CRIMINAL LAW 2 REPORT_BAUTISTA MIRA JOY_2019300855

Article 204 – Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment

Elements:
1. Offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;

Judgment- It is the final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction

upon the matters 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 signed by him; and
3. Shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
based.

Unjust judgement- An unjust judgment is 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 cannot be committed by the members/justices of the appellate courts. In

collegiate courts like the CA and SC, not only one magistrate renders or issues the
judgment or interlocutory order. Conclusions and resolutions thereof are handed down only
after deliberations among the members, 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.

Case

U.s. vs. Gacutan

It was said here that t he mere fact that the court may not have had jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the action does not necessarily establish the fact that his judgment was
unjust. He may have been honestly mistaken with respect to his jurisdiction.
In re Climaco

it was stated here that It is also well-settled that a judicial officer, when required to exercise his
judgment or discretion, is not liable criminally, for any error he commits, provided he acts in
good faith.

Article 205 – Judgment Rendered Through Negligence

Elements:
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.

A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so manifestly contrary to law that

even a person having basic knowledge of the law cannot doubt the
njustice. Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment, not punishable.

The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said to be unjust when it is

contrary to the standards of conduct prescribed by law.

The test to determine whether an order or judgment is unjust may be

inferred from the circumstances that it is contrary to law or is not supported
by evidence.

Article 206 –Unjust InterlocutoryOrder

Elements:
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.

If the order leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to the
merits of the case, it is interlocutory. If it does not, it is final.

The unjust interlocutory order must have been issued by the judge with
deliberate intent to cause damage to the party concerned.
Case

In the case of Kapisaan ng mga Mangagawa vs. Yard crew union it was said here that
The test in determining whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is "Does it leave
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. Having in view the avowed purpose of the orders in
question, as heretofore exposed, one should not stretch his imagination far to see that they are
clearly interlocutory, as they leave something more to be done in the trial court and do not
decide one way or the other the petitions of the respondent unions

Article 207 – Malicious Delay in the Administration of Justice

Elements:
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.

Mere delay without malice is not a felony under this provision.

Article 208 – Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence and Tolerance

Modes
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the
law;
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.

Elements:
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.

Who are the offenders?

Public officer – officers of the prosecution department, whose duty is to

institute criminal proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their
 perpetration, i.e. city attorney, fiscal

Officer of the law – those who, by reason of the position held by them, are
duty-bound to cause prosecution and punishment of offenders, i.e. chief of
police, barrio captain

Liability of the public officer who, having the duty of prosecuting the offender,
harbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of the latter, is that of a
principal in the crime of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of the offense.

Article 209 – Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or a Solicitor – Revelation ofSecrets

Elements:

1. Causing damage to his client, either

A. By any malicious breac of professional duty
B. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in hi professiona
capacity.
A. After having undertaken the defense of said first client or
B. After having recieved confidential infromation from said client

When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or

inexcusable negligence or ignorance, there must be damage to his client.

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.

The confidential matters or information must be confided to the lawyer in

the latter’s professional capacity.

Modes of Commission:
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.
 The Supreme Court held that not all information received by counsel from
the client is classified as privileged.

Article 210 – Direct Bribery

Punishable acts:

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 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.

The crime of bribery has no frustrated stage. If one party does not concur, then
there is no agreement and not all the acts necessary to commit the crime
were present.

Temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person

a public officer.

Bribery exists when the gift is:

1. voluntarily offered by a private person;
2. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private
person;
3. solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of
the consequences should the public officer perform his functions (here the
crime by the giver does not fall under corruption of public officials due to
the involuntariness of the act).
Article211–IndirectBribery

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.

The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in the
former, the officer agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in
consideration of the gift or promise. In the latter case, it is not necessary that
the officer do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by reason
of his office.

If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in favor of the giver which is
unfair to the others, the crime continues to be indirect bribery.
Precisely the evil of indirect bribery is in its tendency to produce future,
unspecified, and unwarranted favors from the official.

This is always in the consummated stage. There is no attempted much less

frustrated stage in indirect bribery.

CASE DISCUSSION:

Manipon vs. sandiganbayan

In its decision dated September 30, 1981, the Sandiganbayan found accused
Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr., 31, guilty ofdirect bribery, sentenced him to four
months and twenty days of arresto mayor with temporary
specialdisqualification for eight years and one day and a fine of
P2,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency and to pay the
costs. In the final analysis, it all boils down to credibility. Manipon's guilt for the
crime of direct bribery has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Dacumas vs. Sandiganbayan-

The petitioner here seems to be suggesting in the conclusion to his petition that
judgment was rendered against him because he happens to be a tax collector,It
suffices to observe that he was convicted not because he is a tax collector but
because he accepted a bribe.
Article211-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 punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
3. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift, or present.

Article212–Corruptionof 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.

CASE:

U. S. vs. Matiao

In order that a public official may be convicted of bribery he must have accepted a bribe for his
committing in the discharge of the duties of his office an act constituting a crime. It therefore
becomes necessary to consider whether the official if he had accepted the bribe in the
discharge of his office in the particular case, would have committed an act constituting a crime
as defined in article 354 of the Penal Code.

Article 213 – Fraud against the Public Treasury and Similar Offenses

Modes:
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 Fraud against Public Treasury (par.1):

1. Offender is a public officer
2. He should have taken advantage of his public 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:
4. Furnishing supplies
5. The making of contracts
6. The adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or
funds
7. Accused had intent to defraud the Government.

Consummated by merely entering into agreement with any interested party

or speculator or by merely making use of other scheme to defraud the
government.

Elements of Illegal Exactions (par.2.):

1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
2. He is guilty of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different
from or larger than those authorized by law;
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 object of a nature different from that provided by
law

CASE

Ganaden Vs. Bolasco

it may be well to state again that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are public officers and as
such must serve with the highest sense of responsibility and the highest degree of
integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and at all times remain accountable to the people and
diligence and integrity and with an overriding concern to promote public interest, 2 and,
to emphasize, with honesty of the highest degree.

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 (estafa, other
 forms of swindling, swindling a minor, other deceits).

Additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period

to perpetual special disqualification, apart from the penalties imposed in Arts
315-318.

Case

U.S. vs. Dacuycuy

Whenever a public official commits a crime outside of the exercise of his functions, doing
acts which are not connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished with the
penalty provided by law for the private individual who violates its provisions, without taking
into account the official character with which the accused is invested.

Art. 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.

Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation are: buying and selling

stocks, commodities, land etc wherein one hopes to take advantage of an
expected rise or fall in price.

Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple investment and not a

violation of the article. However, regularly buying securities for resale is
speculation.

Article 216 – Possession of Prohibited Interest bya Public Officer

Persons liable:
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.

Fraud is not necessary. Intervention must be by virtue of the public office held.
 The basis here is the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer
may place his owninterest above that of the government or party he
represents.

Article 217 – Malversation of PublicFundsorProperty- Presumption of Malversation

Modes:
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 modes:

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.

Malversation is also called embezzlement.

Appropriation – Every attempt to dispose of public funds or property

without a right to do so.

The public officer must have official custody or the duty to collect or receive
funds due the government, or the obligation to account for them, because
this provision presupposes abuse of office.

The nature of the duties of the public officer, not the name of the office, is
controlling. Thus, a clerk who receives money or property belonging to the
government, in the course of his employment, for which he is bound to
account, may be liable under Article 217.

If the public officer is not accountable for the funds or property but
someone else is, the crime committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an
abuse of confidence.
It is not necessary that the offender profited 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.

Negligence – the omission of reasonable care and caution which an ordinary

prudent person would have used in the same situation. The measure of
negligence is the standard of care commensurate with the occasion.

It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence.

This is one crime in the Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same
whether committed with dolo or through culpa.

Case

Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan

. Malversation consists not only ill misappropriation or converting public funds or

property to one's personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use
of or misappropriate them.

Ilogan vs. Sandiganbayan

In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds and that he did not have them in his
possession when demand therefor was made. There is even no need of direct
evidence of personal misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his
account and petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the same.

Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a
private individual when he agreed to act as depositary of the garnished dump truck.
Therefore, when the information charged him and Jaime Ancla before the
Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds or property, the prosecution was
in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being similarly
charged as a co-conspirator. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over the controversy and therefore all the proceedings taken below as
well as the Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, are null and void
for lack of jurisdiction

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.

Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is also not essential that there be
misappropriation because if present, the crime would be malversation.

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.

The act of leaving the country must be unauthorized or not permitted by

law.

The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible or accountable

officers from leaving without first liquidating their accountability. It is not
necessary that they really misappropriated public funds.

Article220–IllegalUseof 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. Despite the public purpose, the act
is punished because it remains a violation of the appropriations law.
\

CASE

Abdula vs people

The allegation of the movant/accused that good faith is a valid defense in a

prosecution for malversation as it would negate criminal intent on the part of
 the accused which the prosecution failed to prove, attention is invited to
pertinent law and rulings of the Supreme Court on the matter.

Regardless of damage or embarrassment to the public service.

Tetangco vs. Ombudsman

It was stated here that The elements of the offense, also known as technical
malversation, are: (1) the offender is an accountable public officer; (2) he
applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use;
and (3) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied is
different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or
ordinance. It is clear that for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary that
public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than that
provided for by law or ordinance.12 To constitute the crime, there must be a
diversion of the funds from the purpose for which they had been originally
appropriated by law or ordinance.13 Patently, the third element is not present
in this case.

Dela Cuesta vs. Sandiganbayan

In this case the element in the crime of technical malversation that public fund
be appropriated for a public use requires an earmarking of the fund or property
for a specific project.58 For instance there is no earmarking if money was part
of the municipality’s “general fund,” intended by internal arrangement for use in
paving a particular road but applied instead to the payrolls of
different barangay workers in the municipality. That portion of the general fund
was not considered appropriated since it had not been earmarked by law or
ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no allegation in the
informations that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been
earmarked for some specific expenditures.

Article 221 - Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds or Property

Modes
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:
1. Public officer has government funds in his possession;
2. He is under obligation to either:
a. make payment from such funds;
b. to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration
3. He maliciously fails to make the payment or refuses to make delivery.

Article222 – Officers Included inthePrecedingProvisions

These officers are include any:
1. Private individual who, in any capacity, have charge of any national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenue, or property
2. Administrator or depositary of funds or property that has been attached,
seized or deposited by public authority, even if owned by a private
individual.

Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “administrator.” A judicial

administrator in charge of settling the estate of the deceased is not covered by
the article. Conversion of effects in his trust makes him liable for estafa.

Private property is included, provided it is (1) attached, (2) seized or (3)

deposited by public authority.

CASE:

Stilgrove vs. Sabas

Respondent Sabas further failed to demonstrate courtesy and civility in the

discharge of his functions when he shouted at complainant Arthur Stilgrove the
words, "Return to your country your not welcome here!" Discourtesy and
disrespect have no place in the judiciary.] It is conduct unbecoming a court
employee. An officer of the court such as respondent Sabas is charged with the
duty to observe courtesy and civility in his official actuations with the public. As a
public officer, it is his obligation to act with courtesy, self-restraint and civility at all
times when dealing with the public even when he is confronted with rudeness and
insolence.
Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan

The Court, does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imputes a
dishonest purpose, some moral obliquity, and a conscious doing of a wrong.

UP Diliman Legal Office itself rendered a legal opinion that "confirmed the
authority of Dr. Dayco, while he was OIC Chancellor, to appoint Dr. Posadas as
project director and consultant of the TMC Project." Not only this, the COA
Resident Auditor, who at first thought that the OIC Chancellor had no power to
make the designations, later accepted the Legal Office's opinion and withdrew the
Notices of Suspension of payment that he issued. All these indicate a need for the
Court to reexamine its position that Dr. Dayco and Dr. Posadas acted in bad faith
in the matter of those appointments.

Article 223 – Conniving With orConsentingtoEvasion

Elements:
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. (“shall
consent to the escape”)ArClasses of prisoners involved
1. Those who have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;
2. Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in legal custody, arrested
for and charged with violation of some law or municipal ordinance.

Leniency, laxity, and release of a detention prisoner who could not be

delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in
the custody of a prisoner.

But there is real actual evasion of service of a sentence when the

custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a relaxation in his imprisonment
and to escape the punishment of being deprived of his liberty, thus making
the penalty ineffectual, although the convict may not have fled. This
includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes
the prisoner’s services for domestic chores.

aticle 224 – Evasion through Negligence

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a detention prisoner
or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence

This covers only positive carelessness and definite laxity which amounts to
deliberate non-performance of duties.
 The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped
from his custody does not afford complete exculpation.

Case:

Rodilla vs. Sandiganbayan

It is the duty of any police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary precautions
to assure the absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake these precautions will
make his act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance
of duty. His tolerance of arrangements whereby the prisoner and her companions could
plan and make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of a person of ordinary
prudence.

The petitioner here is not being charged with conniving under Art. 223 but for evasion
through negligence under Art. 224 of the same Code. It is, therefore, not necessary that
connivance be proven to hold him liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
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.

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 Article 156.

The party who is not the custodian but who conspired with the custodian in
allowing the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of the
prisoner.

Art. 225 is not applicable if a private person was the one who made the arrest
and he consented to the escape of the person he arrested.

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.
 Can only be committed by the public officer who is made the custodian of the
document in his official capacity. If the offender is a private individual, estafa
is committed; if there is no damage, malicious mischief.

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.

Case:

People vs Camacho

A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and

affirmed. The writing here in question proves nothing and confirms nothing; it is
not a document but merely a draft of one. Until approved or certified to by one
or more of the proper officials, it would not be entitled to filing in any public
office or archive and might be disapproved or even destroyed by the official
whose approval was necessary to give it effect, without giving rise to criminal
liability on his part.

People vs. Agnis

The pamphlets in question cannot be said to evidence a fact, agreement or

disposition. They are rather merchandise as any other article usually sent by
C.O.D. mail. For this reason we think that the act complained of does not come
within the sanction of said article 360 of the Penal Code. Nor can the act
complained of be held to constitute theft, since it is not alleged in the
information, nor was it proven, that the accused took the package with intent of
gain.

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.

In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not be given a literal

meaning. The custodian is liable even if the seal was not actually
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 objects 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.

The act should not fall under Art 227. Damage is also not necessary.

Article 229 – Revelation of Secrets by an Officer

Mode 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.

Mode 2: Wrongfully delivering 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.

Espionage is not contemplated in this article since revelation of secrets of the

State to a belligerent nation is already defined in Art 117 and CA 616.

Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of private persons are not
included.

“Charge” - means custody or control. If he is merely entrusted with the papers

and not with the custody thereof, he is not liable under this article.
 If the papers contain secrets which should not be published, and the public
officer having charge thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a
third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.

On the other hand, if the papers do not contain secrets, their removal for an
illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody of documents.

Damage is essential to the act committed.

Article 230 – Public Officers Revealing Secrets of Private Individuals

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.

Revelation to one person is sufficient. When the offender is a public attorney or a

solicitor, the act of revealing the secret should not be covered by Art 209 (Betrayal of
Trust).Damage to private individual is not necessary.

The reason for this provision is to uphold faith and trust in public service.

Article231 –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 the 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.

This does not apply if the order of the superior is illegal.

Article 233 – Refusal of Assistance

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his
cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service;
3. Offender maliciously fails to do so.

The request must come from one public officer to another. 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).

Applies whether or not serious damage to the public interest was committed.

If the offender is a private individual, he may be held liable for contempt.

Article234–Refusalto 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 duties of said office.

Once an individual is elected to an office by the will of the people,

discharge of duties becomes a matter of duty, not only a right. This only
applies for elective, not appointive officers.

Article 235 – Maltreatmentof Prisoners

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner;
3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under his charge either
b. By the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations;
c. By inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner;
d. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a confession or to obtain
some information from the prisoner.

This is committed only by such public officer charged with direct custody of
the prisoner.

Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries or damage caused.

If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and he manhandles
the latter, the crime is physical injuries.

The offended party can either be a convict by final judgment or a detention

prisoner. To be considered a detention prisoner, the person arrested must
be placed in jail even for just a short while.

The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries. Any kind of
punishment not authorized or although authorized if executed in excess of
the prescribed degree is covered.

Case :

Punzalan vs. People

Under Article 235, it is necessary that the maltreated prisoner be under the
charge of the officer maltreating him. There is no such allegation in the
information above quoted. The prisoners, Moises Escueta and Isidro Capino,
 according to the information, were simply kept in the Camp of the Philippine
Ground Force in the municipality of Tiaong; but it is not alleged therein that they were
under the charge of Punzalan as Mayor of Tiaong., Hence, one of the essential
elements of the offense under Article 235 was lacking.

Article 236 – Anticipation of Duties ofa Public Officer

Elements:
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment, either by
election or appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give
a bond;
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office;
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by
law.
Article 237 – Prolonging PerformanceofDutiesand Powers

Elements:
1. Offender is holding a public office
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provision for holding
such office, has already expired
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office.

The offenders here can be those suspended, separated, declared over-aged,

or dismissed.

Article 238 – Abandonment of Office orPosition

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He formally resigns from his position
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public service.

For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in written form.

Elements:

1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;

2. He:
a. makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his
authority; or
b. attempts to repeal a law; or
c. suspends the execution thereof.
Article 240 – Usurpation of Executive Functions
Elements:
1. Offender is a judge;
2. That he:
a. assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
b. obstructs the executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their
powers.

Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of powers

Article 241 – Usurpation of Judicial Functions

Elements:
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of the governmen
2. That he:
a. assumes judicial powers, or
b. obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any
judge within his jurisdiction.

Article 242 – Disobeying Request for Disqualification

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A proceeding is pending before such public officer
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his
jurisdiction, which is not yet decided
4. He has been lawfuly required to refrain fro continuing the proeeding
5. He continues the proceeding.

The disobedient officer is liable even if the jurisdictional question is resolved in

his favor.

Article 243 – Orders or Request by Executive Officer toAnyJudicialAuthority

Elements:
1. Offender is an executive officer;
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority;
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice.

The purpose is to maintain the independence of the judiciary from executive

dictations.
Article244–Unlawful Appointments

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefore;
4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualification at the
time he made the nomination or appointment.

This can also be covered by RA 3019.

Recommending, knowing that the person recommended is not qualified is not

a crime.

There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be

nominated or appointed to a public office.

Article 245 – Abuses against Chastity

Modes:
1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested
in matters pending before the offending officer for decision, or with respect
to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior
officer;
2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the
offender’s custody;
3.
Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of
any person in the custody of the offending warden or
officer.

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman;
3. Such woman is –
a. interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or
with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult
with a superior officer; or
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 relative within the same degree by
affinity of the person in the custody of the offender.

The crime is consummated by mere proposal.

The mother of the person in the custody of the public officer is not included.
 If the offender were not the custodian, then crime would fall under Republic
Act No. 3019.

Solicit – to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and

immoral to a woman. The advances must be immoral or indecent. Proof of
solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse.

Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape because the basis of

penalizing the acts is different from each other

Article 246 – Parricide

Elements:
1. Person is killed;
2. Deceased is killed by the accused;
3. Deceased is the accused's
a. legitimate/illegitimate father
b. legitimate/illegitimate motherlegitimate/illegitimate child (should not be
ess than 3 days old, otherwise crime is infanticide)
c. legitimate spouse

Case:

People vs Jumawan

This is the essential element of this crime – relationship of offender with

the victim; except for spouses, only relatives by blood and in direct line.
Hence, adopted children are not included.It must be alleged in the
information. Wife of victim cannot be convicted of parricide if charged only
with murder. However, relationship must be considered aggravating even

People vs. Echaluce

A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the commission of the crime
of parricide is not guilty of parricide but only homicide or murder, as the
case may be.

The law does not require knowledge of relationship between offender and
victim

People vs. Genosa

This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by his wife Marivic
Genosa, appellant herein. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of
appellant for parricide. The defense fell short of proving all three phases
of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing the relationship of
 Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but
appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the
past, she had gone through a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer
sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.

People vs. Subano

A case that the husband has 3 wife and killed the third wife. The best
proof is the marriage certificat. The killing was filed on murder but
relation shall be considered an aggravating circumstances even the
information was not allege in the information.

People vs. Majuri

He and the deceased had five children. He alluded in his testimony to

his father in law. That implies that the deceased was his lawful wife.
THe fact that he bitterly resented her infidelity. Her failure to visit him in
prison and her neglect of their children are other circumstances
confirmatory of their marital status.

Article 247 – Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances

Elements:
1. A legally married person, or a parent, surprises his spouse or his
daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with him in the act
of sexual intercourse with another person;
2. He or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts upon any or both of them
any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter;
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse.

Not a Felony
This article does not define a felony, rather it serves as a defense for a
person charged with parricide, homicide or serious physical injuries. If all the
requisites have been met, the defendant will be sentenced to destierro instead
of the severe penalty for the aforementioned crimes. If less serious or slight
physical injuries are inflicted, there is no criminal liability. [Reyes]

Article does not apply:

1. If the surprising took place before any actual sexual intercourse could be
done.
2. If the daughter is married. Although the article does not use the word
 “unmarried,” this article applies only when the daughter is single because
while under 18 and single, she is still under parental authority. If she is
married, her husband alone can claim the benefits of this article.

People vs. Cortez

In the case at bar, no motive for the killing has been established, and
granting that proof of particular motive for taking the life of a human being
is not indispensable to conviction for homicide, the absence of such motive
is nevertheless important in determining which of two conflicting theories is
more likely to be true. If sufficiently indicates, however, that she killed Maria
Bigay under the circumstances mentioned in article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code.

People vs. Marquez

In this case even assuming that the accused caught his wife rising up
and Isabelo cannot invoke the privilege of article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code, because he did not surprise the supposed offenders in the very act
of committing adultery, but thereafter, if the respective positions of the
woman and the man were sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they had
committed the carnal act.

People vs. Puedan.

In here the applenat invoke the defense of article 247 . 1. That a legally married
person (or a parent) surprises his spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age
and living with him), in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person.

2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any
serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.

3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or
that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

Article 248 – Murder

Elements:
1. Person was killed;
2. Accused killed him;
3. Killing attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances
a. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
b. in consideration of a price, reward or promise;
 c. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding
of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship,
by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin;
d. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
e. with evident premeditation;
f. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.

Murder – The unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or

infanticide with any of the circumstance mentioned in Art. 248.
 QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If there are more than one
alleged in the information for murder, only one will qualify the killing to
murder and the other circumstances will be taken as generic aggravating
circumstance.

Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 must be alleged in

the information. When the other circumstances are absorbed or included in
one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic
aggravating.

Case.
People vs. Valerio

Killing of a child of tender age is qualified by treachery.

INTENT TO KILL
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill becomes irrelevant. It is
important only if the victim did not die to determine if the felony is physical
injury or attempted or frustrated homicide.

“Employing means or persons to insure or afford impunity” – means are employed

by the accused to prevent his being recognized or to secure himself against
detection and punishment

PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE

The person who received the price or reward or who accepted a promise of
price or rewards and would not have killed the victim were it not for that price,
reward, or promise is a principal by direct participation.

The person who gave the price or reward or who made the promise is a
principal by induction.

FIRE
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial criminal intent of the offender
is considered. If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to kill and fire
was only used as a means to do so, the crime is
only murder. If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to destroy
property with the use of pyrotechnics and incidentally, somebody within the
premises is killed, the crime is arson with homicide, a single indivisible
crime penalized under Art. 326, which is death as a consequence of
arson.

POISON
Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in murder by poison only
if the offender has the intent to kill the victim by use of poison.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Act of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination to kill his victim.

It is absorbed in price, reward or promise, if without the premeditation the

inductor would not have induced the other to commit the act but not as
regards the one induced.

The prosecution must prove (1) the time when the offender determined
(conceived) to kill his victim; (2) an act of the offender manifestly indicating
that he clung to his determination to kill his victim; and (3) a sufficient lapse
of time between the determination and the execution of the killing.

CRUELTY
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty
requires that the victim be alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and,
therefore, there must be evidence to that effect.

Injuries or wounds, not necessary for the killing of the victim, must be
inflicted deliberately by the offender.

Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would amount to scoffing or
decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the killing to murder.

Case:

People vs. Baroquillo

Cleofe and Leonardo assert that the lower courts' assessment of their
defense of alibi as weak is erroneous because they were properly
supported by the testimonies of witnesses who were with them at the time
of the commission of the crime. The trial judge’s evaluation of the witness’
credibility deserves utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.
Furthermore, conclusions and findings of the trial court are entitled to great
weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and valid
reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine the
 demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the case.

People vs. Sabado

Appellate Courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the Trial Court,
as the latter is in a better position to decide the same, having heard witnesses
themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during trial unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and
value which, if considered, might affect the results of the case

People vs. Avendano

For treachery to exist 2 information should have been found 1. that at time
of attack the victim was not in the position to defend himself 2. the offender
consioucly adopted the particular means method or form of attack
employed by. him

People vs. Escarlos

Treacher requires to concurrence of 2 conditions 1. the employment of

means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self
defenseor retaliation. And 2. deliberate and conscious adoption of means
of execution

Article 249 – Homicide

Elements:
1. Person was killed;
2. Offender killed him without any justifying circumstances;
 3. offender had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
4. Killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide

Corpus delicti – means the actual commission of the crime charged

In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an

element of the offense, there must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of
death and (2) the identity of the victim

INTENT TO KILL
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Evidence of
intent to kill is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide.

In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. In physical injuries,

there is none. However, if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted, the
victim died, the crime will be homicide because the law presumes intent to
kill and punishes the result, and not the intent of the act. The accused will,
however, be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong.

Case:

People vs. Castillo

The element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with

negligence or imprudence.

People vs Bates

When an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self defense, it is
incumbent upon him to prove by convincing evidence that he acted self
defense

People vs. Pugay

Conspiracy is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a

felony and decided to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same
quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Article 250 - Penalty for Frustrated Parricide, Murder or Homicide

Courts may impose a penalty:

1. 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide
2. 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.
For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the courts, in view of the
facts of the case, may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that
imposed under Art. 50.