Group _

NAMES CASE DIGESTED

Julian Marvin V. Duba Laurel vs. Desierto

Government Service Insurance System vs. Executive Judge Maria A.
Cancino-Erum
Judge Narciso G. Bravo vs. Judge Ricardo M. Merdegia
Romeo R. Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Ernesto Hebron vs Judge Matias M. Garcia II
Hilario P. Soriano vs. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo
Ma. Luisa Hadjula vs. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda
Wendell Barreras-Sulit vs. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa
Timoteo A. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) vs. Hon. Orlando C.
Casimiro, Fidel C. Cu, Carmelita B. Zate, and Mary Lou S. Apelo
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, jr. vs. Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez
Office Of The Ombudsman vs. Filomena L. Villanueva
Jaime Hernandez Vs. Delfin Albano
Cecilia U. Legrama, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan
Aloysius Dait Lumauig vs. People of the Philippines
Arnold James M. Ysidoro vs People of the Philipines
Florencio B. Campomanes vs. People Of The Philippines
Civil Service Commission vs. Arlic Almojuela
Alfredo Rodillas Y Bondoc vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan And The
People Of The Philippines
Raymundo E. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines
The People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Galit
Melquiades A. Robles vs. Aurora A. Salvana
Jose Reyes y Vacio vs. People of the Philippines
Edward Thomas F. Joson VS. The Office of the Ombudsman
People of the Philippines vs. Yusop Tadah
People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alagao
People of the Philippines vs. Teresa Bernardo y Tambien
Antonio A. Lamera vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and The People of
the Philippines
Roberto P. de Guzman vs. Hernando B. Perez and Shirley F. Aberde
The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Perfecto Tayag and Atanasio
Morales
Ronnie Caluag vs People of the philippines
Federico Batolanon and Teodoro V. Nano vs.Hon. Roman A. Leorente
Jorge B. Navarra vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Samuel Namanama,
Felixberto Lazaro and Danilo Medina
People of the Philippines vs. Salvino Sumingwa
Globe Mackay Cable And Radio Corp., and Herbert C. Hendry vs. The
Honorable Court of Appeals and Restituto M. Tobias
Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, INC
 Title Seven
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Chapter One
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding
titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the
Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

Laurel vs. Desierto

381 SCRA 48
April 12, 2002

RULING:
The characteristics of a public office, include the delegation of sovereign functions, its
creation by law and not by contract, an oath, salary, continuance of the position, scope
of duties, and the designation of the position as an office. Did E.O. 128 delegate the
NCC with some of the sovereign functions of government? Certainly, the law did not
delegate upon the NCC functions that can be described as legislative or judicial. May
the functions of the NCC then be described as executive? The NCC performs executive
functions. The executive power "is generally defined as the power to enforce and
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance." The executive function, therefore, concerns the
implementation of the policies as set forth by law.
 Chapter Two
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Section One. - Dereliction of duty

Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. - Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual
absolute disqualification.

Government Service Insurance System vs. Executive Judge Maria A. Cancino-

Erum
A.M. No. Rtj-09-2182
September 5, 2012

RULING:
The dismissal of the charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct,
and knowingly rendering unjust judgment, as the OCA recommended, was justified
because the charges were really devoid of merit.

The charge of knowingly rendering unjust orders in Civil Case No. MC08-3660
levelled against Judge Valenzuela was bereft of factual support and legal basis. His
explanations for issuing the assailed orders, which the Court finds to be fully
substantiated by the records and the pertinent laws, are sufficient. In addition, we are
puzzled that GSIS did not resort to any of several adequate remedies, like bringing a
petition for certiorari or taking an appeal in due course, which remedies were available
at its disposal had it really considered the issuance of the orders and Judge
Valenzuela's explanations unwarranted or in contravention of the law.
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. - Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for
decision shall be punished by arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification.

Judge Narciso G. Bravo vs. Judge Ricardo M. Merdegia

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1430
October 22, 1999

RULING
It is apparent to us that the personal and professional relationship between
complainant and respondent is far from cordial, which cannot in any manner project a
good image for the Judiciary. Complainant had exceeded the bounds of propriety. After
his appeal from the adverse decision of respondent in Civil Case No. 4241, he wrote
respondent on 15 July 1997, using his official stationery, stating therein the errors
allegedly committed by respondent in his decision "which have been causing [him]
agony from the time [he] received the said decision and will continue to agonize him for
some indefinite period of time." Therein, complainant enumerated five "palpable errors"
allegedly committed by respondent, and he concluded: "In fine the merits of the case
was [sic] not judiciously considered by a magistrate of even with a mediocre ability." The
letter is a veritable Brief for the complainant in his appeal from the decision.

Clearly, he resorted to the wrong procedure. Worse, he lost his equanimity by

attacking the qualification of respondent and describing the latter as a magistrate with
an ability less than that of a mediocre judge. Worst, unsatisfied with his appeal,
complainant charged respondent in a criminal complaint with the offense of rendering a
manifestly unjust judgment through inexcusable negligence or ignorance of law under
Article 205 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order. - Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory
order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he
shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree
be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

Romeo R. Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 194169
2013-12-04

RULING:
“Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. x x x [And
when] the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule [are] manifest,” the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.
Evidently, a public officer who acts pursuant to the dictates of law and within the limits of
allowable discretion can hardly be considered guilty of misconduct.

Finding no irregularity in the acts of respondents, the Ombudsman did not

commit grave abuse of discretion in exonerating them from the administrative charge of
grave misconduct. As a matter of fact, its disposition is correct in every respect. Thus,
the Court’s policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of sound
discretion and judgment stands.
Article 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Ernesto Hebron vs Judge Matias M. Garcia II

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2334
November 14, 2012

RULING:
The failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period of
ninety (90) days constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanction against the erring judge. This is not only a blatant transgression
of the Constitution but also of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enshrines the
significant duty of magistrates to decide cases promptly.22 Under Section 9, Rule 140
of the Revised Rules of Court, delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a
less serious offense that is punishable by either (1) suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or (2) a fine
of more than P 10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. The sheer volume of Judge Garcia's
work may, at most, only serve to mitigate the penalty to be imposed upon him, as in the
case of Angelia where the fine was reduced to P5,000.00 given therein respondent
judge's 800 pending cases before his sala.

In the present case, we deem a fine of P2,000.00 sufficient, after considering

Judge Garcia's caseload of more than 3,700 pending cases. It is also our view that his
delay in resolving Hebron's motion for reconsideration was not prompted by bad faith or
malice, that even his complainant had later filed with the OCA a letter that sought the
withdrawal of the charges. Finally, we take note of the OCA's observation that the delay
committed by Judge Garcia involves a single motion, and that this is his first
administrative offense.
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the
punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.

Hilario P. Soriano vs. Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo

G.R. No. 163178
January 30, 2009

RULING:
The instant complaint against City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia of Manila be, as it is
hereby, dismissed

It must be noted that the violation of Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code requires
the presence of the following essential elements, to wit:

1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause
the prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses;

2. That there is 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; and

3. The offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.

In addition thereto, however, the Supreme Court in the case of U.S. vs.
Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194, ruled that:

The crime committed by the law-violator must be proved first. If the guilt of the
law-violator is not proved, the person charged with dereliction of duty under this
article is not liable.
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. - Revelation of secrets. - In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200
to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor ( procurador judicial) who,
by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice
his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case,
shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.

Ma. Luisa Hadjula vs. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda

A.C. No. 6711
2007-07-03

Ruling:
The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek
legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such
relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of
the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or
revealed during legal consultations.

The seriousness of the respondent’s offense notwithstanding, the Supreme Court

feels that there is room for compassion, absent compelling evidence that the
respondent acted with ill-will. Without meaning to condone the error of respondent’s
ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two former friends becoming bitter enemies
and filing charges and counter-charges against each other using whatever convenient
tools and data were readily available. Unfortunately, the personal information
respondent gathered from her conversation with complainant became handy in her
quest to even the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear to the Court that
respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in the
process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on
confidentiality.
 Section Two. - Bribery

Article 210. Direct bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and] not
less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed
upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding
paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of
prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not less than three times the value of
such gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of
special temporary disqualification.

The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators,
appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985).

Wendell Barreras-Sulit vs. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa

G.R. No. 196232
2014-01-28

RULING:
Apelo was accused of committing the crime of Direct Bribery, which has the
following elements: (a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he received directly
or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (c) that such gift, present or
promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act
not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to
do; and (d) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public
officer.

In view of such grave accusations against them, Cu and Zate resorted to mere
denials, while Apelo ignored the complaint by not filing a counter-affidavit despite due
notice, thus, miserably failing to debunk the charges hurled against them. Indubitably,
the foregoing establishes probable cause to believe that private respondents may have
indeed committed such acts constituting the crimes charged against them. As such,
they must defend themselves in a full-blown trial on the merits.
Article 211. Indirect bribery. - The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by
reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985).

Timoteo A. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 155574
November 20, 2006

RULING:
Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to
him by reason of his office. The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in
Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officer concerned must have
accepted the gift or material consideration. In the case at bar, was the prosecution able
to show that petitioner indeed accepted a gift from the Company? The alleged
borrowing of a vehicle by petitioner from the Company can be considered as the gift in
contemplation of the law. To prove that petitioner borrowed a vehicle from the Company
for 56 times, the prosecution adduced in evidence 56 delivery receipts allegedly signed
by petitioner’s representative whom the latter would send to pick up the vehicle.
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains
from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the
offense which was not prosecuted.

If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. (As
added by Sec. 4, RA No. 7659).
Article 212. Corruption of public officials. - The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted,
except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made
the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.

Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) vs. Hon. Orlando C. Casimiro,

Fidel C. Cu, Carmelita B. Zate, and Mary Lou S. Apelo
G.R. No. 206866
2012-09-02

RULING:

Cu and Zate were accused of committing the crime of Corruption of Public

Officials, the elements of which are as follows: (a) that the offender makes offers or
promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and (b) that the offers or promises
are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that
will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

In view of such grave accusations against them, Cu and Zate resorted to mere
denials, while Apelo ignored the complaint by not filing a counter-affidavit despite due
notice, thus, miserably failing to debunk the charges hurled against them. Indubitably,
the foregoing establishes probable cause to believe that private respondents may have
indeed committed such acts constituting the crimes charged against them. As such,
they must defend themselves in a full-blown trial on the merits.
 Chapter Three
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS

Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. - The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos,
or both, shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, 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, shall
enter into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme,
to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or
any of the following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than
those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or
objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs,
the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.
Article 214. Other frauds. - In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title
Ten, Book Two, of this Code, the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said provisions.
Article 215. Prohibited transactions. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during
his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or
speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.

Office Of The Ombudsman vs. Filomena L. Villanueva

G.R. No. 169198
2011-07-06

RULING:

The ratiocination of the CA that respondent should not have been held liable for
grave misconduct because of the supposed failure of Martinez to show undue influence
is mistaken. The relevant provision under which respondent was charged is Section
7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 which reads:

SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.- In addition to acts and omissions of

public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan
or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office
Article 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, or a fine ranging 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 provisions 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.

Jaime Hernandez Vs. Delfin Albano

G.R. No. L-19272
January 25, 1967

RULING:
In the case at bar, the charges are not directed against the corporations. Not
mere ownership of or title to shares is involved. Possession of prohibited interests is but
one of the essential components of the offense. As necessary an ingredient thereof is
the fact that petitioner was head of a department — Secretary of Finance. So also, the
fact that while head of department and chairman of the Monetary Board he allegedly
was financially interested in the corporations aforesaid which so the dollar allocations,
and that he had to act officially, in his dual capacity, not in Camarines Sur, but in Manila
where he held his office.

Since criminal action must be instituted and tried in the place where the crime or
an essential ingredient there of, took place, it stands to reason to say that the Manila
under the facts obtained here, have jurisdiction to investigate the violation complained
of.
 Chapter Four
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer
who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the
same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit
any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of
the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved
in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is
more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand
pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved
is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount
exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the
property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).

Cecilia U. Legrama, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 178626
2012-06-13

Ruling:
Malversation may be committed by appropriating public funds or property; by
taking or misappropriating the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, by permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; or by
being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code are:

1. That the offender be a public officer;

2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office;
3. That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

In the case at bar, after the government auditors discovered the shortage and
informed petitioner of the same, petitioner failed to properly explain or justify the
shortage that was subject to her accountability. Petitioner denied that she put the
amount involved to personal use and presented various sales invoice, chits, vale forms,
and disbursement voucher to prove her claim. Petitioner even went further by testifying
that the total amount of P681,000.00 appearing in a disbursement voucher were cash
advances given to the mayor during the height of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. - Any public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render
account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period,
or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.

Aloysius Dait Lumauig vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 166680
2014-07-07

RULING:
Article 218 consists of the following elements:

1. that the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated

therefrom;
2. that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission
on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and
4. that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be
rendered.

Nowhere in the provision does it require that there first be a demand before an
accountable officer is held liable for a violation of the crime. The law is very clear.
Where none is provided, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions, neither
may it engraft into the law qualifications not contemplated
Article 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. - Any
public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a
certificate from the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished
by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or
property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a
fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any
damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall
also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50
per cent of the sum misapplied.

Arnold James M. Ysidoro vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 192330
2012-11-14

RULING:
Ysidoro disregarded the guidelines when he approved the distribution of the
goods to those providing free labor for the rebuilding of their own homes. This is
technical malversation.

The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the

Revised Penal Code4 has three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public
officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some
public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is
different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or
ordinance. Ysidoro claims that he could not be held liable for the offense under its third
element because the four sacks of rice and two boxes of sardines he gave the CSAP
beneficiaries were not appropriated by law or ordinance for a specific purpose.

But the evidence shows that on November 8, 2000 the Sangguniang Bayan of
Leyte enacted Resolution 00-133 appropriating the annual general fund for 2001.6 This
appropriation was based on the executive budget 7 which allocated P100,000.00 for the
SFP and P113,957.64 for the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social
Services8 which covers the CSAP housing projects.9 The creation of the two items
shows the Sanggunian's intention to appropriate separate funds for SFP and the CSAP
in the annual budget.

Since the municipality bought the subject goods using SFP funds, then those
goods should be used for SFP's needs, observing the rules prescribed for identifying the
qualified beneficiaries of its feeding programs. The target clientele of the SFP
according to its manual are: 1) the moderately and severely underweight pre-school
children aged 36 months to 72 months; and 2) the families of six members whose total
monthly income is P3,675.00 and below. This rule provides assurance that the SFP
would cater only to the malnourished among its people who are in urgent need of the
government's limited resources.
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. - Any public officer under obligation to
make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be
punished by arresto mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.

This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.

The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than 50
pesos.
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal
funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized
or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

Florencio B. Campomanes vs. People Of The Philippines

G.R. No. 161950
December 19, 2006

RULING:
In the present case, the absence of the conditions contained in Section 2(1)(d) of
Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution prevents the creation of an obligation on the FIDE’s
part to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA. Consequently, Campomanes, as
representative of the FIDE which has no legal obligation to render an accounting,
cannot be liable under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code.

Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is the president of the FIDE, a

private foreign corporation with whom the PSC, through Hechanova, negotiated to
conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The Sandiganbayan
acknowledged that Campomanes is not a public officer and applied Article 222 of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The Sandiganbayan enumerated the
elements of the crime as applied to Campomanes thus:

1. That the offender is [a] private individual.

2. That he has charge of any insular (now national), provincial, or municipal funds,
revenues, or property or [is an] administrator or depository of funds, property
attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs
to a private individual.
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on
Audit, or to a provincial auditor.
4. That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be
rendered
 Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section One. - Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the escape
of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall
have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case
the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any
crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.

Civil Service Commission vs. Arlic Almojuela

G.R. No. 194368
2013-04-02

RULING:
The circumstantial evidence the CSC presented leads to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that, at the very least, SJO2 Almojuela consented to Lao’s getaway. The
keys found in SJO2 Almojuela’s room fit the padlock in the maingate, Lao’s most
possible point of egress. The fact that these keys should be in the safekeeping of JO1
Pascual and JO1 Robles does not clear SJO2 Almojuela from liability; on the contrary, it
should convince us of his involvement in Lao’s escape. It leads us to ask why the keys
were found in SJO2 Almojuela’s room, when the last person seen to possess the keys,
and the personnel who were supposed to safekeep them, was not SJO2 Almojuela.
SJO2 Almojuela’s bare allegations that he was set up cannot stand up against the
presumption of regularity in the performance of the investigating officers’ duty. This
presumption, when considered with the following pieces of evidence, leads us to no
other conclusion than SJO2 Almojuela’s implied consent to Lao’s escape.

In consenting to Lao’s escape, SJO2 Almojuela is guilty of gross misconduct in

the performance of his duties as Senior Jail Officer II, we find SJO2 Almojuela guilty of
gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as Senior Jail Officer II. Misconduct
has been defined as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”79
Misconduct becomes grave if it “involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be
established by substantial evidence.”80 In SJO2 Almojuela’s case, we hold it
established by substantial evidence that he consented to Lao’s escape from the Makati
City Jail. Thus, there was willful violation of his duty as Senior Jail Officer II to oversee
the jail compound’s security, rendering him liable for gross misconduct.
Article 224. Evasion through negligence. - If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through
the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer
shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualification.

Alfredo Rodillas Y Bondoc vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan And The People Of
The Philippines
G.R. No. L-58652
May 20, 1988

RULING:
Yes. The elements of the crime under Article 224 are: a) that the offender is a
public officer; b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and c) that such prisoner escapes
through his negligence.

There is no question that the petitioner is a public officer. Neither is there any
dispute as to the fact that he was charged with the custody of a prisoner who was being
tried for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

The only disputed issue is the petitioner’s negligence resulting in the escape of
detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to is such definite laxity as
all but amounts to a deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard.

It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted negligently and beyond the
scope of his authority when he permitted his charge to create the situation which led to
her escape. As a police officer who was charged with the duty to return the prisoner
directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearly a violation of the regulations.
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. - Any private person to
whom the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who
shall commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed for the public officer.
 Section Two. - Infidelity in the custody of document
Article 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. - Any public officer who shall remove,
destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage
shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been
serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual disqualification shall be imposed.

Raymundo E. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. Nos. 192698-99
2013-04-22

RULING:
The petition is impressed with merit.

An accused may be held criminally liable of Infidelity in the Custody of

Documents under Article 226 of the RPC, provided that the following elements are
present:

1. The offender must be a public officer;

2. There must be a document abstracted, destroyed or concealed;
3. The document destroyed or abstracted must be entrusted to such public
officer by reason of his office; and
4. Damage or prejudice to the public interest or to that of a third person must be
caused by the removal, destruction or concealment of such document

The Sandiganbayan believed that Zapanta took part in the conspiracy to commit
the offenses charged because of the following circumstances: 1] Zapanta was then the
vault keeper and as such had access to the certificates of title kept therein; 2] It was the
official duty of Zapanta to pull out a title from the vault upon request of authorized and
proper officers of the RD; 3] Dr. Ang was informed by Zapanta that the original copy of
TCT No. T-256662 could not be found in the particular volume where it was supposed
to have been filed inside the vault and that he promised to look for the missing title; and
4] Zapanta confirmed during the preliminary hearing at the PAOCTF-Davao Satellite
Office that the subject title was indeed missing.

Clearly, the Sandiganbayan had no basis to convict Zapanta because the

prosecution failed to produce the evidence necessary to overturn the presumption of
innocence. Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered to indicate
that he had taken part in the alleged conspiracy to commit the crimes charged.
Otherwise, a careless use of the conspiracy theory could send to jail even innocent
persons who may have only been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds really
responsible for those irregularities.
Article 227. Officer breaking seal. - Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property
sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification
and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Article 228. Opening of closed documents. - Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next
preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed
papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor,
temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
 Section Three. - Revelation of secrets
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. - Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to
him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he
may have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos
if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the
public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. - Any public officer to whom the secrets
of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall
suffer the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
 Chapter Six
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Article 231. Open disobedience. - Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter
and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a
fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior
officer. - Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his
superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and perpetual special
disqualification.
Article 233. Refusal of assistance. - The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to
lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall result
in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to
a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused,
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishment not
authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the
prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused.

The People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Galit

G.R. No. L-51770
1985-03-20

RULING:
After a review of the records, We find that the evidence presented by the
prosecution does not support a conviction. In fact, the findings of the trial court relative
to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by competent evidence. Trial
courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the taking of
any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving
one. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, set aside, and
another one entered acquitting the accused Francisco Galit of the crime charged. Let
him be released from custody immediately unless held on other charges.
 Section Two. - Anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office.
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. - Any person who shall assume the performance of
the duties and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the
bond required by law, shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied
with the respective formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. - Any public officer shall continue to exercise
the duties and powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law,
regulation or special provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in
its minimum period, special temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position. - Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book
Two of this Code, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, and by arresto mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any other crime.

Melquiades A. Robles vs. Aurora A. Salvana

G.R. No. 192074
2013-06-10

RULING:
Respondent’s continued absence from her post would have been deemed
abandonment from her office. Resignation from public office, to be effective, requires
the acceptance of the proper government authority.

Resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form, express or

implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce, and relinquish the office and the
acceptance by competent and lawful authority. To constitute a complete and operative
resignation from public office, there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the
term; (b) an act of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority.

In our jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to

be operative and effective. Without acceptance, resignation is nothing and the officer
remains in office. Resignation to be effective must be accepted by competent authority,
either in terms or by something tantamount to an acceptance, such as the appointment
of the successor. A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is
accepted, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 238 of the
Revised Penal Code. The final or conclusive act of a resignation’s acceptance is the
notice of acceptance. The incumbent official would not be in a position to determine the
acceptance of his resignation unless he had been duly notified therefor
 Section Three. - Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. - The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon
any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either
by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law
or suspending the execution thereof.
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions. - Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayorin its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the
Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision
rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.

Jose Reyes y Vacio vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. Nos. 177105-06
August 12, 2010

RULING:
Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code states:

xxx The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correcional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the
government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any
order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.

In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to

perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge.44 However,
the petitioner’s task as Provincial Adjudicator when he rendered judgment in DARAB
Case No. 034 BUL’88 was to adjudicate the claims of the opposing parties. As such, he
performed a quasi-judicial function, closely akin to the function of a judge of a court of
law. He could not be held liable under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore,
considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking
herein
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. - Any public officer who, before the question of
jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so
doing, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. - Any executive officer who
shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business
coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
Article 244. Unlawful appointments. - Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Edward Thomas F. Joson VS. The Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. Nos. 210220-21
March 6, 2012

RULING:
The Court agrees with the findings of the Ombudsman that there was no
sufficient evidence to indict the respondents for the crimes of violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019 and unlawful appointment.

The Ombudsman concluded that there could be no legal basis to support a

finding that Governor Umali violated Article 244 of the RPC considering that Ferdinand
was not appointed to a government office; and that, there could be no finding that the
respondents violated R.A. No. 3019 considering that the alleged irregularity in the
engagements of Ferdinand was not shown by substantial evidence.

The Court stated that a consultancy service is not considered government

service.

Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 93-1881 dated May 25, 1993, a contract for
consultancy services is not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations because
the said position is not found in the index of position titles approved by DBM.
Accordingly, it does not need the approval of the CSC. A "consultant" is defined as one
who provides professional advice on matters within the field of his specific knowledge or
training.There is no employer-employee relationship in the engagement of a consultant
but that of client-professional relationship
 Section Four. - Abuses against chastity
Article 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. - The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman
interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is
required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under
his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any
person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods and temporary special disqualification.
 Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One. - Illegal Detention
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.

People of the Philippines vs. Yusop Tadah

G.R. No. 186226
February 1, 2012

RULING:
We deny the appeal, but modify the penalty and awarded indemnity.

We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.

Since the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
conspired to kidnap the victims for ransom, and kidnapped and illegally detained them
until they were released by the accused after the latter received the ₱2,000,000.00
ransom, the imposable penalty is death as provided for in the second paragraph of
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

The aggravating circumstance of using a motorized vehicle and motorized

watercrafts, while alleged and proven, cannot affect the imposable penalty because
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that in all cases in which the law prescribes
a single indivisible penalty (like reclusion perpetua and death), it shall be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.

The CA correctly reduced the appellant’s sentence from death penalty to

reclusion perpetua
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private
individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of
any of circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the
crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution
of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable
ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.

People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alagao

G.R. No. L-20721
April 30, 1966

RULING:
It is the view of the court a quo that the information alleges the commission of
two distinct crimes, one, for unlawful arrest, and, the other, for incriminatory
machinations.

We, therefore, held that the information in question in the present case contains
allegations properly charging the commission of the complex crime of incriminatory
machinations thru unlawful arrest.

The crime of unlawful arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or imprisonment of

from one month and one day to six months, and a fine not exceeding P500.00; 5 and
the crime of incriminatory machinations is punishable with arresto mayor, or
imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months. 6 Under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, in complex crimes, the penalty for the most serious offense shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. And so, in the present case,
in the event of conviction, the penalty for the crime of unlawful arrest should be imposed
in its maximum period
 Section Two. - Kidnapping of minors
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail
to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

People of the Philippines vs. Teresa Bernardo y Tambien

G.R. No. 144316
March 11, 2002

Ruling:
The crime committed by appellant in the case at bar falls under Article 270 of the
Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. – The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a
minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

It has two essential elements, namely: (1) the offender is entrusted with the
custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians (People vs. Bondoc, 232 SCRA 478 [1997]). In People
vs. Ty (263 SCRA 745 [1996]), we stated that the essential element of the crime of
kidnapping and failure to return a minor is that the offender is entrusted with the custody
of the minor, but what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but
rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians. Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised
Penal Code must imply something more than mere negligence – it must be
premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. - The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the
home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the
mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or
both.
 Section Three. - Slavery and Servitude
Article 272. Slavery. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of
enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.
Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in
order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will,
as household servant or farm laborer.
 Chapter Two
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. - Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.
Article 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. - The penalty
of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally
wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver
said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.

Antonio A. Lamera vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and The People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 93475
June 5, 1991

RULING:
No, the SC affirmed that the Articles penalize different and distinct offenses. The
rule on double jeopardy, which petitioner has, in effect, invoked, does not, therefore,
apply pursuant to existing jurisprudence. Hence, the petition should be dismissed for
lack of merit.

Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent
court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

He is charged for two separate offenses under the Revised Penal Code. In
People vs. Doriquez, the SC held that it is a cardinal rule that the protection against
double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. Where
two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to
one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise
from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential
element of the other.

The two informations filed against petitioner are clearly for separate offenses.
The first, for reckless imprudence (Article 365), falls under the sole chapter (Criminal
Negligence) of Title Fourteen (Quasi Offenses) of Book Two of the Revised Penal
Code. The second, for Abandonment of one's victim (par. 2, Art. 275), falls under
Chapter Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty
and Security) of Book Two of the same Code.

Quasi offenses under Article 365 are committed by means of culpa. Crimes
against Security are committed by means of dolo.
Article 276. Abandoning a minor. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which
is incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger
only, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty
provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. - The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having
charge of the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other
persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the
latter, without the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them
the education which their station in life require and financial conditions permit.

Roberto P. de Guzman vs. Hernando B. Perez and Shirley F. Aberde

G.R. No. 156013
July 25, 2006

RULING:
According to PD 603: “Art. 59. Crimes. Criminal liability shall attach to any parent
who: (4) Neglects the child by not giving him the education which the family's station in
life and financial conditions permit.

The crime has the following elements:

1. the offender is a parent;
2. he or she neglects his or her own child;
3. the neglect consists in not giving education to the child and
4. the offender's station in life and financial condition permit him to give an
appropriate education to the child”

The law is clear. The crime may be committed by any parent. Liability for the
crime does not depend on whether the other parent is also guilty of neglect. The law
intends to punish the neglect of any parent, which neglect corresponds to the failure to
give the child the education which the family's station in life and financial condition
permit. The irresponsible parent cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his
neglect by invoking the other parent's faithful compliance with his or her own parental
duties

The "neglect of child" punished under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also a crime
(known as "indifference of parents") penalized under the second paragraph of Article
277 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, it is excluded from the coverage of RA 7610
Article 278. Exploitation of minors. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under
sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who
shall employ any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child
under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any
of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the
penalty shall in every case be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or
curator; and in the case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or
perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. - The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the
preceding articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any
other felonies defined and punished by this Code.
 Section Two. - Trespass to dwelling
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another
against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for
the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person,
nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses,
while the same are open.

The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Perfecto Tayag and Atanasio Morales
G.R. No. L-40512
March 3, 1934

RULING:
The act committed by the appellants simply constitutes the crime of attempted
trespass to dwelling, as defined in article 280, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code,
that is, trespass committed by means of violence.

In every criminal proceeding, the guilt of the accused must be proven by means
of competent and conclusive evidence and should never be based on mere inferences,
however reasonable these may be, particularly when there still remains, as in this case,
a sufficient indication of the existence of an intention different from that of committing
robbery. It would be arbitrary, not to say absurd, to suppose that had the appellants
succeeded in entering the store of said Juan Nicasio Go Cuay, they would have carried
away all the goods therein, because they would not have been able to do so by
themselves, not having any vehicle at their disposal.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass. - The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of
another, while either or them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser
has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
 Section Three. - Threats and Coercion
Article 282. Grave threats. - Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person,
honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition.

Ronnie Caluag vs People of the philippines

G.R. No. 171511
March 4, 2009

RULING:
Given the surrounding circumstances, the offense committed falls under Article
282, par. 2 (grave threats) since: (1) killing or shooting someone amounts to a crime,
and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to a condition. Article 285, par. 1 (other light
threats) is inapplicable although it specifically states, "shall threaten another with a
weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel", since it presupposes that the threat to
commit a wrong will not constitute a crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there are three kinds of threats: grave threats
(Article 282), light threats (Article 283) and other light threats (Article 285). These
provisions state:

Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he
threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or
imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have
attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty
lower by two degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be

imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat
shall not have been made subject to a condition.

Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
 1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding
article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it
be in lawful self-defense.
Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner
expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.

Federico Batolanon and Teodoro V. Nano vs.Hon. Roman A. Leorente

G.R. No. L-17994
August 31, 1963

RULING:
The crime charged against the appellants is light threat. Article 283 of the
Revised Penal Code provides the following:

A threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner

expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto
mayor.

In the case at bar, the offense charged is light threat which is punishable by
arresto mayor under article 283 of the Revised Penal Code and prescribes in five
years.1 The threat was committed on 13 September 1956 and the complaint was filed in
court on 10 December 1956. It was filed well within the period of five years.

The correlation between articles 283 and 282, subdivision 1, of the Revised
Penal Code is confined only to the manner of committing the threat, such as demanding
money or imposing any other condition, without changing or altering the penalties each
imposes. Article 282 refers to threat to commit a wrong amounting to a crime, whereas
article 283, to a wrong not amounting to a crime.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior. - In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the
person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he
shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Article 285. Other light threats. - The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall
threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not
constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved
in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions
of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right
or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to
prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Jorge B. Navarra vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Samuel Namanama, Felixberto

Lazaro and Danilo Medina
G.R. No. 176291
December 4, 2009

RULING:
The Court finds for petitioner.

For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be established: 1) that a
person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or
compulsion is effected by violence, threats, or intimidation; and 3) that the person who
restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the
restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right

In the case at bar, the affidavits of petitioner and his witnesses prima facie show
that the elements of grave coercion are present.
Article 287. Light coercions. - Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to
his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less
than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5
pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

People of the Philippines vs. Salvino Sumingwa

G.R. No. 183619
October 13, 2009

RULING:
Appellant was charged with Unjust Vexation, defined and penalized by Article
287 of the RPC, which reads:

ART. 287. Light coercions. – Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of
the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine
equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.

Any other coercion or unjust vexation shall be punished by arresto menor or a

fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.

The second paragraph of this provision is broad enough to include any human
conduct that, although not productive of some physical or material harm, could
unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. The paramount question to be
considered is whether the offender’s act caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress,
or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it was directed.62

Appellant’s acts of embracing, dragging and kissing AAA in front of her friend
annoyed AAA. The filing of the case against appellant proved that AAA was disturbed, if
not distressed by the acts of appellant.

Accordingly, appellant is sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine

of ₱200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof.
Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by
means of tokens.) - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or
compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by
such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the
laborer or employee.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence
or threats. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike of
laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force
the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work, if the act shall not
constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
 Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. - The penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any
private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and
reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor
to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

Globe Mackay Cable And Radio Corp., and Herbert C. Hendry vs. The Honorable
Court of Appeals and Restituto M. Tobias
G.R. NO. 81262
August 25, 1989

RULING:
In the instant case, however, the trial court made a finding that petitioners acted
in bad faith in filing the criminal complaints against Tobias, observing that Defendants
(petitioners herein) filed with the Fiscal's Office of Manila a total of six (6) criminal cases,
five (5) of which were for estafa thru falsification of commercial document and one for
violation of Art. 290 of the Revised Penal Code "discovering secrets thru seizure of
correspondence," and all were dismissed for insufficiency or lack of evidence." The
dismissal of four (4) of the cases was appealed to the Ministry of Justice, but said
Ministry invariably sustained the dismissal of the cases. As above adverted to, two of
these cases were refiled with the Judge Advocate General's Office of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines to railroad plaintiffs arrest and detention in the military stockade, but
this was frustrated by a presidential decree transferring criminal cases involving civilians
to the civil court.

To be sure, when despite the two (2) police reports embodying the findings of Lt.
Dioscoro Tagle, Chief Document Examiner of the Manila Police Department, clearing
plaintiff of participation or involvement in the fraudulent transactions complained of,
despite the negative results of the lie detector tests which defendants compelled plaintiff
to undergo, and although the police investigation was "still under follow-up and a
supplementary report will be submitted after all the evidence has been gathered,"
defendants hastily filed six (6) criminal cases with the city Fiscal's Office of Manila, five
(5) for estafa thru falsification of commercial document and one (1) for violation of Art.
290 of the Revised Penal Code, so much so that as was to be expected, all six (6)
cases were dismissed
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity,
shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.

Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, INC

G.R. No. 172835
December 13, 2007

RULING:
No. The products are covered by the exception of trade secrets being divulged in
compulsory disclosure. The Court affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals which
upheld the finding of the RTC that there is substantial basis for respondent to seek
protection of the law for its proprietary rights over the detailed chemical composition of
its products.

The Supreme Court has declared that trade secrets and banking transactions are
among the recognized restrictions to the right of the people to information as embodied
in the Constitution. SC said that the drafters of the Constitution also unequivocally
affirmed that, aside from national security matters and intelligence information, trade or
industrial secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other related laws) as
well as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act), are also
exempted from compulsory disclosure.

A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound

known only to its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide
it. The definition also extends to a secret formula or process not patented, but known
only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a
commercial value. American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors to
determine if an information is a trade secret, to wit:

1. the extent to which the information is known outside of the employer’s

business;
2. the extent to which the information is known by employees and others
involved in the business;
3. the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the
information;
4. the value of the information to the employer and to competitors;
5. the amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the
information; and
6. the extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through
an independent source
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge,
employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner
thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.