Title 7, RPC 2. Indirect bribery. (Art.

211, RPC)
CHAPTER 1: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
ART. 203, RPC Crime of Nonfeasance
WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS Dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
(Art. 208, RPC).
Q: Who is a public officer?
A: A public officer is any person who, by direct Sec. 1: Dereliction of Duty
provision of the law, popular election or appointment ART. 204, RPC
by competent authority, shall take part in the KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
performance of public functions in the Government of Elements of Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment
the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said 1. Offender is a Judge;
Government or in any of its branches public duties as 2. He Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him
an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank for decision;
or class. 3. Judgment is Unjust; and
4. The judge Knows that his judgment is unjust.
NOTE: The term “public officers” embraces every
public servant from the highest to the lowest rank. All It is a fundamental rule that a judicial officer, when
public servants from the President down to the required to exercise his judgment or discretion, is not
garbage collector, if employed and paid by the criminally liable for any error he commits provided
government, come within this term. that he acts in good faith and with no malice.
(Mendoza v. Villaluz, A.M. No. L-1797-CCC, 27 Aug.
Public Officer” defined under R.A. No. 3019 1981)
1. Elective and Appointive officials and employees;
2. Permanent or Temporary; Judgment
3. Whether in the Classified or Unclassified; or It is the final consideration and determination of a
4. Exemption service receiving compensation, even court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters
nominal, from the government. submitted to it, in an action or proceeding. It must be:
1. Written in the official language;
2. Personally and directly Prepared by the judge and
CHAPTER 2: MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN Signed by him; and
OFFICE 3. Shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of
Three (3) Forms of Breach of Oath or Duty the Facts and the Law upon which it is based.
1. Misfeasance
2. Malfeasance Unjust Judgment
3. Nonfeasance One which is contrary to law or is not supported by
the evidence or both.

Sources of an Unjust Judgment

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

It must be shown by positive evidence that the

judgment was rendered by the judge with conscious
and deliberate intent to do an injustice. This crime
Crimes of Misfeasance cannot be committed by the members/justices of the
1. Knowingly rendering Unjust judgment (Art. 204, appellate courts. In collegiate courts like the CA and
RPC); SC, not only one magistrate renders or issues the
2. Rendering judgment through Negligence (Art. 205, judgment or interlocutory order. Conclusions and
RPC); resolutions thereof are handed down only after
3. Rendering unjust Interlocutory order (Art. 206, deliberations among the members, so that it cannot
RPC) (2013 BAR); and be said that there is malice or inexcusable negligence
4. Malicious Delay in the administration of justice. or ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or order
(Art. 207, RPC) that is supposedly unjust.

Crimes of Malfeasance ART. 205, RPC

1. Direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC); and JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 1

 2. There is a Proceeding in his court;
Elements 3. He Delays the administration of justice; and
1. Offender is a Judge; 4. The delay is Malicious, that is, the delay is caused
2. He Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage
for decision; on either party in the case.
3. Judgment is manifestly Unjust; and
4. It is due to his inexcusable Negligence or NOTE: If the delay is not malicious, but committed
Ignorance. through gross negligence, the crime committed is
that under R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e).
Manifestly Unjust Judgment
A judgment which cannot be explained with ART. 208, RPC
reasonable interpretation or is a clear, PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND
incontrovertible, and notorious violation of a legal TOLERANCE
precept. It must be patently contrary to law if
rendered due to ignorance or inexcusable negligence. Punishable Acts
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution
Abuse of Discretion or Mere Error of Judgment against violators of law.
Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment is not 2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
punishable. A judge can only be held liable for gross
ignorance of the law if it can be shown that he Elements
committed an error so gross and patent as to produce 1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who
an inference of bad faith. In addition to this, the acts has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
complained of must not only be contrary to existing prosecute, offenses;
law and jurisprudence, but should also be motivated 2. There is dereliction of the duties of his office, that
by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. is, knowing the commission of the crime, he does not
(Monticalbo v. Judge Maraya, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197, cause the prosecution of the criminal, or knowing
13 Apr. 2011) that a crime is about to be committed, he tolerates its
commission; and
ART. 206, RPC NOTE: Dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER or honest mistake is not punishable.
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to
Interlocutory Order favor the violator of the law.
An order which is issued by the court between the
commencement and the end of a suit or action, and
which decides some point of matter, but which, Offenders under this Article
however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue. 1. Public officer – officers of the prosecution
department, whose duty is to institute criminal
Elements of Unjust Interlocutory Order proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their
1. Offender is a Judge; and perpetration.
2. He performs any of the following acts: 2. Officer of the law – those who are duty bound to
a. Knowingly renders an unjust interlocutory order or cause the prosecution and punishment of the
decree; or offenders by reason of the position held by them.
b. Renders a Manifestly unjust interlocutory order or
decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Liability of a Public Officer who, having the Duty of
Prosecuting the Offender, Harbored, Concealed, or
Test in Determining whether an Order or Judgment Assisted in the Escape of the Felon
is Interlocutory or Final -​ He is a principal in the crime defined and
If it leaves something to be done in the trial court penalized in Art. 208. Such public officer is
with respect to the merits of the case, it is not merely an accessory.
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final.
Q: If a police officer tolerates the commission of a
ART. 207, RPC crime or otherwise refrains from apprehending the
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF offender, is he liable for dereliction of duty?
JUSTICE A: NO. Such police officer does not have the duty to
prosecute or to move the prosecution of the offender.
Elements: It is the Chief of police which has the duty to do so.
1. Offender is a Judge; He can however be prosecuted as follows:

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 2

 criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not
1. An accessory to the crime committed by the covered by the cloak of privileges ordinarily existing
principal in accordance with Art. 19(3); or in reference to communications between attorney
2. He may become a fence if the crime committed is and client. The existence of an unlawful purpose
robbery or theft, in which case he violates the prevents the privilege from attaching. (People v.
Anti-Fencing Law; or Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41, 16 July 1997)
3. He may be held liable for violating the AntiGraft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Sec. 2: Bribery
ART. 210, RPC
NOTE: Officers, agents or employees of the Bureau of DIRECT BRIBERY
Internal Revenue are not covered by this article as
well. Commission of Bribery
Bribery is committed when a public officer receives a
ART. 209, RPC gift, present, offer or promise, by reason or in
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR connection with the performance of his official
SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF SECRET duties. Bribery requires the concurrence of the will of
the corruptor and the public officer, otherwise the
Punishable Acts crime is not consummated. (Boado, 2008)
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty; Bribery exists when:
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance. 1. The gift is offered voluntarily by a private person; or
2. The gift is solicited by a public officer.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by NOTE: Bribery refers to the act of the receiver. The
him in his professional capacity. act of the giver is corruption of public official under
NOTE: Damage is not necessary. The mere fact that a Art. 212 of the RPC.
secret has been revealed is already punishable.
Punishable Acts
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in 1. Agreeing to Perform or performing an act
the same case, without the consent of his first client, pertaining to the duties of the office which
after having undertaken the defense of said first constitutes a crime – If the act or omission amounts
client, or after having received confidential to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor
information from said client. should deliver the consideration for the doing of the
act. Mere promise is sufficient. The moment there is a
NOTE: If the client consents to it, there is no crime. meeting of the minds, even without the delivery of
The consent need not be in writing the consideration, even without the public officer
performing the act amounting to a crime, bribery is
Rule with Regard to Communications Made with already committed on the part of the public officer.
Prospective Clients Corruption is already committed on the part of the
Under the rules on evidence, communications made supposed giver.
with prospective clients to a lawyer with a view to
engaging his professional services are already 2. Accepting a Gift in consideration of the execution
privileged even though client-lawyer relationship did of an act which does not constitute a crime – If the
not eventually materialize because the client cannot act or omission does not amount to a crime, the
afford the fee being asked by the lawyer. consideration must be delivered by the corruptor
before a public officer can be prosecuted for bribery.
Rule as to Privileged Communications Mere agreement is not enough to constitute the
A distinction must be made between confidential crime because the act to be done in the first place is
communications relating to past crimes already legitimate, or in the performance of the official duties
committed, and future crimes intended to be of the public official.
committed by the client. Statements and NOTE: The act executed must be unjust.
communications regarding the commission of a crime
already committed, made by a party who committed 3. Abstaining from the performance of official duties.
it, to an attorney, consulted as such, are privileged
communications. Elements of Bribery
1. Offender is a Public officer within the scope of Art.
Contrarily, communications between attorney and 203;
client having to do with the client’s contemplated

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 3

2. Offender Accepts an offer or promise or receives a arrest the latter if he will not come across with
gift or present by himself or through another; money, what crime is committed?
3. Such Offer or promise be accepted, or gift or A: If the victim actually committed a crime and the
present received by the public officer: policeman demanded money so he will not be
a. With a view of committing some crime; or arrested, the crime is bribery. But if no crime has
b. In consideration of the execution of an act been committed and the policeman is falsely charging
which does not constitute a crime, but the act him of having committed one, threatening to arrest
must be unjust; or him if he will not come across with some
c. To refrain from doing something, which is consideration, the crime is robbery.
his official duty to do; and
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform
or which he executes be Connected with the ART. 211, RPC
performance of his official duties. INDIRECT BRIBERY

NOTE: There is no frustrated stage, for the reason Indirect Bribery

that if the corruption of the official is accomplished, It is the crime of any public officer who shall accept
the crime is consummated. gifts offered to him by reason of his office. If the
public officer does not accept the gift, this crime is
The Offer of Gift or Promise must be Accepted by not committed but the offeror is guilty of Corruption
the Public Officer of Public Officials under Art. 212 of the RPC.
In case there is only an offer of gift or promise to give
something, the offer or the promise must be accepted Elements of Indirect Bribery
by the officer. Further, the gift or present must have 1. Offender is a Public officer;
value or be capable of pecuniary estimation. 2. He Accepts gifts; and
3. Said gifts are offered to him by reason of his Office.
Q: When does an act relate to the official duties of
the public officer? There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery
A: Official duties include any action which is because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to
authorized. The acts referred to in the law, which the the public officer by reason of his office. If he does
offender agrees to perform or execute, must be not accept the gift, he does not commit the crime. If
related to or linked with the performance of his he accepts the gifts, it is consummated.
official duties. (Tad-y v. People, G.R. No. 148862, 11
Aug. 2005) NOTE: The gift is given in anticipation of future favor
from the public officer. P.D. 46 (Making it punishable
But if the act agreed to be performed is so foreign to for public officials and employees to receive and for
the duties of the office as to lack even the color of private persons to give, gifts on any occasion,
authority, there is no bribery. including Christmas) is committed in the same way.

Q: Suppose the public official accepted the Clear Intention on the Part of the Public Officer to
consideration and turned it over to his superior as Take the Gift Offered
evidence of corruption, what is the crime There must be a clear intention on the part of the
committed? public officer to take the gift offered and he should
A: The offense is attempted corruption only and not consider the property as his own from that moment.
frustrated. The official did not agree to be corrupted. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other
sign, circumstance, or act to show such acceptance is
NOTE: Under Art. 212 of the RPC, any person who not sufficient to convict the officer.
shall have made the offers or promises or given the
gifts is liable for corruption of public officers.

Temporary Performance of Public Function

Sufficient to Constitute a Person a Public Officer
For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary
performance of public functions is sufficient to
constitute a person as a public officer.

Q: Supposed a law enforcer extorts money from a

person, employing intimidation and threatening to

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 4

 Q: One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of ABC
Corp., happened to bump into the Labor Arbiter
assigned to the illegal dismissal case filed by certain
employees against his company. During their
encounter, Mr. Xpromised the Labor Arbiter a
luxury car in exchange for a favorable ruling. The
Labor Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and
walked away. What crime did Mr. X commit under
the RPC, if any? Explain.
A: Mr. X committed the crime of Attempted
Corruption of a Public Official. He offered to give the
Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a favorable
ruling on a pending illegal dismissal case. By making
such offer, Mr. X already commenced the
performance of material acts of execution in
corrupting the Labor Arbiter. He was not able to
perform all the material acts of execution only
because the Labor Arbiter refused to accept the offer.
(Pozar v. CA, G.R. No. L62439, 23 Oct. 1984)
ART. 211-A, RPC
QUALIFIED BRIBERY Crime Committed when a Public Official Actually
Accepted a Consideration and Allowed Himself to be
Elements of Qualified Bribery Corrupted
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with Law The corruptor becomes liable for consummated
enforcement; corruption of public official. The public officer also
2. He Refrains from arresting or prosecuting an becomes equally liable for consummated bribery.
offender who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death; and CHAPTER 3: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
3. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting the AND TRANSACTIONS
offender in Consideration of any promise, gift or
present. ART. 213, RPC
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY AND
gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. SIMILAR OFFENSES
(Art. 211-A, RPC)
NOTE: The crime involved in qualified bribery is a Punishable Acts
heinous crime. The public officer need not receive a 1. Entering into an agreement with any interested
gift or present because a mere offer or promise is party or speculator, or making use of any other
sufficient. scheme, to defraud the Government, in dealing with
NOTE: Art. 211-A is an insertion brought about by R.A. any person or with regard to furnishing supplies, the
No. 7659 (Heinous Crime Law). making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement
of accounts relating to public property funds (Fraud
ART. 212, RPC against Public Treasury);
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS 2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those authorized
Elements of Corruption of Public Officials by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and
1. Offender makes offers, or promise, or gives gifts or other imposts (Illegal Exaction);
presents to a public officer; and NOTE: By mere demanding an amount different,
2. The offers or promises are made, or the gifts or whether bigger or smaller, than what should be paid,
presents are given to a public officer under even if the debtor refuses, illegal exaction is
circumstances that will make the public officer liable committed.
for direct bribery or indirect bribery. 3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt as provided by
law, for any sum of money collected by him officially,
Crime Committed when a Public Officer Refuses to in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
be Corrupted imposts (Illegal Exaction); and
The crime committed is attempted corruption of 4. Collecting or receiving directly or indirectly, by way
public official only. of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law, in the collection

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 5

of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts (Illegal a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
Exaction) sums different from or larger than those authorized
by law;
Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury b. Voluntarily failing to Issue a receipt as provided by
1. Offender is a Public officer; law, for any sum of money collected by him officially;
2. He should have Taken advantage of his office, that or
is, he intervened in the transaction in his official c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
capacity; way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a
3. He entered into an Agreement with any interested nature different from that provided by law.
party or speculator or made use of any other scheme
with regard to: Essence of the Crime of Illegal Exaction
a. Furnishing supplies; or The essence of the crime is not the misappropriation
b. The making of contracts; or of any of the amounts but the improper making of the
c. The adjustment or settlement of accounts collection which would prejudice the accounting of
relating to public property or funds; and collected amounts by the government.
4. Accused had the intent to Defraud the Government
NOTE: It is consummated by merely entering into an ART. 214, RPC
agreement with any interested party or speculator. It OTHER FRAUDS
is not necessary that the Government is actually
defrauded by reason of the transaction as long as the Elements of Other Frauds
public officer who acted in his official capacity had 1. Offender is a Public officer;
the intent to defraud the Government. 2. He takes Advantage of his official position; and
3. He commits any of the frauds or Deceits
Essence of the Crime of Fraud against Public enumerated in Arts. 315-318.
Treasury
The essence of this crime is making the government Court of Competent Jurisdiction
pay for something not received or making it pay more The RTC has jurisdiction over the offense regardless
than what is due. of the amount or penalty involved, because the
principal penalty is disqualification.
Three Ways of Committing Illegal Exactions
1. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of ART. 215, RPC
sums different from or larger than those authorized PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
by law – Mere demand will consummate the crime,
even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across with Elements of Prohibited Transaction
the amount being demanded. 1. Offender is an Appointive public officer;
NOTE: It is not necessary that payment demanded be 2. He becomes Interested, directly or indirectly, in any
larger than the amount due the government; it may transaction of exchange or speculation;
be less than the amount due to the government. 3. Transaction takes place within the territory subject
to his jurisdiction; and
2. Voluntarily failing to issue a receipt as provided by 4. He becomes interested in the transaction during
law, for any sum of money collected by him officially – his Incumbency.
The act of receiving payment due to the government
without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal Actual fraud is not required for violation of Art. 215.
exaction even though a provisional receipt has been The act being punished is the possibility that fraud
issued. What the law requires is a receipt in the form may be committed, or that the officer may place his
prescribed by law, which means an official receipt. own interest above that of the government. The
transaction must be one of exchange or speculation,
3. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by such as buying and selling stocks, commodities, lands,
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a etc., hoping to take advantage of an expected rise and
nature different from that provided by law. fall in price.

Elements of Illegal Exaction NOTE: Purchasing stock or shares in a company is

1. The offender is a Collecting officer; simply an investment, and is not a violation of the
2. He committed any of the following acts or article; but buying regularly securities for resale is
omissions: speculation.

ART. 216, RPC

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 6

POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor
PUBLIC OFFICER shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly,
in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege
Persons Liable under this Article granted by the government, or any of its subdivisions,
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became agencies, or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or
interested in any contract or business in which it was their subsidiaries.
his official duty to intervene;
NOTE: Intervention must be by virtues of public office CHAPTER 4: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
held. PROPERTY
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who,
in like manner, took part in any contract or Crimes called Malversation of Public Funds or
transaction connected with the estate or property in Property
the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which 1. Malversation by appropriating, misappropriating or
they had acted; or permitting any other person to take public funds or
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property (Art. 217);
property belonging to their wards or the 2. Failure of an accountable public officer to Render
estate. accounts (Art. 218);
NOTE: The mere violation of the prohibition is 3. Failure of a responsible public officer to render
punished although no actual fraud occurs therefrom. accounts before Leaving the country (Art. 219);
The act is punished because of the possibility that 4. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220);
fraud may be, or that the officer may place his own and
interest above that of the Government or of the party 5. Failure to make Delivery of public funds or
which he represents. property. (Art. 221)
(U.S. v. Udarbe, G.R. No. 9945, 12 Nov. 1914)
ART. 217, RPC
Application of this Article to Appointive Officials MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Art. 216 includes not only appointive but also elective – PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
public officials. In fact, under the second paragraph of
the said article, even private individuals can be held Punishable Acts
liable. 1. Appropriating public funds or property;
2. Taking or Misappropriating the same;
Constitutional Provisions Prohibiting Interests 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or
1. Sec. 14, Art. VI – Members of Congress cannot negligence, Permitting any other person to take such
personally appear as counsel; cannot be interested public funds or property; and
financially in any franchise or special privilege 4. Being otherwise Guilty of the misappropriation or
granted by government; cannot intervene in any malversation of such funds or property.
matter before office of Government;
NOTE: The nature of the duties of the public officer
2. Sec. 13, Art. VII – The President, VicePresident, the and not the name of the office controls.
Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or (People v. Reyes, SB Case No. 26892, 15 Aug. 2006)
assistant shall not, unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other office or employment Common Elements to All Acts of Malversation
during their tenure. They shall not, during said 1. Offender is a public officer;
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other 2. He had the custody or control of funds or property
profession, participate in any business, or be by reason of the duties of his office;
financially interested in any contract with, or in any 3. Those funds or property were public funds or
franchise, or special privilege granted by the property for which he was accountable; and
Government or any subdivision, agency or 4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs or their consented, or through abandonment negligence,
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of permitted another person to take them.
interest in the conduct of their office; and
Actual Misappropriation of Funds is NOT Necessary
3. Sec. 2, Art. IX-A – No member of a Constitutional It is not necessary that the offender actually
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any office misappropriated the funds. It is enough that he has
or employment. Neither shall he engage in the violated the trust reposed on him in connection with
practice of any profession or in the active the property.
management or control of any business which in any

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 7

NOTE: Malversation is predicated on the relationship received several phone calls, including a call from
of the offender to the property or the funds involved. Coleto saying that the Patubig Collection was not
His being remiss in the duty of safekeeping public remitted. The other phone call was from Mesina
funds violates the trust reposed by reason of the saying that he did not receive the patubig collection.
duties of his office. The following morning, Mayor Malonzo asked Mesina
about the said funds and Mesina denied receiving it.
Accountable Public Officer During investigation, Mesina’s vault was opened for
An accountable public officer, within the purview of cash count, thereafter Mesina admitted that he
Art. 217 of the RPC, is one who has custody or control collected the Patubig Collection but kept the money
of public funds or property by reason of the duties of in his vault. Is Mesina liable for malversation?
his office. The nature of the duties of the public
officer or employee, the fact that as part of his duties A: YES. Mesina is liable for malversation. Malversation
he received public money for which he is bound to is committed either intentionally or by negligence. All
account and failed to account for it, is the factor that is necessary for a conviction is sufficient proof
which determines whether or not malversation is that the accused accountable officer had received the
committed by the accused public officer or employee. public funds or property, and did not have them in his
(Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, 31 Aug. 2011) possession when demand therefor was made without
any satisfactory explanation of his failure to have
Q: When a public officer has no authority to receive them upon demand. In the case at bar, Mesina feigned
the money for the Government, and upon receipt of ignorance of having received the patubig collection
the same, he misappropriated it, can he be held when he phoned Baclit to tell her that he did not
liable for malversation? receive the collection. (Mesina v. People, G.R. No.
A: NO. If the public officer has no authority to receive 162489, 17 June 2015)
the money for the Government, the crime committed
is estafa, not malversation (U.S. v. Solis, G.R. No. 2828, Deceit in Malversation, NOT Necessary
14 Dec. 1906), since he cannot be considered an Deceit need not be proved in malversation.
accountable officer in that situation. Malversation may be committed either through a
positive act of misappropriation of public funds or
Meaning of “Appropriation” property, or passively through negligence. To sustain
It does not necessarily mean appropriation to one’s a charge of malversation, there must either be
personal advantage but rather, every attempt by one criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the
person to dispose of the property of another without prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit
right. (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, attended the commission of the offense, it will not
17 Feb. 1997) preclude the reception of evidence to prove the
existence of negligence because both are equally
Prima Facie Evidence of Malversation punishable under Art. 217 of the RPC. (Torres v.
The failure of a public officer to have duly People, G.R. No. 175074, 31 Aug. 2011)
forthcoming any public fund or property with which
he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly Payment or Reimbursement, NOT a Defense in
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that Malversation
he has put such missing funds or property to personal Payment or reimbursement is not a defense in
uses. (Candao v. People, G.R. Nos. 186659-710, 19 Oct. malversation. The payment, indemnification, or
2011) reimbursement of, or compromise on the amounts or
funds malversed or misappropriated after the
An accountable public officer may be convicted of commission of the crime, does not extinguish the
malversation even if there is no direct evidence of accused’s criminal liability or relieve the accused from
misappropriation, and the only evidence is that there the penalty prescribed by law. At best, such acts of
is shortage in his accounts which he has not been able reimbursement may only affect the offender’s civil
to explain satisfactorily. (Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. liability, and may be credited in his favor as a
No. 77120, 06 Apr. 1987) mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender.
Crime of Malversation CAN be Committed by (Venezuela v. People, G.R. No. 205693, 14 Feb. 2018)
Negligence
Q: Mesina, a Local Treasurer Officer I of Caloocan Commission of Malversation by a Private Person
City, collected the City’s collection for June 1998 from A private person may also commit malversation under
Baclit at the Mini City Hall. Mesina acknowledged the the following situations:
receipt of the said funds. On the same day, Baclit

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 8

1. A private person conspiring with an accountable 2. He must be an Accountable officer for public funds
public officer in committing malversation (People v. or property;
Sendaydiego, G.R. No. L-33253-54, 20 Jan. 1978); 3. He is required by law or regulation to Render
2. When he has become an accomplice or accessory accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
to a public officer who commits malversation; provincial auditor; and
3. When the private person is made the custodian in 4. He Fails to do so for a period of two (2) months
whatever capacity of public funds or property, after such accounts should be rendered.
whether belonging to national or local government,
and misappropriates the same; or NOTE: The article does not require that there be a
4. When he is constituted as the depositary or demand that the public officer should render an
administrator of funds or property seized or attached account. It is sufficient that there is a law or
by public authority even though said funds or regulation requiring him to render account.
property belong to a private individual.

Q: A private property was attached or levied by the ART. 219, RPC

sheriff; can it be a subject of the crime of FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO
malversation? RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE
A: YES. Though the property belonged to a private COUNTRY
person, the levy or attachment of the property Elements
impressed it with the character of being part of the 1. Offender is a Public officer;
public property it being in custodia legis. 2. He must be an Accountable officer for public funds
or property; and
Q: If falsification of documents was resorted to for 3. He must have unlawfully Left (or be on point of
the purpose of concealing malversation, is a complex leaving) the Philippines without securing from the
crime committed? Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his
A: NO. For complex crimes require that one crime is accounts have been finally settled.
used to commit another. If the falsification is resorted
to for the purpose of hiding the malversation, the Q: If the act of leaving the country is authorized by
falsification and malversation shall be separate law, can the public officer be convicted under this
offenses. (People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. No. L-33253-54, Article?
20 Jan. 1978) A: NO. The act of leaving the Philippines must not be
authorized or permitted by law to be liable under this
Article.

ART. 220, RPC

ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
NOTE: Illegal use of public funds or property is also
known as technical malversation.
NOTE: Illegal use of public funds or property is also
known as technical malversation.

Elements of Technical Malversation

1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. There is public Fund or property under his
administration;
3. Such public fund or property has been
Appropriated by law or ordinance; and
4. He applies the same to a public use Other than that
for which such fund or property has been
ART. 218, RPC
appropriated by law or ordinance.
FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER
ACCOUNTS
Technical Malversation
In technical malversation, the public officer applies
Elements of Failure of Accountable Public Officer to
public funds under his administration not for his or
Render Accounts
another’s personal use, but to a public use other than
1. Offender is a Public officer, whether in the service
that for which the fund was appropriated by law or
or separated therefrom;
ordinance. Technical malversation is, therefore, not

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 9

included in nor does it necessarily include the crime 2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who
of malversation of public funds charged in the has been ordered by competent authority to deliver
information. Thus, if the acts constituting the crime any property in his custody or under his
of technical malversation were not alleged in the administration.
information, the person accused cannot be convicted
of malversation. (Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOTE: The refusal to make delivery must be
96025, 15 May 1991) malicious. Where an official stenographer retained
some stenographic notes and failed to turn over the
How Technical Malversation is Committed same upon demand as he was still going to transcribe
Instead of applying it to the public purpose for which the same, he was held not to have violated this article.
the fund or property was already appropriated by law, (People v. Jubila, 38 O.G. 1796)
the public officer applied it to another purpose.
Elements of Failure to Make Delivery of Public
Technical Malversation is Malum Prohibitum; Funds or Property
Criminal Intent is NOT an Element 1. That the public officer has government Funds in his
The law punishes the act of diverting public property possession;
earmarked by law or ordinance for particular public 2. That he is under Obligation to make payments from
purpose to another public purpose. The offense is such funds or to deliver any property in his custody
malum prohibitum, meaning that the prohibited act is or under his administration; and
not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal 3. That he Maliciously fails to perform the obligation.
offense because positive law forbids its commission
based on consideration of public policy, order, and ART. 222, RPC
convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE PRECEDING
by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, PROVISIONS
which determines whether or not the provision has
been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is Private Individuals who May be Liable under Arts.
completely irrelevant. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 217-221
192330, 14 Nov. 2012) 1. Private individual who in any capacity whatever,
have charge of any national, provincial or municipal
Q: Suppose the application made proved to be more funds, revenue or property;
beneficial to the public than the original purpose for 2. Administrator, depository of funds or property
which the amount or property is appropriated, is attached, seized or deposited by public authority even
there technical malversation? if such property belongs to a private individual;
A: YES. Damage is not an essential element of 3. Those who acted in Conspiracy in malversation;
technical malversation. and
4. Accomplice and Accessories to malversation.

NOTE: The word administrator used does not include

judicial administrator appointed to administer the
estate of a deceased person because he is not in
charge of any property attached, impounded or
placed in deposit by public authority. Conversion of
effects in his trust makes him liable for estafa.

CHAPTER 5: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Sec. 1: Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners

ART. 223, RPC

ART. 221, RPC CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION
FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY Elements
1. Offender is a Public officer;
Punishable Acts 2. He has in his Custody or charge a prisoner, either
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
under obligation to make such payment from 3. Such prisoner Escaped from his custody;
Government funds in his possession; and

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 10

4. That he was in Connivance with the prisoner in the dilapidated building is negligence. He can, however,
latter’s escape. (U.S. v. Bandino, G.R. No. L-9964, 11 be held administratively liable.
Feb. 1915)
Liability of the Escaping Prisoner
Classes of Prisoners Involved 1. If the fugitive is serving his sentence by reason of
1. Fugitive sentenced by final judgment to any penalty; final judgment – he is liable for evasion of the service
and of sentence under Art.157;
2. Fugitive held only as detention prisoner for any 2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner –he does
crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance. not incur any criminal liability.
(Reyes, 2017)

Q: Is there a need that the convict has actually fled ART. 225, RPC
for the public officer to be liable under this Article? ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE CUSTODY OF A
A: NO. There is real and actual evasion of service of PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
sentence when the custodian permits the prisoner to
obtain relaxation of his imprisonment and to escape Elements
the punishment of being deprived of his liberty, thus 1. Offender is a Private person;
making the penalty ineffectual, although the convict 2. Conveyance or custody of prisoner or person under
may not have fled (U.S. v. Bandino, supra). (1997 BAR) arrest is confided to him;
3. Prisoner or person under arrest Escapes; and
Q. Does releasing a prisoner for failure to comply 4. Offender Consents to the escape of the prisoner or
within the time provided by Art. 125 exculpate person under arrest or that the escape takes place
liability under this Article? through his negligence.
A. YES. Where the chief of police released the NOTE: This article is not applicable if a private person
detention prisoners because he could not file a was the one who made the arrest and he consented to
complaint against them within the time fixed by Art. the escape of the person he arrested.
125 due to the absence of the justice of the peace, he
is not guilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoners. Infidelity Committed by Private Person
(People v. Lancanan, G.R. No. L-6805, 30 June 1954) Under Art. 225, infidelity can also be committed by a
private person to whom the prisoner was entrusted
ART. 224, RPC and he connived with the prisoner (Art. 223, RPC) or
EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE through his negligence (Art. 224, RPC) the prisoner
was allowed to escape.
Elements of Evasion through Negligence
1. Offender is a Public officer; If the escape was with consideration, bribery is also
2. He is charged with the Conveyance or custody of a deemed committed because he was performing a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by public function, hence is, at that instance,
final judgment; and
3. Such prisoner escapes through his Negligence. Sec. 2: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents

The fact that the public officer recaptured the ART. 226, RPC
prisoner who escaped from his custody does not REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF
afford complete exculpation. DOCUMENTS
This crime is also called infidelity in the custody of
Gravamen documents.
It is the positive carelessness that is short of
deliberate non-performance of his duties as guard. Commission of the Crime of Infidelity in the
(People v. Reyes et al., 36 O.G. 316) Custody of Documents
1. Removal – presupposes appropriation of the official
Q: A policeman permitted a prisoner to answer a call documents. It does not require that the record be
of nature in a hidden shed outside the building. The brought out of the premises where it is kept. It is
policeman remained near the prisoner by the door. enough that the record be removed from the place
The prisoner escaped through the back of the bath. where it should be transferred.
Is the policeman liable under Art 224? 2. Destruction – is equivalent to rendering useless or
A: NO. Not every little mistake or distraction of a the obliteration of said documents; the complete
guard leading to prisoner’s taking advantage of a destruction thereof is not necessary.

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 11

3. Concealment – means that the documents are not Removal is for an illicit purpose when the intention of
forwarded to their destination and it is not necessary the offender is to:
that they are secreted away in a place where they 1. Tamper with it;
could not be found. 2. Profit by it; or
3. Commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the
Elements official care thereof.
1. The offender is a Public officer;
2. He Abstracts, Destroys, or Conceals documents or Consummation of this Crime
papers; The crime of removal of public document in breach of
3. Said documents or papers should have been official trust is consummated upon its removal or
Entrusted to such public officer by reason of his secreting away from its usual place in the office and
office; and after the offender had gone out and locked the door,
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or it being immaterial whether he has or has not actually
to the public interest should have been caused. accomplished the illicit purpose for which he
removed said document. (Kataniag v. People, G.R. No.
NOTE: The document must be complete and one by L-48398, 28 Nov. 1942)
which a right can be established or an obligation
could be extinguished. Q: If the postmaster fails to deliver the mail and
instead retained them, can he be held liable under
Document this Article?
Any written statement by which a right is established A: YES. The simple act of retaining the mail without
or an obligation extinguished. forwarding the letters to their destination, even
NOTE: Books, pamphlets or periodicals sent through though without opening them or taking the moneys
the mail for commercial purposes are not considered they contained, already constitutes infidelity on the
as documents for the purpose of this article. (People part of the post office official. (U.S. V. Peña, G.R. No.
v. Agnis, G.R. No. L-19676, 07 Feb. 1923) L-4451, 29 Dec. 1908)

Damage Contemplated under this Article ART. 227, RPC

The damage in this article may consist in mere alarm OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
to the public to the alienation of its confidence in any
branch of the government service. (Kataniag v. People, Elements of Officer Breaking Seal
G.R. No. L-48398, 28 Nov. 1942) 1. Offender is a Public officer;
2. He is Charged with the custody of papers or
Persons Liable under this Article property;
Only public officers who have been officially 3. These papers or property are Sealed by proper
entrusted with the documents or papers may be held authority; and
liable under Art. 226. 4. He Breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.

Q: Suppose, in the case for bribery or corruption, It is the breaking of the seals and not the opening of a
the monetary consideration marked as exhibits were closed envelope which is punished.
spent by the custodian, what is the crime
committed? It is sufficient that the seal is broken, even if the
A: The crime committed is infidelity in the custody of contents are not tampered with. This article does
documents because the money adduced as exhibits not require that there be damage caused or that there
partake the nature of a document and not as money. be intent to cause damage. The mere breaking of the
seal or the mere opening of the document would
Q: Is there a need for criminal intent to be held already bring about infidelity even though no damage
liable under this Article? has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large.
A: To warrant a finding of guilt for the crime of
infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of Rationale for Penalizing the Act of Breaking the Seal
removal, as a mode of committing the offense, should The act is being punished because the public officer,
be coupled with criminal intent or illicit purpose. in breaking the seal or opening the envelope, violates
(Manzanaris v. People, G.R. No. 19676, 07 Feb. 1923) the confidence or trust reposed on him.
NOTE: The public officer liable under this article must
When Removal is Considered to be for an Illicit be one who breaks seals without authority to do so.
Purpose
ART. 228, RPC

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 12

OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
This article punishes minor official betrayals,
Elements of Opening Closed Documents infidelities of little consequences affecting usually the
1. Offender is a Public officer; administration of justice, executive or official duties
2. Any Closed papers, documents or objects are or the general interest of the public order. If the
entrusted to his custody; public officer is merely entrusted with the papers but
3. He Opens or Permits to be opened said closed not with the custody of the papers, he is not liable
papers, documents or objects; and under this provision. Furthermore, military secrets or
4. He does Not have proper authority. those affecting national interest are covered by the
crime of espionage and not by the crime of revelation
Under Art. 228, the closed documents must be of secrets.
entrusted to the custody of the accused by reason of
his office. (People v. Lineses, C.A. 40 O.G., Supp. 14,
4773)

Art. 228 does not require that there be damage or

intent to cause damage.

Sec. 3: Revelation of Secrets

ART. 229, RPC

REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN OFFICER

Punishable Acts
1. Revealing any secret known to the offending public
officer by reason of his official capacity.
Elements:
a. Offender is a Public officer;
b. He Knows of a secret by reason of his
official capacity; ART. 230, RPC
c. He Reveals such secret without authority or PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF PRIVATE
justifiable reasons; and INDIVIDUAL
d. Damage, great or small, is caused to the
public interest. Elements of Art. 230
1. Offender is a Public officer;
NOTE: If the secret revealed does not affect public 2. He Knows of the secrets of private individual by
interest, the revelation would constitute no crime at reason of his office; and
all. 3. He Reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
Secrets
The secrets referred to in this article are those which NOTE: The revelation will not amount to a crime
have an official or public character, the revelation of under this article if the secrets are contrary to public
which may prejudice public interest. They refer to interest or to the administration of justice. Revelation
secrets relative to the administration of the to any one person is necessary and sufficient; public
government and not to secrets of private individuals. revelation is not required.

2. Wrongfully Delivering papers or copies of papers of Damage to private individuals is not necessary.
which he may have charge and which should not be The Offender must NOT be the Person Contemplated
published. under Art. 209 of the RPC. When the offender is an
Elements: attorney-at-law and he reveals the secrets of his
a. Offender is a public Officer; client learned by him in his professional capacity, he
b. He has Charge of papers; is not liable under this article, but under Art. 209.
c. Those papers should not be Published; He
delivers those papers or copies thereof to a The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and
third person; trust in public service.
d. The delivery is Wrongful; and
e. Damage is caused to public interest.

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 13

 CHAPTER 6: OTHER OFFENSES OR The law has taken into account that a superior officer
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS may sometimes err, and that orders issued by him
Sec. 1: Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance, and may proceed from a mistaken judgment.
Maltreatment of Prisoners For this reason, it entitles a subordinate to suspend in
such cases the order issued, to submit his reason to
ART. 231, RPC his superior in order that the latter may give them
OPEN DISOBEDIENCE proper wight, if they are entitled to say.

Elements of Open Disobedience ART. 233, RPC

1. Offender is a Judicial or executive officer; REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
2. There is Judgment, decision or order of a superior
authority; Elements of Refusal of Assistance
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within 1. Offender is a Public officer;
the Scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority 2. Competent authority Demands from the offender
and issued with all the legal formalities; and that he lends his cooperation towards the
4. Offender without any legal justification openly administration of justice or other public service; and
Refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or 3. Offender Fails to do so maliciously.
order, which he is duty bound to obey
Any refusal by a public officer to render assistance
NOTE: The refusal must be clear, manifest and when demanded by competent public authority, as
decisive or a repeated and obstinate disobedience in long as the assistance requested from him is within
the fulfillment of an order. his duty to render and that assistance is needed for
public service, constitutes refusal of assistance.
How Open Disobedience is Committed
Open disobedience is committed when a judicial or Investigators and medico-legal officers who refuse to
executive officer shall openly refuse to execute the appear to testify in court after having been
judgment, decision, or order of any superior subpoenaed may also be held liable under this article.
authority.
Q: Is damage to the public interest or to third
ART. 232, RPC parties necessary to consummate the crime?
DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR OFFICER, A: YES. There must be damage to the public interest
WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR or to a third party. If the damage is serious, the
OFFICER penalty is higher.

Elements ART. 234, RPC

1. Offender is a Public officer; REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
2. An Order is issued by his superior for execution;
NOTE: The order of the superior must be legal or Elements
issued within his authority, otherwise, this article 1. Offender is Elected by popular election to a public
does not apply. If the order of the superior is illegal, office;
the subordinate has a legal right to refuse to execute 2. He Refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
such order, for under the law, obedience to an order duties of said office; and
which is illegal is not justified and the subordinate 3. There is No legal motive for such refusal to be
who obeys such order can be held criminally liable sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
under Art. 11(6).
3. He has for any reason Suspended the execution of NOTE: Discharge of duties becomes a matter of duty
such order; and not a right.
4. His superior Disapproves the suspension of the The refusal must be without legal motive.
execution of the order; and
5. Offender Disobeys his superior despite the ART. 235, RPC
disapproval of the suspension. MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS

The disobedience must be open and repeated. What is Elements of Maltreatment of Officers
punished by the law is insubordination of the act or 1. Offender is a Public officer or employee;
defying the authority which is detrimental to public 2. He has Under his charge a prisoner or detention
interest. prisoner; and

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 14

3. He Maltreats such prisoner either of the following The crime committed would either be:
manners: 1. Coercion – If the person not yet confined in jail is
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or maltreated to extort a confession, or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner 2. Physical injuries – If the person maltreated has
under his charge either: already been arrested but is not yet booked in the
i. By the imposition of punishments office of the police and put in jail.
not authorized by the regulations; or
ii. By inflicting such punishments Illustration: If a Barangay Captain maltreats a person
(those authorized) in a cruel or after the latter’s arrest but before confinement, the
humiliating manner. offense is not maltreatment but physical injuries. The
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a victim must actually be confined either as a convict or
confession or to obtain some information a detention prisoner.
from the prisoner.
Sec. 2: Anticipation, Prolongation, and Abandonment
NOTE: The maltreatment should not be due to of the Duties and Powers of Public Office
personal grudge, otherwise, offender is liable for
physical injuries only. ART. 236, RPC
ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICE
Who is a Prisoner
To be considered a detention prisoner, the person Elements
arrested must be placed in jail even for 1. That the offender is Entitled to hold a public office
just a short time. or employment either by election or appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be Sworn in
Illustration: Hitting a prisoner by a latigo, even if the and/or should first give a bond;
purpose is to instill discipline, is not authorized by law 3. He Assumes the performance of the duties and
and constitutes violation of this article. On the other powers of such office; and
hand, requiring prisoners to dig a canal where 4. He has Not taken his oath of office and/or given
culverts shall be placed to prevent flooding in the the bond required by law
prison compound is authorized by law and does not
violate this article; but if the public officer would ART. 237, RPC
order the prisoner to do so from morning up to late PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND
evening without any food, then this article is involved, POWERS
as he inflicted such authorized punishment in a cruel
and humiliating manner. Elements
1. That the offender is Holding a public office;
Qualifying Circumstance 2. That the period allowed by law for him to exercise
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort such function and duties has already
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next higher Expired; and
degree. 3. That the offender Continues to exercise such
function and duties.
Rule when a Person is Maltreated by a Public Officer
who has Actual Charge of Prisoners The officers contemplated by this article are those
Two crimes are committed, namely – maltreatment who have been suspended, separated, declared
under Art. 235 and physical injuries. Maltreatment overaged, or dismissed.
and physical injuries may not be complexed because
the law specified that the penalty for maltreatment ART. 238, RPC
shall be in addition to his liability for the physical ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
injuries or damage caused.
Elements
Maltreatment refers not only to physical 1. That the offender is Holding a public office;
maltreatment but also moral, psychological, and other 2. That he formally Resigns from his office;
kinds of maltreatment because of the phrase “physical NOTE: The final or conclusive act of a resignation’s
injuries or damage caused” and “cruel or humiliating acceptance is the notice of acceptance. (Light Rail
manner.” Transit Authority v. Salvaña, G.R. No. 192074, 10 June
2014)
Rule in Cases wherein the Person Maltreated is NOT 3. That his resignation has Not yet been accepted; and
a Convict or a Detention Prisoner

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 15

4. That he Abandons his office to the detriment of the Elements
public service. 1. That the offender is an Executive or Judicial officer;
and
Circumstances Qualifying the Offense 2. That he:
The offense is qualified when the real motive of a. Makes general rules and regulations beyond
resignation is to evade the discharge of duties of the scope of his authority;
preventing, prosecuting or punishing any crime Title b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of c. Suspends the execution thereof.
the RPC.
ART. 240, RPC
Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
Book Two of the RPC refer to the crimes of:
1. Treason; Elements
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; 1. That the offender is a Judge; and
3. Misprision of treason; 2. That the offender:
4. Espionage; a. Assumes the power exclusively vested to
5. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal; executive authorities of the Government; or
6. Violation of neutrality; b. Obstructs executive authorities from the
Correspondence with hostile country; lawful performance of their functions.
7. Flight to enemy country;
8. Piracy and mutiny;
9. Rebellion; ART. 241, RPC
10. Coup d’etat; USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
11. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat; Elements:
12. Disloyalty of public officers; 1. That the offender is holding an office under the
13. Inciting to rebellion; Executive Branch of the Government; and
14. Sedition; 2. That he:
15. Conspiracy to commit sedition; and a. Assumes the power exclusively vested in the
16. Inciting to sedition. Judiciary; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision given by a judge within his
jurisdiction.

Penalty
Arresto mayor in its medium period to in its minimum
period.

Arts. 239-241 punish the usurpation of powers of the

three branches of the Government in order to
uphold the separation and independence of the three
equal branches.

ART. 242, RPC

DISOBEYING REQUEST OF DISQUALIFICATION

Elements
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That a Proceeding is pending before such public
officer;
3. There is a Question brought before the proper
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is yet to be
Sec. 3: Usurpation of Powers and Unlawful
decided;
Appointments
4. He has been lawfully required to Refrain from
continuing the proceeding; and
ART. 239, RPC
5. He Continues the proceeding.
USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 16

NOTE: The offender is still liable even if the question the person under the custody and charge of
of jurisdiction has been resolved in his favor later on. the offender.

ART. 243, RPC The mother of a person under the custody of any
ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS public officer is not included as a possible offended
TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY party but the offender may be prosecuted under Sec.
28 of R.A. No. 3019. (AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices
Elements Act)
1. That the offender is an Executive officer;
2. That the offender Addresses any order or Essence of the Crime Abuses against Chastity
suggestion to any judicial authority; and The essence of the crime is the mere making of
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or immoral or indecent solicitation or advances.
business within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the
courts of justice. Ways of Committing Abuses against Chastity
Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to:
The purpose of this article is to maintain the 1. A woman interested in matters pending before the
independence of the judiciary. offending officer for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to or consult
ART. 244, RPC with a superior officer;
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS 2. A woman under the offender’s custody;
3. The wife, daughter, sister or relative within the
Elements of Unlawful Appointments same degree by affinity of any person in the custody
1. Offender is a Public officer; of the offending warden or officer.
2. He Nominates or appoints a person to a public
office; NOTE: The crime can be committed by mere
NOTE: “Nominate” is different from “recommend.” proposal, and it is not necessary for the woman
While nomination constitutes a crime, mere solicited to yield to the proposal of the offender.
recommendation does not. Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there
3. Such person Lacks the legal qualification thereof; is sexual intercourse
and
4. Offender Knows that his nominee or appointee
lacks the qualifications at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.
NOTE: There must be a law providing for the
qualifications of a person to be nominated or
appointed to a public office.

Sec. 4: Abuses against Chastity

ART. 245, RPC
ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY

Elements of Abuses against Chastity

1. That the offender is a Public officer;

2. That he Solicits or makes any Indecent or immoral
advances to a woman; and
3. That the offended party is a Woman who is:
a. Interested in matters Pending before the
public officer for his decision or where the
public officer is required to submit a report or
to consult with a superior officer;
b. Under the Custody of the offender, who is a
warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest; or
c. The wife, daughter, sister or any Relative
falling within the same degree by affinity of

UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!​​ 17