CHAP 4. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
It consists in the
1. Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of
malversation (Art. 217)
2. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218);
3. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before
leaving the country (Art. 219);
4. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220)
5. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221);
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, or 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 prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if
the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed
200 pesos.
2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor
in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than 200 pesos but
does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the
amount involved is more than 6,000 pesos but is less than 12,000 pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusión temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if
the amount involved is more than 12,000 pesos but is less than 22,000
pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusión
temporal in its medium and maximum periods.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of
perpetual special disqualification and a fine ranging from one-half to the total
value of the funds or 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 uses.
Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement.
misappropriation or conversion of public funds or property to one’s personal
use or knowingly, or through abandonment or negligence allowing other to
use or appropriate the same.
Acts punishable in malversation:
1. By appropriating public funds or prop
a. It includes every attempt to dispose of the public funds/prop
without right.
b. X was a municipal treasurer and also deputy provincial
treasurer, receiving as salary P25 per month and for the
latter P10 per month. It was found by the auditor that there
was a difference of P49 between the amount for which X
was responsible and the amount counted by the auditor. X,
by paying himself his salary of P10 a month committed
malversation.
2. By taking or misappropriating the same
a. A teller was leaving the office with public funds which had
been collected from the taxpayers then the NBI arrested and
searched him and found the money in the teller’s pocket.
The public funds or prop taken need not be misappropriated,
as “taken” is separated by “or” from “misappropriation”
3. By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person to take such public funds or prop
a. A mun. treas. who cashed with public funds private checks
drawn in favor of his wife , the drawer not having enough
cash in the drawee bank and thereby violating standard
regulations
b. Must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable,
approximating malice or fraud.
c. The postmaster used a petromax light which went out due to
lack of kerosene. Total darkness prevented him from
returning the money to the combination safe. The next
morning, the checks were gone and the lock was forcibly
opened. (People v. Pili)
4. By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or prop.
The penalty for Malversation is the same whether committed with
malice or through negligence or imprudence.
ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTS MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY :
a. That the offender be a public officer (or private person if entrusted with
public funds or connived with public officers)
b. That he had the custody or control of funds or property (if not
accountable for the funds, theft or qualified theft)
c. That those funds or property were public funds or property (even if
private funds if attached, seized, deposited or commingled with public funds)
d. That he:
1. Appropriated the funds or property
2. Took or misappropriated them
3. Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any
other person to take such public funds or property. (it is not necessary
that the offender profited thereby. His being remiss in the duty of
safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed)
The offender in Malversation under ART 217 must be a PUBLIC
OFFICER as defined in ART 203.
Nature of the duties of the public officer, NOT name of office, is
controlling.
That the person accused is a mere clerk and not a bonded officer is of no
legal consequence. The vital fact is that he is an employee of, or in some
way connected with, the govt and that, in the course of his employment, he
receives money or prop belonging to the govt for which he is bound to
account. An emergency employee entrusted with the collection or custody of
public funds may also be held liable.
Certain officials held guilty of malversation:
1. Municipal president who spent for himself P60 which he had
received of the superintendent of schools, as rent (US v. Togonon)
2. Justice of the peace who was found short after examination of his
accounts for fees, fines and costs collected by him. (US v. Sagun)
3. Municipal Secretary who conducted a public auction for the sale of
fishing privileges, misappropriated the deposited amount of bid for
himself. (US v. Lafuente)
Funds or Prop must be received in Official Capacity
A municipal councilor who received P5 for a permit to slaughter animals but
misappropriated the same is guilty of ESTAFA and NOT malversation
because he did not receive it in his official capacity. He had no duty to collect
or receive slaughter fee.
A public officer having only a qualified charge of Gov’t prop without
authority to part with physical possession of it unless upon order from
his immediate superior, CANNOT be held for Malversation. He is rather
guilty of THEFT. (US v. Webster)
The abstraction of funds from a safe by a clerk without the consent of the
person charged with their custody, with the intent to convert them to his own
use, is liable of THEFT. Although he is entrusted with the combination and
the key of the safe, he had no control over its contents and was not
authorized to open the safe. (US v. Wichersham)
Webster and Wickersham cases NOT applicable when the accused had
authority to receive money pertaining to the Gov’t..
In a case, the appellant does not dispute his accountability for the public
funds. He only argues that because he could not disburse such funds without
any order from superior authority (qualified charge of the prop), he is only
liable for theft. This argument is erroneous. It is the nature of the duties, and
NOT his performance of those duties, that determines the character of his
offense. (US v. Velasquez)
ESTAFA thru Misappropriation MALVERSATION
ART 315 (1) (B)
Both involve the misappropriation of funds or prop
It is usually committed by a private It is committed by public officers with
individual duty to have custody or control of
funds
The funds or prop misappropriated The funds or prop is public fund or
are privately owned prop
The offender appropriates Personal appropriate is NOT
personally the funds or prop indispensable because it may also be
committed by permitting others to
misappropriate
Private Individuals in Conspiracy with public officers guilty of
Malversation under ART 217 are liable of Malversation.
A janitor and 5 policemen who aided the municipal treasurer by taking the
safe containing money from the municipal treasury and carrying it to another
place and then and there taking the contents thereof were also guilty of
malversation. (US v. Ponte)
Under ART 222, Private Individuals are liable for Malversation.
ART 217 shall apply to:
1. Private Individuals who, in any capacity whatsoever, have charge of
national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or prop and to
2. Any Administrator or Depository of funds or prop attached, seized or
deposited by Public authority (ART 222)
Gov’t funds include Revenue funds and Trust funds
Considered public funds
1. Red Cross, Anti-TB Society, Boy Scouts funds
2. Postal money orders
3. Money received by sheriff as redemption price
4. Money for indemnification of damages
5. NARIC funds received by a mun. treas. as ex oficio in charge of the
funds of the NARIC in the municipality.
6. Proceeds of sale of sweepstake tickets
Public property.
1. Firearms or explosives seized from persons not authorized to
possess the same, which are in the custody of peace officers
2. Materials of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry which are in the
custody of a bonded warehouseman
Note: When the Mun. Treas. drew gov’t funds corresponding to the face
value of the check w/c was previously endorsed by the complainant, the
funds became PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Mun Treas is liable of ESTAFA.
Private fund and prop may be involved in Malversation
Those funds or property though belonging to a private individual, are placed
in the custody of public officers. Art 217 apply to Administrator or Depository
of funds or prop attached, seized, or deposited by public authority (ART 222)
This also contemplates those private funds for public purpose such as
donations from private citizens.
Test to determine Negligencein Malversation through abandonment or
negligence
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, he is negligent.
The measure of negligence is the standard of care commensurate with
the occassion
To entrust to a mere driver the delicate task of supervising the proper
delivery of big sums of money is a proof of negligence and abandonment of
his duties as a finance officer. (People v. Torres)
In Malversation not committed thru negligence, LACK OF CRIMINAL
INTENT or GOOD FAITH is a DEFENSE.
- When an accountable public officer makes a wrong payment through
honest mistake as to the law or to the facts concerning his duties, he is not
liable for malversation but civilly liable.
- A municipal officer, who in good faith paid out public funds, persons in
accordance with the resolution of the municipal council, but the payments
were made in violation of the law, because of insufficient vouchers or
improper evidence, is only civilly liable, there being no criminal intent
Failure to have duly forthcoming public funds or property upon
demandis a prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or
prop to personal uses
1. The failure or inability of the accused to refund the shortage upon demand
by the duly authorized offices, notwithstanding that the demand was made
verbally.
2. The disappearance of public funds in the hands of an accountable public
officer
3. The shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily
The presumption may be rebutted by satisfactory evidence of loss or
robbery committed by a person other than the accused. (US v. Kalingo)
The burden of defense rests upon the accused.
The Return of the funds malversed is only MITIGATING Circumstance,
NOT exempting. (PAR 7-ART13)
Where the partial resititution of the shortage was made 7 years after the
swindling took place and after one of the accused was already convicted,
there is no prompt refund of the shortage, and the accused CANNOT be
credited with a mitigating circumstance.
When the shortage is paid by the public officer from his pocket, he is
NOT liable for Malversation
Borrowing money to replace missing funds-when NOT malversation
The fact that the amount in cash which a mun treas should have in his cafe
was fully covered by an amount borrowed from one of his clerks does not
relieve the treasurer from criminal responsibility as he did not explain why the
amount is in his clerk’s possession.
But when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his office and borrow
the sum alleged to be the shortage and later the missing amount is found in
some unaccustomed place in his office, he is not liable for malversation.
Demand not necessary in malversation.The last par of ART 217 only
proved for a rule of procedural law, a rule of evidence. It merely raises a
prima facie evid that missing funds have been put to personal use.
A person whose negligence made possible the commission of
malversation by another is held liable as principal by indispensable
cooperation in the complex crime of malversation thru falsification of a
public document by reckless negligence.
Damage to the Government, not necessary.The penalty provided under
ART 217 is the amount involved, not the amount of the damage cause to the
government.
The source of the fund, the nature of the fund, the status of the fund
held is material in Malversation
Is there a presumption that the prosecution of malversation?
YES. When public officer or employee fails to give after the demand has
been made. Deemed to have misappropriated. Even if he
returns, he can still be charged. IN one case she decides the accused was a
foreign service officer who was then posted in Kuwait. During the war, he
was given petty cash to shoulder expenses to attend the needs of OFW.
11,000. He was not able to liquidate within the period allowed. He was
already in Philippines when he submitted the demand letter. He was charged
for malversation. Eventually he was charged and filed in MTC (below grade
27). SC said if it can be shown that there was good faith in the failure to
return the account, the presumption will not apply.
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 prisión correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
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 property.
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.
Demand for accounting is NOT necessary. It is sufficient that
there is a law or regulation requiring him to render account.
Reason why Mere failure to render account is punished
The law does not so much contemplate the possibility of
malversation as the need of enforcing by a penal provision the
performance of the duty incumbent upon every public employee who
handles govt funds to render an account of all he receives or has in
his charge by reason of his employment.
Misappropriation is NOT necessary. If there is misappropation, he
 would also be liable for MALVERSATION under ART 217. public fund for another public purpose will not make the accused
guilty of violation of ART 220.

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.
The public funds or prop must be appropriated by law or
ordinance for a particular purpose.
Note that the accused can be held liable under ART 217 if the funds
applied to a public use are NOT appropriated by law or ordinance
because he disposed of the same without right.

Example of Illegal Use of Public Funds.

ELEMENTS: When the school teachers and other municipal officers were unable
1. That the offender is a public officer. to recieve their salaries because the treasurer applied the funds,
2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property. appropriated from the payment of said salaries, to another public
3. That he must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the use, there is detriment and hindrance to the public service.
Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a certificate
showing that his accounts have been finally settled. Illegal use of public funds Malversation
or Prop/ Technical under ART 217
The act of leaving the country must be unauthorized or not permitted by law. Malversation
under ART 220
Offenders are Accountable Public officers
ARTICLE 220. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property. — Any public The offender does not derive The offender, in certain
officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any personal gain or profit cases, profits from the
any public use other than that for which such fund or property were proceeds of the crime.
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prisión The public fund or prop is The public fund or prop is
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total applied to another public use applied to the personal use
of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or and benefit of the offender or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the of another person
offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
Technical malversation is NOT included in nor does it
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds.
penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.
Technical malversation does NOT include personal conversion
ELEMENTS: that falls under Malversation
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That there is public fund or property under his administration. ARTICLE 221. Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds or Property. —
3. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or Any public officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds
ordinance (without this, it is simple malversation even if applied to in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by
other public purpose). arresto mayor and a fine of from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed
4. That he applies the same to a public use other than for which such to pay.
fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by
There is no Technical malversation if there is no law or competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his
ordinance appropriating public funds or property for a particular administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.
purpose.
In Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the use of a
The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale.
that it shall not be less than 50 pesos.
The act is not estafa because the prop alleged to have been misapplied was
not the subject of a mere private bailment but of a judicial deposit. This gives
Acts punishable:
the depository a character equal to that of a public official.
1. By failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to
make such payment from Gov’t funds in his possession.
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “Administrator”
2. By refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by
Judicial Administrator NOT covered by this article. Conversion of effects
competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his
in his trust makes him liable for ESTAFA.
administration
Private prop is included, provided it is:
ELEMENTS:
1. Attached
1. Offender has gov’t funds or property in his possession
2. Seized, or
2. He is under obligation to either:
3. Deposited by Public Authority
a. make payment from such funds
b. to deliver property in his custody or administration when
“even if such prop belongs to a private individual” is a sweeping
ordered by competent authority
statement so as to include a case where private funds or prop are
3. He maliciously fails or refuses to do so
involved, as long as they are in custody of accountable public
officers.
Note: Penalty is based on value of funds/property to be delivered
CHAPTER FIVE
Refusal to make delivery of prop must be MALICIOUS Infidelity of Public Officers
Thus, a stenographer who retains the stenographic notes for the purpose of
transcribing the same does not commit a violation. The prosecution did not
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners (Art 223-224)
prove damage to public interest. (People v. Jubila)

2. Infidelity in the Custody of Documents ( Aty 226-228)

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, 3. Revelation of secrets (Art 229-230)
revenues or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such SECTION ONE
property belongs to a private individual. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners

PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER ARTS 217 TO 221
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
Purpose is to extend the provisions of the Code to Private Individuals
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 prisión 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.

Private Individual liable for Malversation. 2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but
In civil proceedings to obtain a preventive attachment to secure a debt by X, only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal
the hose was attached. The attached prop was sold to the Manila Fire Dept X
ordinance.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty).
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner,
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment.
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape
Acts constituting the crime.
Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his
custody or charge. Connivance with the prisoner in his escape is an
indispensable element of the offense.
A policeman who allowed a prisoner to buy some cigar at a nearby store is
NOT in connivance with the latter, the policeman not knowing that he would
escape.
Classes of prisoners involved.
a. If the fugitive has been sentence by final judgment to a penalty
b. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any crime or violation of
law or municipal ordinance.
A detention prisoner is a person in legal custody, arrested for, and
charged with, some crime or public offense.
Where a driver, driving without license met an accident and was taken tro the
hospital, while being guarded by a policeman, he escaped, the policeman is
NOT liable under ART 223 because the driver was not actually arrested and
was not a detention prisoner.
Release of Detention prisoner who could not be delivered to the judicial
authority within the time fixed by law, is not infidelity in the custody of
prisoner.
Ex. When the chie fof police released the detainee because he could not file
a complaint against them within the time under ART 125, due to the absence
of the justice of the peace.
Leniency or laxity is NOT infidelity.
Ex. Allowing a prisoner to eat in a resto near the municipal building.
Relaxation of imprisonment is considered infidelity.
Ex. A guard allowed the prisoner, serving a 6-day sentence in the municipal
jail, to sleep in his house and eat there because the municipality had not
outlay for the food of prisoners.
The mayor is guilty under ART 223, if he utilized the prisoner’s services for
domestic chores in his house, including that of working as a cook.
Under RA 9372, any public officer who has direct custody of a detained
person or who by deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable negligence
causes or allows the escape of such detained person shall be guilty of:
1. 12y 1d to 20 y, if the detained person has already been convicted and
sentences in a final judgment of a competent court
2. 6y1d to 12 y, if the detained person has not been convicted and sentenced
in a final judgment of a competent court.
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 prisión
correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner,
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment.
3. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
4. Penalty based on nature of imprisonment
Illustration of Absence of 2nd element
C was detailed as prison guard from 9-11PM. S was to succeed C from 11-
1AM. When S was to take over, he was sleeping so C woke him up to deliver
the post to him. S did not pay attention. A prisoner escaped while C was the
one in the guard post. Is S liable?
-No. The custody of the prisoner was NOT yet transferred to him by C when
the evasion took place.
Illustration of Absence of 3rd element:
A policeman was on guard duty. He unlocked the door of the jail to let a
detention prisoner go out to clean the premise. The prisoner went to a nearby
faucet to wash the rags. Upon his third trip, he climbed ober the walls and
escaped. Is the policeman liable?
-No. The policeman was not negligent.
“If the evasion of the prsioner shall have taken place”
Under ART 157, evasion of service of sentence the prisoner must be a
convict by final judgment.
Detention prisoners are also included in ART 224 as provided in the case of
People v. Solis
What is punished in Evasion thru negligence is such a definite Laxity as
all but amounts to deliberate non-performance of a duty on the part of
the guard.
A policeman who permitted a prisoner under his guard to answer a call of
nature in a hidden shed outside of the building. The policeman remained
near the prisoner by the door. The prisoner escaped thru the back of the
bath. The policeman is not negligent. However, he may be dealth with
administratively.
But if the guard left the toiler, the giard is liable for infidelity in the custody of
prisoner thru negligence.
Examples of infidelity thru negligence
1. A policeman, assigned to guard a prisoner, who falls asleep
2. The guard permitting the prisoner to go to the nursery to gather gabi
considering the place was grassy and tall talahib was growing therein.
3. The accused answered the telephone call and did not lock up the prisoner
There is only one penalty in Art224.
If the prsioner escapes thru the negligence of the public officer, the latter
suffers the same penalty regardless of whether the prisoner is a convict or
merely a detention prisoner.
The fact that the public officer recaptures the prisoner who had
escaped from his custody does NOT afford complete exculpation.
Liability of Escaping Prisoner:
1. If the fugitive is serving sentence by reason of final judgment, he is liable
for evasion of the service of the sentence under ART 157.
2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal
liability.
ARTICLE 225. Escape of Prisoner Under the Custody of a Person Not a
Public Officer. — Any private person to whom the conveyance or custody of
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private person (note: must be on duty)
2. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest
is confined to him.
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes.
4. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person
under arrest, or that the escape takes place through his negligence
Note: This article is not applicable if a private person made the arrest and he
consented to the escape of the person he arrested
Escape of person under arrest while in the custody of Private Individual
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.
The penalty for a private person liable under ART 225 is only
imprisonemnt one degree lower than that prescribed for the public
officer in ART 223 or 224.
SECTION TWO
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
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 prisión 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 prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage caused 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 special disqualification shall be imposed.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender be a public officer.
2. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers.
3. That the said document or paper should have been entrusted to such
public officer by reason of his office.
4. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public
interest should have been caused.
The public officer must be officially entrusted with the
documents or papers.
Thus, the stenographer is NOT guilty of ART 226 because he is not
officially entrusted. It is rather the CLERK OF COURT who is
officially entruisted with the record.
The document must be complete and one by which a right could
be established or an obligation could be extinguished.
Thus, a municpal president who mutilated the payroll of the town is
not guilty, it appearing that the said payroll had not yet been
approved and signed by him, as required by law.
Books, periodicals, pamphlets etc. are not documents.
A package containing a book, sent thru mail by COD system, is not a
document. A document must be a written instrument by which
something is proven or made of record.
“Or papers officially entrusted to him”
-checks, promissory notes, and paper money, abstraction of money
orders, money bills
Post office official who retained the mail without forwarding the
letters to their destination, even without opening them or taking
the moneys contained therein, is guilty of infidelity in the
custody of papers.
Infidelity in the custody Malversation and
of document Falsification
When the postmaster When the postmaster received
receives letters or money orders, signed the
envelopes contaioning signatures of the payees,
money orders for collected and appropriated the
transmission, and the respective amounts
money orders are not sent
to the addresses, the
postmaster cashing the
same for his own benefit
Reason why taking contents of mail by postmaster is Infidelity..
In addition to the actual injury done to the owner, the uncertainty as
to the safety of such letters arising from thefts of their contents
amounts to a real and positive injury to the postal service. (US v.
Marino)
SEC 2756 of the Revised Admin Code punishes the unlawful
opening or detention of mail matter by any person OTHER THAN
an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts-P1,000 or 1 y
imprisonment or both
Money Bills received as exhibits in court are papers.
Acts punishable in infidelity in the custody of documents.
1. By removing, or
2. By destroying, or
3. By concealing documents or papers offricially entrustred to the offending
public officer
They are distinct modes of committing the offense.
The removal must be for illicit purpose.
1. To tamper with it, or
2. To profit by it, or
3. To commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.
Thus, where the act of remocal is removed to secure them from
immonent danger of loss or destruction, there is no crime.
When deemed consummated.
-upon its removal or secreting away from its usual place in the office
and after the offender had gone out and locked the door, it being
immaterial whether he has or has not actually accomplished the illicit
purpose for which he removed said document.
Infidelity in the custody of document by DESTROYING or
CONCEALING it, does NOT require proof of illicit purpose. In the
REMOVAL, the accused may have a lawful motive.
Delivering document to the wrong party is Infidelity in the
custody thereof.
 An emergency helper on a daily wage basis in the Bureau of
Treasury, who, being entrusted with the delivery of official papers to
the different sections of the bureau, delivered a backpay certificate to
a wrong party, witth a result that the owner could not make a
withdrawal.
There must be damage, great or small.
1. Whenever serious damage is caused thereby to a third party or to the
public interest.
2. Whenever the damage caused to a third party or to the public interest is
not serious.
Damage may consist in mere alarm to the public or in the alienation
of its confidence in any branch of the government service. (Kataniag
v. People)
Damage caused to a third party or to the public interest.
In a case where the accused returned the money bills which he had
stolen after opening the letters, to avoid prosecution, it was held that
though there was no damage to the public to 3rd parties, there was
damage to the public interest.
Illustration of damage to the public interest.
A sorter and filer of money orders cashed in the office, who tore a
money order which had been falsified is guilty of infidelity in the
custody of a document, for by the destruction of the money order, the
prosecution of the party who falsified it was rendered difficult.
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 prisión
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
ELEMENTS :
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property.
3. That these papers or property are sealed by proper authority.
4. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
Crime is committed by breaking or permitting seals to be
broken.
The opening of public papers should be done only by the proper
authority
Damage or intent to cause damage is NOT necessary
It is sufficient that the seal is broken, even if the contents are not
tampered with. The purpose is to insure the “preservation”
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 of
arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding
2,000 pesos.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That any closed papers, documents, or objects are entrusted to his
custody.
3. That he opens or permits to be opened said closed papers,
documents or objects.
4. That he does not have proper authority.
Custody- guarding or keeping safe;care.
Closed documents must be entrusted to the custody of the accused by
reason of his office.
3 envelopes containing election returns addressed to the provincial treasurer
were handed by the PC sergeant to the municipal treasurer who put thereon
sealing wax. The municipal treasurer was accused of opening the envelopes.
Held: The accused did not actually become the custodian of 3 envelopes.
The envelopes were not addressed to the accused rather it was to the
Provincial Treasurer and were on the desk of the accused just for the time
necessary to put the sealing wax.
The Act should NOT fall under ART 227- Breaking of Seal. In Art 228,
the offender must be a public officer not included in the provisions of
the next preceding article
Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of the offense.
SECTION THREE
Revelation of Secrets
1. Revelation of Secrets by an Officer.
2. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private Individual.
ARTICLE 229. Revelation of Secrets by an Officer. — Any public officer Revelation of Infidelity in the custody of
who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or secrets Documents
shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have If the papers if the papers do not contain secrets,
charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of contain secrets their removal for an illicit purpose
prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special which should not be
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such published, and the
secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to public officer having
the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prisión correccional in its charge thereof
minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding removes and
500 pesos shall be imposed. delivers them
wrongfully to a third
ELEMENTS OF PAR.1: BY REASON OF HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY person
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity. Damage is essential to the act committed.
3. That he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons. Higher penalty is imposed if the act shall have caused serious
4. That damage, great or small, be caused to the public interest. damage to the public interest; otherwise, lesser penalty.
(damage is essential) Material damage to third person is NOT necessary.

Notes: Secret must affect public interest, otherwise, it will there is no crime at
all.
Espionage is not contemplated in this article.
This does not include State secrets revealed to a belligerent nation-ART 117
or CA 616.
This article punished minor official betrayals, infidelities of little consequence,
affecting usually the administration of justice, executive or official duties, or
the general interest of the public order,
Secrets of private persons NOT included.
Ex.1. Peace officers who published instructions received by them for
the arrest of the culprit, thereby enabling him to escape and resulting
in the failure of the law and authority.
3. Provincial fiscal who revealed the records of all investigation conducted by
him to the defendant who thereby learned of the evidence of the prosecution.
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.

ELEMENTS OF PAR 2 – DELIVERING WRONGFULLY PAPERS OR
COPIES OF PAPERS OF WHICH HE MAY HAVE CHARGE AND WHICH
SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he has charge of papers.
3. That those papers should not be published.
4. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person.
5. That the delivery is wrongful.
6. That damage be caused to public interest.
“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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he knows of the secret of a private individual by reason of his office.
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justification reason.
“Shall reveal such secrets”
Revelation to one person is sufficient, for public revelation is not required.
When the offender is an Attorney-at-law or a Solicitor, ART 230 is NOT
applicable. He is liable under ART 209- Betrayal of trust by an attorney
or solicitor
Damage to private individuals NOT necessary.
The reason for this is to uphold faith and trust in public service.
 CHAPTER SIX
Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public Officers
SECTION ONE
Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance and Maltreatment of Prisoners
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 prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary
special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judicial or executive officer. That there is a
judgment, decision or order of superior authority.
2. That such judgment, decision or order was made within the scope of
the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with all the legal
formalities.
3. That the offender without any legal justification openly refuses to
execute the said judgment, decision or order which he is duty bound
to obey.
The gravamen of the offense is the open refusal of the offender to execute
the order without justifiable reason.
Act constituting the crime.
A judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision, or oder of any superior authority.
Ex. 1. A municipal secretary who openly refuses to deliver to the mayor, after
having been repeatedly requested to do som the keys of the doors of the
municipal building and the seal under his custody.
There is in this case an open refusal to obey an order.
2. Mandamus by the SC ordering lower court to receive certain evidence. If
the lower court openly refuses to obey, there is a violation of Art 231.
ARTICLE 232. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer, 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 prisión correccional in its minimum
and medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That an order is issued by his superior for execution.
3. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order.
4. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the
order.
5. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the
suspension.
Note: A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior is illegal
The subordinate is entitled to suspend the order issued by the superior. But if
the superior disapproves of the suspension, the subordinate must obey and
refusal amounts to contempt, for by this he undertakes to dictate to his
superior.
This Art does NOT apply if the order of the superior is ILLEGAL.
Obedience to an order which is illegal by a subordinate may have criminal
liability under ART 11 PAR 6-Any person who acts in obedience to an order
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose is a justifying circumstance.
ARTICLE 233. Refusal of Assistance. — The penalties of arresto mayor in
its medium period to prisión 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend
his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public
service
3. That the offender fails to do so maliciously.
“Upon demand from competent authority”
Hence, if the chief of police received from a private party a subpoena, issued
by a fiscalm with a request to serve it upon a person to be awitness, and the
chief of police maliciously refused to do so, the latter is not liable.
Ex. A chief of police who flatly and insolently refuses to serve summons of a
provincial fiscalm after having been duly requested to do so by the latter
official, is guilty under Art 233.
Damage to public interest or to a third party is essential.
Higher penlaty, if the failure to lend cooperation results in serious damage to
the public interest or to a third party; otherwise, lower penalty.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is elected by popular election to a public office.
2. That he refuses to be sworn in or discharge the duties of said office.
3. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to
discharge the duties of said office.
“Shall refuse without legal motive”
If the elected person is underage, or otherwise disqualified, his
refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of the office is
justified.
Once an individual is elected by the will of the people, the discharge
of duties becomes a matter of duty, not only a right.
Art 234 not applicable to appointive officer.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he has under charge a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise
the crime is physical injuries)
3. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
1. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a
prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge either –
i. By the imposition of punishments not authorized by
the regulations, or
ii. By inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in
a cruel and humiliating manner, or
2. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to
obtain some information from the prisoner.
The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner to
hold him liable for Maltreatment of prisoner
The mayor is not liable for maltreatment of prisoner if the latter is in
the custody of the police.
Offended party must be
1. a convict by final judgment or
2. detention prisoner
To be detention prisoner, the person arrested must be placed in
jail even for a short while.
A person suspected of having crommitted a crime and taken to a
cemetery and maltreated by the policemen. Since he is not yet
booked in the office of the police and placed in jail even for a
moment, he is NOT a detention prisoner, therefore, the policemen
may be guilty of PHYSICAL INJURIES. (People v. Baring)
The Maltreatment
1. must relate to the correction or handling of the prisoner, or
2. must be for the purpose of extorting a confession or of obtaining some
information from the prisoner.
Thus, if the jailer inflicted PI on the prisoner because of personal
grudge, the jailer is liable of PHYSICAL INJURIES only.
Offender may also be liable for PI or Damage caused.
ART 235 states that the penalty to be imposed upon the offender for
maltreatment of prisoners is “in addition to his liability for the PI
or damage caused”.
There is NO COMPLEX CRIME of Maltreatment of Prisoners with
serious or less serious PI- ART 48.
 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
office 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment,
either by election or appointment.
2. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should
first give a bond.
3. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such
office.
a. That he has not taken his oath of office and /or given the bond
required by law.
ARTICLE 237. Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers. — Any
public officer who shall continue to exercise the duties and powers of his
office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law,
regulations or special provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the
penalties of prisión correccional in its minimum period, special temporary
disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public office.
2. That the period provided by law, regulations or special
provisions for holding such office has already expired.
3. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such
office.
A public officer who has been suspended, separated, declared overaged, or
dismissed cannot continue to perform the duties of his office.
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 crimes falling
within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code,
the offender shall be punished by prisión 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he formally resigns from his position.
3. That his resignation has not yet been accepted.
4. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service.
There must be a written or formal resignation.
A verbal statrement made by the accused to the CIR that he was resigning is
NOT the form contemplated by the set-up of our civil Service System.
When is the offense QUALIFIED?
If the abandonment of the office has for its purpose to evade the dischrage of
the duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes
falling within Title 1- National Security and the Law of Nations and Chap
1 of Title 3- Rebellion, Coup d’ etat, Sedition and Disloyalty
Abandonment of office (ART 238) Negligence and tolerance in
prosecution of offenses (ART 208)
Committed by any public officer Committed only by public officers
who have the duty to institute
prosecution for the punishment of
violations of the law.
The public officer abandons his office The public officer does not abandon
to evade the discharge of his duty his office but he fails to prosecute an
offense by dereliction of duty or by
malicious tolerance of the
commission of offenses.
SECTION THREE
Usurpation of Powers and Unlawful Appointments
ARTICLE 239. Usurpation of Legislative Powers. — The penalties of
prisión 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer.
2. That 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. — Any judge who shall
so 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 mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum
period.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judge.
2. That he
a. assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
b. obstructs executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their
powers.
Legislative officers are NOT liable for usurpation of executive functions
Thus, a councilor who assumes the power of a mayor is not liable under ART
240 but for ART 177-Usurpation of authority or official functions
ARTICLE 241. Usurpation of Judicial Functions. — The penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the
government.
2. That he
a. assumes judicial powers, or
b. obstruct the execution of any order decision rendered by any
judge within his jurisdiction.
Mayor is guilty under this article if he investigates a case while
justice of the peace is in the municipality.
ART 239-241 punish interference by officers of one of the 3 dept
of gov’t with functions of officers of another dept.
The purpose is to maintain the separation and independence of the 3
depts of the govt.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer.
3. That there is a question brought before the proper authority
regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet decided.
4. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the
proceeding.
5. That he continues the proceeding
Ex. The Mayor of Manila suspended a market administrator for alleged
irregularity. Then he caused an administrative investigation of the market
administrator. The latter filed a petition for prohibition in the CFi which issued
a preliminary writ of injunction pending the resolution of the question of
jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. But the Mayor continued the
investigation. In this case, the Mayor may be held liable under this Article.
The disobedient public officer is liable, even if the jurisdictional question is
resolced by the proper authority in his favor.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive officer.
 2. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority.
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
Purpose is to maintain the independence of the judiciary.
Legislative or judicial officers are NOTliable under this article
Thus, a congressman who wrote a letter to a judge, requesting the latter to
decide the case pending before him one way or the other, or a judge who
made a suggestion to another judge, is NOT liable.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office.
3. That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor.
4. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the
qualification at the time he made the nomination or appointment.
The offense is committed by “nominating” or by “appointing”
Nominate is different from Recommend. Recommending, knowing
that the recommendee has no qualification is NOT a crime.
“Person lacking the legal qualifications therefor.”
There must be a law providing for the qualifications.
Appointments of non-eligibles continue only for such period not
exceeding 3 months as may be necessary to make appointment thru
certification of eligibles, and in no case shall extend beyond 30 days
from receipt by the chief of the bureau or office of the
Commissioner’s certification of eligibles.
SECTION FOUR
Abuses Against Chastity
ARTICLE 245. Abuses Against Chastity — Penalties. — The penalties of
prisión 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 or relative within the same
degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer, the
penalties shall be prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and temporary special disqualification.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman.
3. That such woman must be –
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 care and custody of
prisoners or person 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
Ways of committing abuses against chastity:
1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman
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.
2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under
the offender’s custody
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in
the custody of the offending warden or officer.
Solicit means to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and
immoral to a woman.
The advances must be immoral or indecent.
The crime of abuses against chastity is consummated by mere
proposal.

Proof of solicitation is NOT necessary when there is sexual intercourse.

The appellant was in charge of the prisoners and he entered the cell of the
woman and had illicit relations with her. (US v. Morelos)

Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act)

Committed by any person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work, training or education environment when he or she
demands, requests, or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the object of the said act (for a passing grade, or granting of
scholarship or honors, or payment of a stipend, allowances, benefits,
considerations; favorable compensation terms, conditions, promotions or
when the refusal to do so results in a detrimental consequence for the
victim).
Also holds liable any person who directs or induces another to commit any
act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission, the head of
the office, educational or training institution solidarily.
Complaints to be handled by a committee on decorum, which shall be
determined by rules and regulations on such.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts
for unlawful acts of sexual harassment.
What are the acts that constitute abuses on chastity?
If it is soliciting women, RA 9208 (Anti-trafficking)