-- CRIMINAL LAW II SAN BEDA- MEMORY AID 2018 8. When the offender commits One or more violations of Sec: 4 over a period of sixty (60) or more days, whether those days are continuous or not (Sec. 9) Syndicate Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if Cattied out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. Large Scale It is deomed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as 2 grou Note: Conspiracy to commit trafficking in persons is not punishable (2 FESTIN, Special Penal Laws Criminal Lew Reviewer, (2014), p. 90) {hereinafter 2 FESTIN, SPL}. ‘TITLE SEVEN: CRIMES COMMITTED Ottndersin Tite Seven Sy Generals, hey ate pubic of instances, however, where the offender ista private indvual, fo Instango Ars ‘HE 221 oes ors ' (BOADO, supra at 564), OF ARTICLE 203). WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS Requisites: To'be a public officer one must: % 1, Take Bart in the’ performance of publ the government, or performing in said Gi or in any of its branches public” dutice 288s ‘employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and “ 2, Have authority to take part in the performance of Public functions or to perform public duties by: (PAD) 8.’ Direct provision of the law; b. Popular election; or ©. -Appointment-by:competent- authority (REYES, “Book Two, supra at 391-392). The {erm “public officers" embraces every public Servant froin the highest to the lowest rank. For the Purposes. of the RPC, It obliterates the’ Standard distinction inthe law of public officers between “officer” and “employee” (Maniego v. People, G.R. No. L-2971, April 20, 1951). Temporary performance of public furictons by a laborer. makes him a public officer (People v. Bulangag, 40 0.G. 2087). One who has a duty to perform towards the public eee COLLEGE GF “fier aa eMistessan 3 wae a even though his duty is confined to narrow limits, is Tonetheless a public officer because it is his duty and lis nature which makes him a public officer and nat the extent of his authority (Manila Terminal Co. v. La corte ge Relaciones Industriales, G.R. No. L-1881, May 9, 1949) Examples of Public Officers: 1. GSIS branch manager (Agbayani v. Sayo, GR. ‘No, L-47880, April 30, 1976); 2. Police Senior Inspector (Mamba v. Garcia, AM. No, MTJ-96-1110, June 26, 2001); 3. A person appointed as a laborer but was given the work of preparing metions for dismissal of trafic cases (Maniego v. People, G.R. No: L-2971, Apri! 20, 1951); 4. A Tiscal “analyst (People v. Kulais, G.R.. Nos. 100901-08, July 16, 1998); a 5. Cash Clerk II (People v. Hipol, G.R. No. 140549, ly 22, 2003); S.A Municipal ‘Mayor ‘and “a Municipal Treasurer ule v. Pantaleon, G.R. Nos, 158694-96, March ey) and 5 S,Battio CapteibS(wifo v. Salenga; G.RNo. L- Cspog 687), : PTERTWO; MALFEASANCE AND SFEASANCE iN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212) EB] Pores We sane ad AR da layfuly bikione (REYES! Book Two, supra at 353) ne atieance SEINE Performance of some act which-ought not to be wane (ic). F Nonfeasance Omission of some act which ought to’be performed (REYES, Book Two, supra at 394). ARTICLE 204 KNOWINGLY-RENDERING---- ~~ UNJUST JUDGMENT :(JUKS) hat the offender is @ Judge; 2. ‘That the judgment is Unjust; 3. That the judge Knows that his judgment is unjust; 4. That he renders a judamént in a case Submitied ta him for decision (Wingarts v. Melia, A.M. No, Mh 1012, March 20, 1996), a BEDA CENTRALIZED Bak OPERATIONS |I IITE_® CRIMINAL LAW Ii SAN BEDA MEMORY AID Judgment 4 judgmentis a final order which disposes of the whole ‘bject matter or terminates a particular proceeding oF action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined (Marcelo v. De Guzman, G.R. No, L-29077, June 29, 1962). Unjust judgment * is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by evidence, or both (REYES, Book Two, supra at ). unjust judgment is rendered knowingly when it is made deliberately and maliciously (1d, Xsowingly means consciously, inteligantly, wilfully, or ‘stentionally (Black's Law Dictionary, 5° ed., p. 78d). ‘The judge must render the judgment with conscious: nd eliberate intent to do an injustice (De Guzman v~ Dy, AM. No, RTJ-03-1755, July 3, 2003). Sources of unjust judgment: Error, 2 i-will or revenge: or we, Sribery (REYES, Book Two, supra'al 395) ation” that the decision or order in question eed “unjust" The pronouncement may reSult from er: § An action of certiorar’ or protibition in a high court impugning the validity of the judgment; or 2 An administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge precisely for promulgating ‘an unjust judgment:or order. (De Vara v. Pelayo, GR. No. 137354, July 6, 2000). Does Not Apply to Members of Collegiate Courts At. 204 has no application to membais of a collegiate court (e.g. Supreme. Court, Court of Appeals, Sendiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals) who reach their conclusions in consuitation and accordingly ‘ender their collective judgment after due deliberation (In Re: Laureta, G.R. No. L-68635, May 14, 1987), 192 | 2018 SAN BEDA CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 18 ARTICLE 205 JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE Elements: (JUIS) 4. That the offenders a Judge: 2. That the judgment is manifestly Unjust; 3. That it is due to his Inexcusable negligence or ignorance; and a 4. That he renders a judgment in a case Submitted to him for decision (REYES, Book Two, supre at 396). Manifestly Unjust Judgment It is so manifestly contrary to law, thet even a person having a meager knowledge of the lew cannat doubt the injustice (le. at 379). Therefore, there is no need for “a final and authoritative judicial declaration” that the decision or order in question Is indeed unjust. Although there may be abuse of discretion In issuing ofder, it does not necessarily folow that there is “EElisor that his abuse of discretion signifies of the law on the part of the judge BAGS A.C. No. 684-CAR, December Eilsgment isnot punishable (Yarenon v UNG: HAOIN) August, 1075) SES arrICLe 206 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER _ es Goran) theiender is 2 Judge: ang B-rendere Urls interectory ender or iowingly: or Through inexcusable Ignorance or Negligence SOT (hayola v, Gabo, lt, AM. No. RTJ-00-1524, ‘> January 26, 2000). Interlocutory Order ; {tis an order which is issued by the court betwéen the ‘commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue “(Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). Test: Does it leave something to bs done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, itis interlocutory; if it does not, itis final (Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Mania Railroad ‘Co. v. Yard Crew Union, G.R Nos. {-16292-94, 1-16309 and L- 16317-18, October 31, 1960). Example: An order granting preliminary injunction or an order appointing a receiver is an interlocutory ord (REYES, Book Two, supra at 398).CRIMINAL LAw Il N BEDA MEMOR ARTICLE 207 spALICIOUS DELAY INTHE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ents: (JP-DM) offender is a Judge: ‘ere is @ Proceeding in his court; he Delays the administration of justice; and tthe delay is Malicious, that Is, the delay is 25 by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict ‘on either party in the case (Id). Malicious delay means with intent to Inflict either party. without malice is NOT a felony under this ay is not malicidus, but committed through ‘gence, the crime committed: is that under 318, See. 3(e) (REGALADO, supra at 517) delay in the completionjof the im Seek to complananichersel ry investigation - of Sane ‘ov. Pehimlin, A.M: No. 66233, ; ARTICLE 208 <0 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGES ‘AND TOLERANCE ~~ maliciously _ refraining i cation against violators of the la liciously tolerating the commission" REYES, Book Two, supra at 399). ements: (DNA) i “That the offender is @ public officer or officer of the law who has a Duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute offerises: b. ‘That knowing the commission of the crime, he does Not cause the prosecution of the criminal or knowing that @ crime is about to be = Committed he tolerates its commission; and 3 c. That the offender Acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law (Soriano v: Mercélo, G.R. No. 163178, January ~30; 2009) crime must be proved before conviction for ¢ dereliction SAEguit of the alleged violator of the law, whose ense was nat prosecuted, is @ prejudicial question the liability of the officer charged under this provision (US. v. ‘Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540, September 23, 1912). Ti Sa Mal uh Alp 2018 Malice is an important element in this Article (REYES, Book Two, supre at 398). : ‘The act must be the result of a deliberate evil intent ‘and does not cover @ mere voluritary act (People v. ‘Malabanan, G.R. No. 43430, January 7, 1936). Who can be offenders in Art. 208 1. Public officer... officers of the. prosecution Gepariment, whose duty is to insttute criminal proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their perpetration. 2: Officer of the law — includes all those who, Dy 2 ‘eason of the position held by them, are. duty. bound to cause prosecution and punishment of offencers (REYES, Book Two, supra at $99), Note: Not applicable to revenue officers (Id. at 407) ‘The fiscal or the city altomey, as prosecuting officer, je under no compulsion to file the corresponding Wyfation based upon as complaint, where he is not Hat the, evidence gathered or. presented ant the\pling of an action in court (Vda. de id wa ie oe 7 the parties to settle the"case amicably. ths, e y, Relilaand Lombos, GR: No. L-12247, nat be liable for “naltausly, cel Pe tSE: Allg eis 3 | {abi offcor wno,~having'the duty of He? offender, -harbored, concealed, oF ie’ escape of the latter, ls that of the @ crime of dereliction’ of duty in the. seottense (REYES, Book Two, supre’at 7 Bon who sBlts,acnepts oF agroes 10 pono ete oP ial tom 2 or impeding the prosecution of @ criminal Ff able under Sec. 1(g) of P.D-No: 1628: . ARTICLE 208: a BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR ~ REVELATION OF SECRETS. Punishable Acts: (GRU) ~ 4, Gausing damage to his client, either: > 2. By any malicious breach of professional duty; b. Inexcusable negligence or ignorance; Note: If no damage isicaused; the attomey may be ASW administratively or civilly lable (REGALADO, supraatst@). | 2. Revealing any of the isecrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity, and : ote: Damage is NOT necessary (REYES, Book Two, supra at 402). 3, Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in ‘2018 SAN BEDA CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 183