Crimes Committed by Public

Officers
Art. 203. Public officers.
“… every public servant from the
highest to the lowest.” (Maniego vs
Pp, 88 Phil 494)
Examples:
• Swimming instructor at UP Los
Baños – Pp v. Larin, Oct 7, 1998.
• Fiscal Analyst for the City of
Zamboanga – Pp v. Kulais, Jul 16,
1998
 Art. 210. Direct Bribery.
1. Agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official
duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present;
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of
an act which does not constitute a crime;
3. Agreeing to refrain or Refraining from doing
something which was his official duty to do in
consideration of a gift or promise of a gift.
 Elements
(a) the offender is a public officer;
(b) he accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by
himself or through another;
(c) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be
received by the public officer with a view to committing some
crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain
from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and
(d) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he
executes is connected with the performance of his official
duties.(Mangulabnan v. People, G.R. No. 236848, [June 8, 2020])
 1st Paragraph. “..in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present received by such
officer…”
It is not necessary that the offender accepts a gift or
present.
It is sufficient that the offender accepts an offer of a gift
or present.
If the public officer does not accept the offer, only the
person making the offer is criminally liable (Art. 212
Corruption of public officer)
 “…shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime,”
• Mere promise to perform
the act is sufficient to
consummate the felony.
• If the offender actually
commits the crime, he shall
suffer the corresponding
penalty thereto in addition
to the penalty for direct
bribery.
 2nd Paragraph. “…in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime,”
The act does not constitute a crime
- a policeman accepting a gift in
consideration for making an arrest.
- a government employee processing
documents in consideration of a gift.
 “If the gift was accepted… if said act
shall not have been accomplished,”
The public officer must accept the gift.
The implication is that an acceptance of an offer
or promise is not sufficient.
Mere agreement to execute the act is not
sufficient. Either the offender accomplishes
the act or at least commences the same by
overt acts.
 3rd Paragraph. “… refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do,”
If the failure to perform the official duty shall
also constitute a crime, the offender shall be
liable under paragraph 1.
Example:
A prosecutor who shall not prosecute a case in
consideration of a gift or promise of a gift.
(Art. 208)
Must relate to the official functions
of the public officer.
“However, where the act is entirely outside of
the official functions of the officer to whom
the money is offered, the offense is not
bribery.” Tad-y v Pp, GR No. 148862, August
11, 2005.
Receiving Balato is not an element of Direct
Bribery…
• In other words, while a prosecutor's receipt of
a "balato" from a party litigant may indeed be
reprehensible from the lens of public service, such
act, at the end of the day, is not punishable
as Direct Bribery.
• Catubao v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 227371, October 2,
2019
 Art. 211. Indirect Bribery.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Accepts gifts;
3. Gifts were offered by
reason of his office.
Return of the money not exculpatory.
• It does not matter that Abadies returned the money that she had
accepted, because the crime of indirect bribery was already
consummated upon the concurrence of the aforementioned three
elements under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Re: Investigation Relative to the Fake Decision in G.R. No. 211483, A.M. No.
19-03-16-SC, August 14, 2019
 “… accepts gifts…”
• The offender must accept a gift.
• “There must be a clear intention on
the part of the public officer to take
the gift so offered and consider the
same as his own property from
then on, such as putting away the
gift for safekeeping or pocketing the
same.”
• (Formilleza vs Sandiganbayan,
159 SCRA 1)
 Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery.
Elements:
1. Public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
2. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death;
3. In consideration of any promise, gift or reward.
 Art. 212. Corruption of public
official.
Elements:
1. Offer/promise/gives gifts to presents to a
public officer;
2. Offer/promise is made or gift/present is
given under circumstances that would make
the public officer liable for direct/indirect
bribery.
 Art. 217. Malversation.
The acts punished are:
1. Appropriating;
2. Taking or misappropriating;
3. Consenting, or thru abandonment or
negligence, permitting other persons to take
public funds or property;
4. O/w guilty of misappropriation or
malversation.
 Penalty
Penalty for malversation is the same whether
committed intentionally or through
negligence.
 Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Custody or control of funds/property by
reason of public office;
3. Offender is accountable for the
funds/property;
4. Offender commits any of the four acts
previously enumerated.
 Custody or control of funds
It is the nature of the duties and not the title
thereof that is controlling.
“If 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.” (US vs Velasquez, 32 Phil
157)
 Qualified charge
He had no authority of his own volition to withdraw
funds from the safe upon any pretext whatever. The
funds were placed in the safe and could only be
taken from it by his superior officer or by his order.
Defendant's possession of the key and the
combination of the safe gave him no control over the
contents. (US vs. F. WICKER SHAM, G.R. No. 6781,
1911 November 06, 1911)
 Accountable officer
The vital fact is not so much the manner in
which appellant could lawfully perform his
duties in relation to said funds as the fact that
he received money belonging to the
Government for which he was bound to
account. (Velasquez)
Elements
• To establish the elements of malversation and justify conviction, the
prosecution has only to prove that:
1) the accused received public funds or property; and
2) that he could not account for them, did not have them in his
possession, and could not give a reasonable excuse for the
disappearance of the same. (Felicilda v. Grospe, G.R. No. 102494,
July 3, 1992)
Criminal liability not extinguished.
• In malversation of public funds or estafa, payment, indemnification,
or reimbursement of, or compromise as to, the amounts or funds
malversed or misappropriated, after the commission of the crime,
affects only the civil liability of the offender but does not extinguish
his criminal liability. (Felicilda)
 Private individuals are also liable
Art. 222. The provisions of this chapter shall
apply to private individuals who in any
capacity whatever, have charge of public
funds, revenues, or property…
“… even if such property belongs to
a private individual.”
Examples:
- property in custodia legis.
- property seized by law enforcement agents.
 Presumption of personal use.
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. (last paragraph,
Art. 217)
Same offense
• Malversation is committed either intentionally or by
negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the
offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the
felony. Even if the mode charged differs from mode
proved, the same offense of malversation is involved
and conviction thereof is proper.
• PP vs JOSE TING LAN UY, JR., Nov 17, 2005, G.R.
No. 157399
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds
or property.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Public funds/property under his administration;
3. Funds/property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance;
4. Offender applies the same to a public use other
than for which it was appropriated.
 Art. 224. Evasion thru negligence.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with conveyance or custody of a
prisoner;
3. Escapes through negligence.
 Negligence.
• “It is only that positive
carelessness that is
short of deliberate
non-performance of
his duties as guard
that is the gravamen
of the crime of
infidelity.”
 Liability of escaping prisoner.
Convict – Evasion of service of sentence Art.
157.
Detention prisoner – no liability.
 Art. 235. Maltreatment of
prisoners.
The offender is a public officer who has under his charge
a prisoner.
Maltreatment consists in:
1) Overdoing the correction or handling of prisoners:
- punishments not authorized
- authorized punishments in a humiliating
manner
2) Extort a confession or obtain information.

*Anti-Torture Act RA 9745

 Art. 245. Abuses against chastity
Offenders:
1. Any public officer before whom matters for
decision are pending or with respect to which
he is required to submit a report to, or
consult with a superior officer.
2. A warden or public officer charged with care
and custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest.
 Abuses against chastity
The felony consists in soliciting or making
immoral or indecent advances to a woman.
It can also be done to the wife, daughter, sister,
or relative within the same degree of affinity
of the person in custody. (Mother is not
included)