approached the court’s stenographer and proposed the idea of altering the transcript of stenographic notes. The court stenographer agreed and he demanded P 2,000.00. Unknown to them, there were law enforcers who already had a tip that the court stenographer had been doing this before. So they were waiting for the chance to entrap him. They were apprehended and they said they have not done anything yet. Under Article 210, the mere agreement to commit the act, which amounts to a crime, is already bribery. That stenographer becomes liable already for consummated crime of bribery and the party who agreed to give that money is already liable for consummated corruption, even though not a single centavo is delivered yet and even though the stenographer had not yet made the alterations. If he changed the transcript, another crime is committed: falsification. The same criterion will apply with respect to a public officer who agrees to refrain from performing his official duties. If the refraining would give rise to a crime, such as refraining to prosecute an offender, the mere agreement to do so will consummate the bribery and the corruption, even if no money was delivered to him. If the refraining is not a crime, it would only amount to bribery if the consideration be delivered to him. If it is not a crime, the consideration must be delivered by the corruptor before a public officer can be prosecuted for bribery. Mere agreement, is not enough to constitute the crime because the act to be done in the first place is legitimate or in the performance of the official duties of the public official. Unless the public officer receives the consideration for doing his official duty, there is no bribery. It is necessary that there must be delivery of monetary consideration. This is so because in the second situation, the public officer actually performed what he is supposed to perform. It is just that he would not perform what he is required by law to perform without an added consideration from the public which gives rise to the crime. The idea of the law is that he is being paid salary for being there. He is not supposed to demand additional compensation from the public before performing his public service. The prohibition will apply only when the money is delivered to him, or if he performs what he is supposed to perform in anticipation of being paid the money. Here, the bribery will only arise when there is already the acceptance of the consideration because the act to be done is not a crime. So, without the acceptance, the crime is not committed. Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stages because, in frustrated felony, the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence. In direct bribery, it is possible only if the corruptor concurs with the offender. Once there is concurrence, the direct bribery is already consummated. In short, the offender could not have performed all the acts of execution to produce the felony without consummating the same. Actually, you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is willing to receive and there cannot be a receiver unless there is one willing to give. So this crime requires two to commit. It cannot be said, therefore, that one has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but for reasons independent of the will, the crime was not committed. It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of bribery and corruption of public officials cannot be committed in the frustrated stage because this requires two to commit and that means a meeting of the minds. Illustrations: (1) If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his superior as evidence of the corruption, the offense is attempted corruption only and not frustrated. The official did not agree to be corrupted. If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it, he allowed himself to be corrupted. The corruptor becomes liable for consummated corruption of public official. The public officer also becomes equally liable for consummated bribery. (2) If a public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and use marked money with the knowledge of the police, the crime of the public official is attempted bribery. The reason is that because the giver has no intention to corrupt her and therefore, he could not perform all the acts of execution. Be sure that what is involved is a crime of bribery, not extortion. If it were extortion, the crime is not bribery, but robbery. The one who yielded to the demand does not commit corruption of a public officer because it was involuntary. Article 211 Indirect Bribery Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He accepts gifts; 3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office. The public official does not undertake to perform an act or abstain from doing an official duty from what he received. Instead, the official simply receives or accepts gifts or presents delivered to him with no other reason except his office or public position. This is always in the consummated stage. There is no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect bribery. The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that for indirect bribery to be committed, the public officer must have performed an act of appropriating of the gift for himself, his family or employees. It is the act of appropriating that signifies acceptance. Merely delivering the gift to the public officer does not bring about the crime. Otherwise it would be very easy to remove a public officer: just deliver a gift to him. Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery Elements 1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement; 2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime; 3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death; 4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present. Note that the penalty is qualified if the public officer is the one who asks or demands such present. Presidential Decree No. 46 Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving and acceptance of gifts by a public officer or to a public officer, even during anniversary, or when there is an occasion like Christmas, New Year, or any gift-giving anniversary. The Presidential Decree punishes both receiver and giver. The prohibition giving and receiving gifts given by reason of official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past or future favors. The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a public official is considered a crime even though it may call for a celebration. The giving of a party is not limited to the public officer only but also to any member of his family. Presidential Decree No. 749 The decree grants immunity from prosecution to a private person or public officer who shall voluntarily give information and testify in a case of bribery or in a case involving a violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It provides immunity to the bribe-giver provided he does two things: (1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction he had with the public officer constituting direct or indirect bribery, or any other corrupt transaction; (2) He must willingly testify against the public officer involved in the case to be filed against the latter. Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the information, he has to be charged first with the receiver. Before trial, prosecutor may move for dropping bribe-giver from information and be granted immunity. But first, five conditions have to be met: (1) Information must refer to consummated bribery; (2) Information is necessary for the proper conviction of the public officer involved; (3) That the information or testimony to be given is not yet in the possession of the government or known to the government; (4) That the information can be corroborated in its material points; (5) That the information has not been convicted previously for any crime involving moral turpitude. These conditions are analogous to the conditions under the State Witness Rule under Criminal Procedure. The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the illegal transaction where the informant gave voluntarily the testimony. If there were other transactions where the informant also participated, he is not immune from prosecution. The immunity in one transaction does not extend to other transactions. The immunity attaches only if the information given turns out to be true and correct. If the same is false, the public officer may even file criminal and civil actions against the informant for perjury and the immunity under the decree will not protect him. Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder) Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, which became effective in 1991. This crime somehow modified certain crimes in the Revised Penal Code insofar as the overt acts by which a public officer amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are felonies under the Revised Penal Code like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A), fraud against the public treasury [Article 213], other frauds (Article 214), malversation (Article 217), when the ill- gotten wealth amounts to a total value of P50,000,000.00. The amount was reduced from P75,000,000.00 by Republic Act No. 7659 and the penalty was changed from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua to death. Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount less than P50,000,000.00 is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive period is 20 years commencing from the time of the last overt act. Plunder is committed through a combination or series of overt acts: (1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (3) By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging to the national government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (4) By obtaining, receiving, or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business or undertaking; (5) By establishing agricultural, industrial, or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementations of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people, and the Republic of the Philippines. While the crime appears to be malum prohibitum, Republic Act No. 7080 provides that “in the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be considered by the court”. Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) The mere act of a public officer demanding an amount from a taxpayer to whom he is to render public service does not amount to bribery, but will amount to a violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Illustration: A court secretary received P500.00 from a litigant to set a motion for an early hearing. This is direct bribery even if the act to be performed is within his official duty so long as he received a consideration therefor. If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a favorable resolution, even if the judge did not do so, this constitutes a violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sub-Section A. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly Section 3, there are several acts defined as corrupt practices. Some of them are mere repetitions of the act already penalized under the Revised Penal Code, like prohibited transactions under Article 215 and 216. In such a case, the act or omission remains to be mala in se. But there are acts penalized under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which are not penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Those acts may be considered as mala prohibita. Therefore, good faith is not a defense. Illustration: Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – causing undue injury to the government or a private party by giving unwarranted benefit to the party whom does not deserve the same. In this case, good faith is not a defense because it is in the nature of a malum prohibitum. Criminal intent on the part of the offender is not required. It is enough that he performed the prohibited act voluntarily. Even though the prohibited act may have benefited the government. The crime is still committed because the law is not after the effect of the act as long as the act is prohibited. Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where a public officer entered into a contract for the government which is manifestly disadvantageous to the government even if he did not profit from the transaction, a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is committed. If a public officer, with his office and a private enterprise had a transaction and he allows a relative or member of his family to accept employment in that enterprise, good faith is not a defense because it is a malum prohibitum. It is enough that that the act was performed. Where the public officer is a member of the board, panel or group who is to act on an application of a contract and the act involved one of discretion, any public officer who is a member of that board, panel or group, even though he voted against the approval of the application, as long as he has an interest in that business enterprise whose application is pending before that board, panel or group, the public officer concerned shall be liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. His only course of action to avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act is to sell his interest in the enterprise which has filed an application before that board, panel or group where he is a member. Or otherwise, he should resign from his public position. Illustration: Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the Iligan Steel Mills, which at that time was being subject of an investigation by the Senate Committee of which he was a chairman. He was threatened with prosecution under Republic Act No. 3019 so he was compelled to sell all his interest in that steel mill; there is no defense. Because the law says so, even if he voted against it, he commits a violation thereof. These cases are filed with the Ombudsman and not with the regular prosecutor’s office. Jurisdiction is exclusively with the Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer must be suspended when the case is already filed with the Sandiganbayan. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the public officer who is accused should not be automatically suspended upon the filing of the information in court. It is the court which will order the suspension of the public officer and not the superior of that public officer. As long as the court has not ordered the suspension of the public officer involved, the superior of that public officer is not authorized to order the suspension simply because of the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The court will not order the suspension of the public officer without first passing upon the validity of the information filed in court. Without a hearing, the suspension would be null and void for being violative of due process. Illustration: A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in a very busy corner. While there, he caught a thief in the act of lifting the wallet of a pedestrian. As he could not leave his post, he summoned a civilian to deliver the thief to the precinct. The civilian agreed so he left with the thief. When they were beyond the view of the policeman, the civilian allowed the thief to go home. What would be the liability of the public officer? The liability of the traffic policeman would be merely administrative. The civilian has no liability at all. Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so there is no accountability yet. The term “prisoner” refers to one who is already booked and incarcerated no matter how short the time may be. The policeman could not be said as having assisted the escape of the offender because as the problem says, he is assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner street. So he cannot be considered as falling under the third 3rd paragraph of Article 19 that would constitute his as an accessory. The same is true with the civilian because the crime committed by the offender, which is snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as the case may be, is not one of those crimes mentioned under the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. Where the public officer is still incumbent, the prosecution shall be with the Ombudsman. Where the respondent is separated from service and the period has not yet prescribed, the information shall be filed in any prosecution’s office in the city where the respondent resides. The prosecution shall file the case in the Regional Trial Court unless the violation carries a penalty higher than prision correccional, in which case the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The fact that the government benefited out of the prohibited act is no defense at all, the violation being mala prohibita. Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where the public officer neglects or refuses to act on a matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining any pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of or discriminating against another interested party. The law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction, besides being without justification, must be for the purpose of obtaining from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or for the purpose of favoring any interested party, or discriminating against another interested party. This element is indispensable. In other words, the neglect or refusal to act must motivated by gain or benefit, or purposely to favor the other interested party as held in Coronado v. SB, decided on August 18, 1993. Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth) Correlate with RA 1379 -- properly under Remedial Law. This provides the procedure for forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has amassed wealth out of proportion to this legitimate income may file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the place where the public officer resides or holds office. The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation just like in a criminal case and he will forward his findings to the office of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has accumulated an unexplained wealth. If the Solicitor General finds probable cause, he would file a petition requesting the court to issue a writ commanding the respondent to show cause why the ill- gotten wealth described in the petition should not be forfeited in favor of the government. This is covered by the Rules on Civil Procedure. The respondent is given 15 days to answer the petition. Thereafter trial would proceed. Judgment is rendered and appeal is just like in a civil case. Remember that this is not a criminal proceeding. The basic difference is that the preliminary investigation is conducted by the prosecutor. Article 212 Corruption of Public Officials Elements 1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; 2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. Article 213 Frauds against the Public Treasury and Similar Offenses Acts punished 1. Entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or making use of any other scheme, to defraud the government, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds; 2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law, in collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts; 3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts; 4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts. Elements Of Frauds Against Public Treasury Under Paragraph 1 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity; 3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds; 4. He had intent to defraud the government. The essence of this crime is making the government pay for something not received or making it pay more than what is due. It is also committed by refunding more than the amount which should properly be refunded. This occurs usually in cases where a public officer whose official duty is to procure supplies for the government or enter into contract for government transactions, connives with the said supplier with the intention to defraud the government. Also when certain supplies for the government are purchased for the high price but its quantity or quality is low. Illustrations: (1) A public official who is in charge of procuring supplies for the government obtained funds for the first class materials and buys inferior quality products and pockets the excess of the funds. This is usually committed by the officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways. (2) Poorest quality of ink paid as if it were of superior quality. (3) One thousand pieces of blanket for certain unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines were paid for but actually, only 100 pieces were bought. (4) The Quezon City government ordered 10,000 but what was delivered was only 1,000 T-shirts, the public treasury is defrauded because the government is made to pay that which is not due or for a higher price. Not all frauds will constitute this crime. There must be no fixed allocation or amount on the matter acted upon by the public officer. The allocation or outlay was made the basis of fraudulent quotations made by the public officer involved. For example, there was a need to put some additional lighting along the street and no one knows how much it will cost. An officer was asked to canvass the cost but he connived with the seller of light bulbs, pricing each light bulb at P550.00 instead of the actual price of P500.00. This is a case of fraud against public treasury. If there is a fixed outlay of P20,000.00 for the lighting apparatus needed and the public officer connived with the seller so that although allocation was made a lesser number was asked to be delivered, or of an inferior quality, or secondhand. In this case there is no fraud against the public treasury because there is a fixed allocation. The fraud is in the implementation of procurement. That would constitute the crime of “other fraud” in Article 214, which is in the nature of swindling or estafa. Be sure to determine whether fraud is against public treasury or one under Article 214. Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2 1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts; 2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions: a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law; or b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially; or c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law. This can only be committed principally by a public officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license fees, import duties and other dues payable to the government. Not any public officer can commit this crime. Otherwise, it is estafa. Fixers cannot commit this crime unless he conspires with the public officer authorized to make the collection. Also, public officers with such functions but are in the service of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs are not to be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code but under the Revised Administrative Code. These officers are authorized to make impositions and to enter into compromises. Because of this discretion, their demanding or collecting different from what is necessary is legal. This provision of the Revised Penal Code was provided before the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Tariff and Customs Code. Now, we have specific Code which will apply to them. In the absence of any provision applicable, the Revised Administrative Code will apply. The essence of the crime is not misappropriation of any of the amounts but the improper making of the collection which would prejudice the accounting of collected amounts by the government. On the first form of illegal exaction In this form, mere demand will consummate the crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across with the amount being demanded. That will not affect the consummation of the crime. In the demand, it is not necessary that the amount being demanded is bigger than what is payable to the government. The amount being demanded maybe less than the amount due the government. Note that this is often committed with malversation or estafa because when a public officer shall demand an amount different from what the law provides, it can be expected that such public officer will not turn over his collection to the government. Illustrations: (1) A taxpayer goes to the local municipal treasurer to pay real estate taxes on his land. Actually, what is due the government is P400.00 only but the municipal treasurer demanded P500.00. By that demand alone, the crime of illegal exaction is already committed even though the taxpayer does not pay the P500.00. (2) Suppose the taxpayer came across with P500.00. But the municipal treasurer, thinking that he would abstract the P100.00, issued a receipt for only P400.00. The taxpayer would naturally ask the municipal treasurer why the receipt was only for P400.00. The treasurer answered that the P100.00 is supposed to be for documentary stamps. The taxpayer left. He has a receipt for P400.00. The municipal treasurer turned over to the government coffers P400.00 because that is due the government and pocketed the P100.00. The mere fact that there was a demand for an amount different from what is due the government, the public officer already committed the crime of illegal exaction. On the P100.00 which the public officer pocketed, will it be malversation or estafa? In the example given, the public officer did not include in the official receipt the P100.00 and, therefore, it did not become part of the public funds. It remained to be private. It is the taxpayer who has been defrauded of his P100.00 because he can never claim a refund from the government for excess payment since the receipt issued to him was only P400.00 which is due the government. As far as the P100.00 is concerned, the crime committed is estafa. (3) A taxpayer pays his taxes. What is due the government is P400.00 and the public officer issues a receipt for P500.00 upon payment of the taxpayer of said amount demanded by the public officer involved. But he altered the duplicate to reflect only P400.00 and he extracted the difference of P100.00. In this case, the entire P500.00 was covered by an official receipt. That act of covering the whole amount received from the taxpayer in an official receipt will have the characteristics of becoming a part of the public funds. The crimes committed, therefore, are the following: (a) Illegal exaction – for collecting more than he is authorized to collect. The mere act of demanding is enough to constitute this crime. (b) Falsification – because there was an alteration of official document which is the duplicate of the official receipt to show an amount less than the actual amount collected. (c) Malversation – because of his act of misappropriating the P100.00 excess which was covered by an official receipt already, even though not payable to the government. The entire P500.00 was covered by the receipt, therefore, the whole amount became public funds. So when he  appropriated the P100 for his own benefit, he was not extracting private funds anymore but public funds. Should the falsification be complexed with the malversation? As far as the crime of illegal exaction is concerned, it will be the subject of separate accusation because there, the mere demand regardless of whether the taxpayer will pay or not, will already consummate the crime of illegal exaction. It is the breach of trust by a public officer entrusted to make the collection which is penalized under such article. The falsification or alteration made on the duplicate can not be said as a means to commit malversation. At most, the duplicate was altered in order to conceal the malversation. So it cannot be complexed with the malversation. It cannot also be said that the falsification is a necessary means to commit the malversation because the public officer can misappropriate the P100.00 without any falsification. All that he has to do is to get the excess of P100.00 and misappropriate it. So the falsification is a separate accusation. However, illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation because illegal exaction is a necessary means to be able to collect the P100.00 excess which was malversed. In this crime, pay attention to whether the offender is the one charged with the collection of the tax, license or impost subject of the misappropriation. If he is not the one authorized by disposition to do the collection, the crime of illegal exaction is not committed. If it did not give rise to the crime of illegal exaction, the funds collected may not have become part of the public funds. If it had not become part of the public funds, or had not become impressed with being part of the public funds, it cannot be the subject of malversation. It will give rise to estafa or theft as the case may be. (4) The Municipal Treasurer demanded P500.00 when only P400.00 was due. He issued the receipt at P400.00 and explained to taxpayer that the P100 was for documentary stamps. The Municipal Treasurer placed the entire P500.00 in the vault of the office. When he needed money, he took the P100.00 and spent it. The following crimes were committed: (a) Illegal exaction – for demanding a different amount; (b) Estafa – for deceiving the taxpayer; and (c) Malversation – for getting the P100.00 from the vault. Although the excess P100.00 was not covered by the Official Receipt, it was commingled with the other public funds in the vault; hence, it became part of public funds and subsequent extraction thereof constitutes malversation. Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed as illegal exaction with estafa, while in number 3, malversation is a distinct offense. The issuance of the Official Receipt is the operative fact to convert the payment into public funds. The payor may demand a refund by virtue of the Official Receipt. In cases where the payor decides to let the official to “keep the change”, if the latter should pocket the excess, he shall be liable for malversation. The official has no right but the government, under the principle of accretion, as the owner of the bigger amount becomes the owner of the whole. On the second form of illegal exaction The act of receiving payment due the government without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal exaction even though a provisional receipt has been issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law, which means official receipt. Illustration: If a government cashier or officer to whom payment is made issued a receipt in his own private form, which he calls provisional, even though he has no intention of misappropriating the amount received by him, the mere fact that he issued a receipt not in the form prescribed by law, the crime of illegal exaction is committed. There must be voluntary failure to issue the Official Receipt. On the third form of illegal exaction Under the rules and regulations of the government, payment of checks not belonging to the taxpayer, but that of checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle the obligation of that person. Illustration: A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check not his own but pertaining to another. Because of that, the check bounced later on. The crime committed is illegal exaction because the payment by check is not allowed if the check does not pertain to the taxpayer himself, unless the check is a manager’s check or a certified check, amended already as of 1990. (See the case of Roman Catholic.) Under Article 213, if any of these acts penalized as illegal exaction is committed by those employed in the Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Internal Revenue, the law that will apply to them will be the Revised Administrative Code or the Tariff and Customs Code or National Revenue Code. This crime does not require damage to the government. Article 214. Other Frauds Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He takes advantage of his official position; 3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Article 315 to 318. Article 215. Prohibited Transactions Elements 1. Offender is an appointive public officer; 2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation; 3. The transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction; 4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency. Article 216. Possession of Prohibited Interest By A Public Officer Persons liable 1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in any contracts or business in which it was his official duty to intervene; 2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, took part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they had acted; 3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or the estate. Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution  No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. Article 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property – Presumption of Malversation Acts punished 1. Appropriating public funds or property; 2. Taking or misappropriating the same; 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; and 4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. Those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; 4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. This crime is predicated on the relationship of the offender to the property or funds involved. The offender must be accountable for the property misappropriated. If the fund or property, though public in character is the responsibility of another officer, malversation is not committed unless there is conspiracy. It is not necessary that the offender profited because somebody else may have misappropriated the funds in question for as long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty of safekeeping public funds or property. He is liable for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise misappropriated by another. There is no malversation through simple negligence or reckless imprudence, whether deliberately or negligently. This is one crime in the Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same whether committed with dolo or culpa.  Question & Answer What crime under the Revised Penal Code carries the same penalty whether committed intentionally or through negligence? Malversation under Article 217. There is no crime of malversation through negligence. The crime is malversation, plain and simple, whether committed through dolo or culpa. There is no crime of malversation under Article 365 – on criminal negligence – because in malversation under Article 217, the same penalty is imposed whether the malversation results from negligence or was the product of deliberate act. The crime of malversation can be committed only by an officer accountable for the funds or property which is appropriated. This crime, therefore, bears a relation between the offender and the funds or property involved. The offender, to commit malversation, must be accountable for the funds or property misappropriated by him. If he is not the one accountable but somebody else, the crime committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if there is abuse of confidence. Accountable officer does not refer only to cashier, disbursing officers or property custodian. Any public officer having custody of public funds or property for which he is accountable can commit the crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or property or allow others to do so. Questions & Answers 1. An unlicensed firearm was confiscated by a policeman. Instead of turning over the firearm to the property custodian for the prosecution of the offender, the policeman sold the firearm. What crime was committed? The crime committed is malversation because that firearm is subject to his accountability. Having taken custody of the firearm, he is supposed to account for it as evidence for the prosecution of the offender. 2. Can the buyer be liable under the Anti-fencing law? No. The crime is neither theft nor robbery, but malversation. 3. A member of the Philippine National Police went on absence without leave. He was charged with malversation of the firearm issued to him. After two years, he came out of hiding and surrendered the firearm. What crime was committed? The crime committed was malversation. Payment of the amount misappropriated or restitution of property misappropriated does not erase criminal liability but only civil liability. When private property is attached or seized by public authority and the public officer accountable therefor misappropriates the same, malversation is committed also. Illustration: If a sheriff levied the property of the defendants and absconded with it, he is not liable of qualified theft but of malversation even though the property belonged to a private person. The seizure of the property or fund impressed it with the character of being part of the public funds it being in custodia legis. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable for the fund or property that was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of malversation. Absent such relation, the crime could be theft, simple or qualified. Question & Answer There was a long line of payors on the last day of payment for residence certificates. Employee A of the municipality placed all his collections inside his table and requested his employee B to watch over his table while he goes to the restroom. B took advantage of A’s absence and took P50.00 out of the collections. A returned and found his money short. What crimes have been committed? A is guilty of malversation through negligence because he did not exercise due diligence in the safekeeping of the funds when he did not lock the drawer of his table. Insofar as B is concerned, the crime is qualified theft. Under jurisprudence, when the public officer leaves his post without locking his drawer, there is negligence. Thus, he is liable for the loss. Illustration: A government cashier did not bother to put the public fund in the public safe/vault but just left it in the drawer of his table which has no lock. The next morning when he came back, the money was already gone. He was held liable for malversation through negligence because in effect, he has abandoned the fund or property without any safety. A private person may also commit malversation under the following situations: (1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing malversation; (2) When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who commits malversation; (3) When the private person is made the custodian in whatever capacity of public funds or property, whether belonging to national or local government, and he misappropriates the same; (4) When he is constituted as the depositary or administrator of funds or property seized or attached by public authority even though said funds or property belong to a private individual. Illustration: Municipal treasurer connives with outsiders to make it appear that the office of the treasurer was robbed. He worked overtime and the co-conspirators barged in, hog-tied the treasurer and made it appear that there was a robbery. Crime committed is malversation because the municipal treasurer was an accountable officer. Note that damage on the part of the government is not considered an essential element. It is enough that the proprietary rights of the government over the funds have been disturbed through breach of trust. It is not necessary that the accountable public officer should actually misappropriate the fund or property involved. It is enough that he has violated the trust reposed on him in connection with the property. Illustration: (1) It is a common practice of government cashiers to change the checks of their friends with cash in their custody, sometimes at a discount. The public officer knows that the check is good because the issuer thereof is a man of name. So he changed the same with cash. The check turned out to be good. With that act of changing the cash of the government with the check of a private person, even though the check is good, malversation is committed. The reason is that a check is cleared only after three days. During that period of three days, the government is being denied the use of the public fund. With more reason if that check bounce because the government suffers. (2) An accountable public officer, out of laziness, declares that the payment was made to him after he had cleaned his table and locked his safe for the collection of the day. A taxpayer came and he insisted that he pay the amount so that he will not return the next day. So he accepted the payment but is too lazy to open the combination of the public safe. He just pocketed the money. When he came home, the money was still in his pocket. The next day, when he went back to the office, he changed clothes and he claims that he forgot to put the money in the new funds that he would collect the next day. Government auditors came and subjected him to inspection. He was found short of that amount. He claimed that it is in his house -- with that alone, he was charged with malversation and was convicted. Any overage or excess in the collection of an accountable public officer should not be extracted by him once it is commingled with the public funds. Illustration: When taxpayers pay their accountabilities to the government by way of taxes or licenses like registration of motor vehicles, the taxpayer does not bother to collect loose change. So the government cashier accumulates the loose change until this amounts to a sizable sum. In order to avoid malversation, the cashier did not separate what is due the government which was left to her by way of loose change. Instead, he gets all of these and keeps it in the public vault/safe. After the payment of the taxes and licenses is through, he gets all the official receipts and takes the sum total of the payment. He then opens the public vault and counts the cash. Whatever will be the excess or the overage, he gets. In this case, malversation is committed. Note that the moment any money is commingled with the public fund even if not due the government, it becomes impressed with the characteristic of being part of public funds. Once they are commingled, you do not know anymore which belong to the government and which belong to the private persons. So that a public vault or safe should not be used to hold any fund other that what is due to the government. When does presumption of misappropriation arise? When a demand is made upon an accountable officer and he cannot produce the fund or property involved, there is a prima facie presumption that he had converted the same to his own use. There must be indubitable proof that thing unaccounted for exists. Audit should be made to determine if there was shortage. Audit must be complete and trustworthy. If there is doubt, presumption does not arise. Presumption arises only if at the time the demand to produce the public funds was made, the accountability of the accused is already determined and liquidated. A demand upon the accused to produce the funds in his possession and a failure on his part to produce the same will not bring about this presumption unless and until the amount of his accountability is already known. In Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 483, it was held that the prima facie presumption under the Revised Penal Code arises only if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that public funds are missing is indubitably established. The audit must be thorough and complete down to the last detail, establishing with absolute certainty the fact that the funds are indeed missing. In De Guzman v. People, 119 SCRA 337, it was held that in malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession the public funds and that he could not account for them and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for their disappearance. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is the shortage in the accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. In Cabello v. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 94, it was held it was held that malversation may be committed intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or culpa bringing about the offences is only a modality in the perpetration of the offense. The same offense of malversation is involved, whether the mode charged differs from the mode established in the commission of the crime. An accused charged with willful malversation may be convicted of Malversation through her negligee. In Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, the accused incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly because the auditor disallowed certain cash advances the accused granted to employees. But on the same date that the audit was made, he partly reimbursed the amount and paid it in full three days later. The Supreme Court considered the circumstances as negative of criminal intent. The cash advances were made in good faith and out of good will to co-employees which was a practice tolerated in the office. The actual cash shortage was only P1.74 and together with the disallowed advances were fully reimbursed within a reasonable time. There was no negligence, malice, nor intent to defraud. In Ciamfranca Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, where the accused in malversation could not give reasonable and satisfactory explanation or excuse for the missing funds or property accountable by him, it was held that the return of the funds or property is not a defense and does not extinguish criminal liability. In Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 173, it was held that a public officer charged with malversation cannot be convicted of technical malversation (illegal use of public funds under Article 220). To do so would violate accused’s right to be informed of nature of accusation against him. Technical malversation is not included in the crime of malversation. In malversation, the offender misappropriates public funds or property for his own personal use, or allows any other person to take such funds or property for the latter’s own personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies the public funds or property under his administration to another public use different from that for which the public fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Recourse: File the proper information. Article 218 Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts Elements 1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause; 2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property; 3. He is required by law or regulation to render account to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; 4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. Article 219. Failure of A Responsible Public Officer to Render Accounts before Leaving the Country Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property; 3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Commission on Audit showing that his accounts have been finally settled. When an accountable officer leaves the country without first settling his accountability or otherwise securing a clearance from the Commission on Audit regarding such accountability, the implication is that he left the country because he has misappropriated the funds under his accountability. Who can commit this crime? A responsible public officer, not necessarily an accountable one, who leaves the country without first securing clearance from the Commission on Audit. The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible or accountable officers from leaving without first liquidating their accountability. Mere leaving without securing clearance constitutes violation of the Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary that they really misappropriated public funds. Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. There are public funds or property under his administration; 3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance; 4. He applies such public fund or property to any public use other than for which it was appropriated for. Illegal use of public funds or property is also known as technical malversation. The term technical malversation is used because in this crime, the fund or property involved is already appropriated or earmarked for a certain public purpose. The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only to administer or apply the same to the public purpose for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead of applying it to the public purpose to which the fund or property was already appropriated by law, the public officer applied it to another purpose. Since damage is not an element of malversation, even though the application made proved to be more beneficial to public interest than the original purpose for which the amount or property was appropriated by law, the public officer involved is still liable for technical malversation. If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance, and this was applied to a public purpose by the custodian thereof, the crime is plain and simple malversation, not technical malversation. If the funds had been appropriated for a particular public purpose, but the same was applied to private purpose, the crime committed is simple malversation only. Illustration: The office lacked bond papers. What the government cashier did was to send the janitor, get some money from his collection, told the janitor to buy bond paper so that the office will have something to use. The amount involved maybe immaterial but the cashier commits malversation pure and simple. This crime can also be committed by a private person. Illustration: A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of cement were already being unloaded at the side. But then, rain began to fall so the supervisor of the road building went to a certain house with a garage, asked the owner if he could possibly deposit the bags of cement in his garage to prevent the same from being wet. The owner of the house, Olive, agreed. So the bags of cement were transferred to the garage of the private person. After the public officer had left, and the workers had left because it is not possible to do the cementing, the owner of the garage started using some of the cement in paving his own garage. The crime of technical malversation is also committed. Note that when a private person is constituted as the custodian in whatever capacity, of public funds or property, and he misappropriates the same, the crime of malversation is also committed. See Article 222. Illustration: The payroll money for a government infrastructure project on the way to the site of the project, the officers bringing the money were ambushed. They were all wounded. One of them, however, was able to get away from the scene of the ambush until he reached a certain house. He told the occupant of the house to safeguard the amount because it is the payroll money of the government laborers of a particular project. The occupant of the house accepted the money for his own use. The crime is not theft but malversation as long as he knew that what was entrusted in his custody is public fund or property. Question & Answer The sheriff, after having levied on the property subject of a judgment, conducted a public auction sale. He received the proceeds of the public auction. Actually, the proceeds are to be delivered to the plaintiff. The sheriff, after deducting the sheriff’s fees due to the office, spent part of that amount. He gave the balance to the plaintiff and executed a promissory note to pay the plaintiff the amount spent by him. Is there a crime committed?  The Supreme Court ruled that the sheriff committed the crime of malversation because the proceeds of the auction sale was turned over to the plaintiff, such proceeds is impressed with the characteristic of being part of public funds. The sheriff is accountable therefore because he is not supposed to use any part of such proceeds. Article 221. Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds of Property Acts punished 1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make such payment from government funds in his possession; 2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration. Elements of failure to make payment 1. Public officer has government funds in his possession; 2. He is under obligation to make payment from such funds; 3. He fails to make the payment maliciously. Article 223. Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; 3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody; 4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape. Classes of prisoners involved 1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty; 2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance. Article 224. Evasion through Negligence Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; 3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence. Article 225. Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a Person not a Public Officer Elements 1. Offender is a private person; 2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him; 3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes; 4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the escape takes place through his negligence. The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the offender involved is the custodian of the prisoner. If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s escaping from confinement, whether the prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the crime is delivering prisoners from jail under Article156. The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed only by the custodian of a prisoner. If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is already off-duty at that time and he is no longer the custodian of the prisoner, the crime committed by him is delivering prisoners from jail. Note that you do not apply here the principle of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all. The party who is not the custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. He commits the crime of delivering prisoners from jail. Question & Answer If a private person approached the custodian of the prisoner and for a certain consideration, told the custodian to leave the door of the cell unlocked for the prisoner to escape. What crime had been committed? It is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners because as far as the private person is concerned, this crime is delivering prisoners from jail. The infidelity is only committed by the custodian. This crime can be committed also by a private person if the custody of the prisoner has been confided to a private person. Illustration: A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. After the court hearing, this policeman was shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner from his custody. The policeman fought the attacker but he was fatally wounded. When he could no longer control the prisoner, he went to a nearby house, talked to the head of the family of that house and asked him if he could give the custody of the prisoner to him. He said yes. After the prisoner was handcuffed in his hands, the policeman expired. Thereafter, the head of the family of that private house asked the prisoner if he could afford to give something so that he would allow him to go. The prisoner said, “Yes, if you would allow me to leave, you can come with me and I will give the money to you.” This private persons went with the prisoner and when the money was given, he allowed him to go. What crime/s had been committed? Under Article 225, the crime can be committed by a private person to whom the custody of a prisoner has been confided. Where such private person, while performing a private function by virtue of a provision of law, shall accept any consideration or gift for the non-performance of a duty confided to him, Bribery is also committed. So the crime committed by him is infidelity in the custody of prisoners and bribery. If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail, bribery is just a means, under Article 156, that would call for the imposition of a heavier penalty, but not a separate charge of bribery under Article 156. But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is basically punished is the breach of trust because the offender is the custodian. For that, the crime is infidelity. If he violates the trust because of some consideration, bribery is also committed. A higher degree of vigilance is required. Failure to do so will render the custodian liable. The prevailing ruling is against laxity in the handling of prisoners. Illustration: A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in the toilet. While answering the call of nature, police officer waiting there, until the prisoner escaped. Police officer was accused of infidelity. There is no criminal liability because it does not constitute negligence. Negligence contemplated here refers to deliberate abandonment of duty. Note, however, that according to a recent Supreme Court ruling, failure to accompany lady prisoner in the comfort room is a case of negligence and therefore the custodian is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner. Prison guard should not go to any other place not officially called for. This is a case of infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence under Article 224. Article 226. Removal, Concealment, or Destruction of Documents Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers; 3. Said document or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; 4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest has been caused. Crimes falling under the section on infidelity in the custody of public documents can only be committed by the public officer who is made the custodian of the document in his official capacity. If the officer was placed in possession of the document but it is not his duty to be the custodian thereof, this crime is not committed. Illustration: A letter is entrusted to a postmaster for transmission of a registered letter to another. The postmaster opened the letter and finding the money, extracted the same. The crime committed is infidelity in the custody of the public document because under Article 226, the law refers also to papers entrusted to public officer involved and currency note is considered to be within the term paper although it is not a document. With respect to official documents, infidelity is committed by destroying the document, or removing the document or concealing the document. Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material damage is not necessary. Illustration: If any citizen goes to a public office, desiring to go over public records and the custodian of the records had concealed the same so that this citizen is required to go back for the record to be taken out, the crime of infidelity is already committed by the custodian who removed the records and kept it in a place where it is not supposed to be kept. Here, it is again the breach of public trust which is punished. Although there is no material damage caused, mere delay in rendering public service is considered damage. Removal of public records by the custodian does not require that the record be brought out of the premises where it is kept. It is enough that the record be removed from the place where it should be and transferred to another place where it is not supposed to be kept. If damage is caused to the public service, the public officer is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of official documents. Distinction between infidelity in the custody of public document, estafa and malicious mischief In infidelity in the custody of public document, the offender is the custodian of the official document removed or concealed. In estafa, the offender is not the custodian of the document removed or concealed.  In malicious mischief, the offender purposely destroyed and damaged the property/document. Where in case for bribery or corruption, the monetary considerations was marked as exhibits, such considerations acquires the nature of a document such that if the same would be spent by the custodian the crime is not malversation but Infidelity in the custody of public records, because the money adduced as exhibits partake the nature of a document and not as money. Although such monetary consideration acquires the nature of a document, the best evidence rule does not apply here. Example, photocopies may be presented in evidence. Article 227. Officer Breaking Seal Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property; 3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority; 4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken. If the official document is sealed or otherwise placed in an official envelope, the element of damage is not required. The mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the document would already bring about infidelity even though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large. The offender does not have to misappropriate the same. Just trying to discover or look what is inside is infidelity already. The act is punished because if a document is entrusted to the custody of a public officer in a sealed or closed envelope, such public officer is supposed not to know what is inside the same. If he would break the seal or open the closed envelop, indications would be that he tried to find out the contents of the document. For that act, he violates the confidence or trust reposed on him. A crime is already committed regardless of whether the contents of the document are secret or private. It is enough that it is entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a closed envelope and he broke the seal or opened the envelop. Public trust is already violated if he managed to look into the contents of the document. Distinction between infidelity and theft There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter but did not take the same. There is theft if there is intent to gain when the offender took the money. Note that he document must be complete in legal sense. If the writings are mere form, there is no crime. Illustration: As regard the payroll, which has not been signed by the Mayor, no infidelity is committed because the document is not yet a payroll in the legal sense since the document has not been signed yet. In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not be given a literal meaning. Even if actually, the seal was not broken, because the custodian managed to open the parcel without breaking the seal. Article 228. Opening of Closed Documents Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are entrusted to his custody; 3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, documents or objects; 4. He does not have proper authority. Article 229. Revelation of Secrets by An Officer Acts punished 1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity; Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity; 3. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons; 4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public interest. 2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published. Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He has charge of papers; 3. Those papers should not be published; 4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person; 5. The delivery is wrongful;  6. Damage is caused to public interest. Article 230. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private individual Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office; 3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason. Article 231. Open Disobedience Elements 1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer; 2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior authority; 3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with all the legal formalities; 4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or order, which he is duty bound to obey. Article 232. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer When Said Order Was Suspended by Inferior Officer Elements 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. An order is issued by his superior for execution; 3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of such order; 4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order; 5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension. Article 233. Refusal of Assistance 1. Offender is a public officer; 1. A competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service; 3. Offender fails to do so maliciously. Any public officer who, upon being requested to render public assistance within his official duty to render and he refuses to render the same when it is necessary in the administration of justice or for public service, may be prosecuted for refusal of assistance. This is a crime, which a policeman may commit when, being subpoenaed to appear in court in connection with a crime investigated by him but because of some arrangement with the offenders, the policeman does not appear in court anymore to testify against the offenders. He tried to assail the subpoena so that ultimately the case would be dismissed. It was already held that the policeman could be prosecuted under this crime of refusal of assistance and not that of dereliction of duty. Illustration: A government physician, who had been subpoenaed to appear in court to testify in connection with physical injury cases or cases involving human lives, does not want to appear in court to testify. He may be charged for refusal of assistance. As long as they have been properly notified by subpoena and they disobeyed the subpoena, they can be charged always if it can be shown that they are deliberately refusing to appear in court. It is not always a case or in connection with the appearance in court that this crime may be committed. Any refusal by the public officer to render assistance when demanded by competent public authority, as long as the assistance requested from them is within their duty to render and that assistance is needed for public service, the public officers who are refusing deliberately may be charged with refusal of assistance. Note that the request must come from one public officer to another. Illustration: A fireman was asked by a private person for services but was refused by the former for lack of “consideration”. It was held that the crime is not refusal of assistance because the request did not come from a public authority. But if the fireman was ordered by the authority to put out the fire and he refused, the crime is refusal of assistance. If he receives consideration therefore, bribery is committed. But mere demand will fall under the prohibition under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Article 234. Refusal to Discharge Elective Office Elements 1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public office; 2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office; 3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the