Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer.

— The penalty of arresto mayor in

its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period,4 or a fineranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become
interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall
take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution,
or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or estate.
Who are liable for possession of prohibited interest?
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in any contract 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.

THE UNITED STATES v. CLEMENTE UDARBE

Facts:

That the defendant was appointed municipal president of the municipality of Magsingal. Under his
presidency, he approved and passed Regulation No. 7, for the leasing of fishponds in the said
municipality. When the auction or bidding for the different sections of said fishponds was held in the
town hall of said municipality he presided over the auction and participated therein. Udarbe took part
in the bidding for the fishpond of Pagsanaan, and that he was adjudicated to him as the highest
bidder. Hence, the said fishpond, which was awarded to him.

Issue:

Whether or not Udarbe commited possession of prohibited interest by a public officer.

Held:

Yes, Article 216 of the Penal Code punishes the action of a public official in becoming interested
in any kind of contract or operation in which he must intervene by reason of his office. In
performing such an action, as Viada says in his commentaries on the Penal Code, the officer does
nothing more than violate a prohibition; hence no fraud exists therein, but there does exist the
possibility that he may perpetrate fraud, or at least that he may subordinate the state’s interest to his
own. The defendant became interested and took direct part in the leasing of property of the
municipality of Magsingal, wherein he had to intervene by reason of his office as president of said
municipality, and he has therefore openly violated the said provision.