Crimes Against honor (CHARACTER ASSASINATION)

- Provides protection injurious

1. LIBEL- making use of mass media and literary forms or literary outlets “defamation in written
form”.
2. ORAL DEFAMATION –use of oral utterances “ through the use of utterances”
3. SLANDER BY DEED- act intended to cast dishonor or contempt upon a person “through action”
4. INCRIMANATORY MACHINATION
-makes someone appear guilty.
-plot or scheme
A. incriminating an innocent person in the commission of a crime by planting evidence;
B. Intriguing against honor- want to destroy reputation of another (FRAME-UP)

Common elements : A matter defamatory to another

-oral or written or in whatever form.

LIBEL- PUBLIC and MALICIOUS IMPUTATION

-with evil intent* intended to do harm

-made known to the public

1. CRIME or VICE or DEFECT (real or imaginary)

2. Act, omission, condition,status, circumstances

-Tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person

-blacken memory of one who is dead

RA 9745- ANTI TORTURE LAW

(Right against TORTURE) “Bill of rights”

Offender: -a person in authority- a person directly vested with jurisdiction to enforce law

-agent of a person in authority (person authorized to maintain peace and order by provision of
law by election or by appointment)

TORTURE- intentional infliction of severe pain /suffering on the victim for the purpose of

1. Obtaining information or confession

2. Punishing a person for a crime he committed/suspected of having committed
3. Intimidation/ Coercion
4. Discrimination

TWO TYPES OF TORTURE

1. Physical Torture- punishment inflicted by a person in authority/ agent of a person in
authority upon a person under his custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion disability or
dysfunction of body part.
 Beating
 Food deprivation/ forcible feeding with substances not normally eaten;
 Electric shock;
 Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rod, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substance.
 Submersion of the head in water or polluted water until brink of suffocation
 Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful body position
 Rape and sexual abuse
 Mutilation or amputation
 Dental Torture
 Pulling out of fingernails
 Harmful exposure to the elements
 The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation.
 Use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception
 Administration of drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental competency
 Other analogous act of physical torture
2. Psychological Torture-mental torture- acts committed by the person in authority/ an agent
of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and or
undermine a person’s dignity and morale
 Blindfolding;
 Threatening a person or his relatives with wrongful acts
Other CRUEL , Inhuman and degrading Treatment or Punishment
Prohibited Detention – BILL OF RIGHTS**
Sacred detention places
Solitary confinements
Incuminikado or other similar forms of detention where torture maybe carried out with
impunity are prohibited. Places high rate of torture be made are prohibited.
Rights are absolute—torture and other cruel punishment cannot be done under any
circumstance

Crimes Against Public Officer-First Part

VI. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

General violations of public officers under this title:

1. Malfeasance- the performance of some act which ought not to be done.

2. Misfeasance- is the improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done.

3. Nonfeasance- is the omission of some act which ought to be performed.

WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

- A public officer is a person who shall perform public functions or duties in the
government as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class, by
direct provision of the law, the popular election, or appointment by competent
authority.

PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER RA NO. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

- under RA No. 3019, public officer includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service
category, even nominal, from the government. This is also the concept of public officer
in RA No. 7080.

CAN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BE LIABLE UNDER RA NO. 3019?

- Yes, as a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of RA No.
3019 if he conspired with a public officer in committing this crime. However, a private
individual alone cannot be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 without a co-accused,
who is a public officer with whom he conspired in committing this crime. BUT, a private
individual alone can be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 even without a co-
accused, if the public officer with whom he conspired in committing this crime died prior
to the filing of the information. (People v. Henry Go GR No. 168539, March 25,2014)

NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY

- Section 3 of RA No. 3019 reads: “In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer.” It is clear then that one may be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 in
addition to a felony under the RPC for the same act.

SECTION 3(E), RA NO. 3019

- Violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 is committed by a public officer, who

causes any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gives any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence.

· The offense under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as
when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as
when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.
TWO MODES OF COMMISSION OF SECTION 3(E), RA NO. 3019

1. BY CAUSING UNDUE INJURY TO ANY PARTY, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT

- the concept of undue injury is the same as the civil law concept of actual damage. It is
required that undue injury must be specified, quantified and proven to the point of
moral certainty. Speculative or incidental injury is not sufficient. (Domingo v.
Sandiganbayan GR No. 149406, October 25,2005; MA Jimenez Inc., v. The Hon.
Ombudsman, GR No. 155307, June 6,2011)

2. BY GIVING ANY PRIVATE PARTY ANY UNWARRANTED BENEFIT, ADVANTAGE OR

PREFERENCE.

- in this second mode, the element of damage is not required, what is important is the
act of GIVING UNWARRANTED BENEFITS, ADVANTAGE OR PREFERENCE.

- the private party who received unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference is

criminally liable with the public officer on the basis of conspiracy. Further, the term
“private party” may be used to refer to persons other than those holding public office.

RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT OR INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

Rendering unjust judgment or interlocutory order is committed by a judge, who

knowingly renders an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision (Article
204) or interlocutory order (Article 206); or renders a manifestly unjust judgment or
interlocutory order by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance. (Articles 205 and
206)

MALICIOUS DELAY

Malicious delay is committed by a judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of

justice. (Article 207)

DERELICTION OF DUTY
Dereliction of duty is committed by a public officer, or officer of the law, who maliciously
refrains from instituting criminal prosecution of violators of the law in dereliction of the
duties of his office. (Article 208)

REVELATION OF SECRETS AND BETRAYAL OF TRUST

Revelation of secrets is committed by an attorney-at-law who prejudices his client, or

reveals any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity by any
malicious breach of professional duty or inexcusable negligence or ignorance. (Article
209)

Betrayal of trust is committed by an attorney-at-law who, having undertaken the

defense of a client or having received confidential information from him in a case,
undertakes the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of
his first client. (Article 209)

DIRECT BRIBERY

Direct Bribery of the First Form – Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who
agrees to perform an act, which constitutes a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties and in consideration of the gift or present offered or
promised to, or received by him, personally or through the mediation of another.

a. Express Agreement – The agreement between the public officer and the bribe – giver
may be express or implied, and the same may be proven by direct or circumstantial
evidence. To hold, otherwise, would allow the culprit to escape liability with winks and
nods even when the evidence as a whole proves that there has been a meeting of the
minds to exchange official duties for money. (Tad –Y v. People, G.R. No. 148862, August
11, 2005)

b. Committing the Agreed Crime – If the public officer committed the crime agreed
upon, he shall be held liable for that crime and direct bribery. (Article 210)

Direct Bribery of the Second Form – Direct bribery is also committed by any public
officer who accepts gifts in consideration of the execution of an act, which does not
constitute a crime, whether it has been executed or accomplished or not.

a. Function Related Act – In Marifosque v. People, G.R No. 156685, July 27, 2004, a
police sergeant directly received the bribe money form complainants in consideration
for his recovery from alleged robbers, 18 gas tanks, which was an act not constituting a
crime within the meaning of provision on direct bribery of the second form. The act of
receiving money was connected with his duty as a police officer. He was convicted of
direct bribery of the second form.

b. Not Constituting a Crime – Information alleged that the Justice of peace demanded
and received from complainant the amount of P1,100, with the agreement that he
would dismiss the case for robbery in band with rape against his son, which was then
pending in his Court. The crime charged does not constitute direct bribery of the first
born. To commit this crime, the act which the public officer has agreed to perform must
be criminal. To dismiss a criminal complaint, as allegedly agreed upon, does not
necessarily constitute a criminal act of rendering an unjust judgment, for the dismissal
may be proper. (People v. Abesamis, G.R. No. L-5284, September 11, 1953) The crime
committed is this case is bribery of the second form. (U.S v. Gacutan, G.R. No. L-9600,
October 1, 1914)

c. Just Act Not Constituting a Crime – According to Luis Reyes, citing the case of People
v. Pamplona, C.A., 51 O.G. 4116, in direct bribery of the second form, the act, which
crime committed is indirect bribery. However, Marifosque v. People , G.R. No. 156685,
July 27, 2004, the act of recovering stolen properties from the robbers are not unjust,
and yet, the accused, who is a police officer, was convicted of direct bribery of the
second form for receiving money in consideration of such recovery

Direct Bribery of the Third Form – Direct bribery is also committed by any public officer
who agrees to refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do in
consideration of gift received or promised. (Article 210) In Balderama v. People, G.R.
Nos. 147578-58, January 28, 2008, demanding and receiving form a taxicab operator the
amount of P300.00 (protection money) in consideration for LTO officers refraining from
performing their official duty of conducting inspections on the taxicab units being
operated by former to determine any possible violation of LTO rules and regulations is
direct bribery of the third form.

But if the agreed refrainment constitutes a crime such as dereliction of duty, the crime
committed is direct bribery of the first form.

a. Gift – The borrowing of a vehicle by public officer from the complainant can be
considered as a “gift” within the contemplation of the law on bribery. (Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 155574, November 20, 2006)

b. Function Related – In direct bribery of the first, second or third form, the crime or the
act or omission relates to the performance of duty of the offender as public officer.
Official duties include any action authorized. It is sufficient if the officer has the official
power, ability or apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end. The
acts referred to in the law, which the offender agrees to perform or execute, must be
ultimately related to or linked with the performance of his official duties. It is sufficient if
his actions, affected by the payment of the bribe, are parts of any established procedure
consistent with the authority of the government agency. 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. People, G.R. No. 148862, August 11, 2005)

c. Person Performing Public Duties – Assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim

commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties can commit
direct bribery. (Article 210)
A, a private individual, arrested a person (citizen’s arrest) while the latter was actually
committing the crime of murder, with the intention of bringing him to the police
authorities. While on the way, in consideration of the sum of P500.00, A allowed his
prisoner to escape. (1965 Bar Exam) A is not liable for direct bribery. Under Article 210
of the Revised Penal Code, this crime can be committed by “any other persons
performing public duties.” However, according to Luis Reyes, this phrase does not cover
a private individual who, in consideration of a sum of money given to him, released a
person under arrest because the additional penalty of special temporary disqualification
for bribery has no practical application to a private person. Note: If A is a police officer,
the crime committed is qualified direct bribery.

QUALIFIED DIRECT BRIBERY

Qualified bribery is committed by a public officer entrusted with law enforcement, who
refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of gift or present given,
offered or promised to him, or asked or demanded by him. (Article 211-A of the Revised
Penal Code; 2010 Bar Exam)

Bribery and Qualified Bribery- The criminal act indirect bribery of first form is “agreeing
to commit a crime” since the law uses the words “shall agree”. While agreeing to refrain
to perform a function-related act is actus reus in direct bribery of the third form.
Agreeing to commit a crime of to refrain to perform a function-related act for a
consideration consummates the crime.

Actual acceptance of the gift or actual commission of the crime, or actual refraining to
perform a duty is not necessary to consummate bribery of the first and second form.

The criminal act in direct bribery of the second form is the acceptance of gift or present
because the lawn uses the phrase “if the gift was accepted.” Acceptance of gift by the
public officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime consummates the crime. This form of direct bribery is committed whether the
officer executed act not constituting a crime. Agreement to commit an act not
constituting a crime, or execution of the agreed act without actual acceptance of the gift
or present would not consummate direct bribery of the second form.

The actus reus of qualified direct bribery is refraining to arrest or prosecute a criminal
suspect because the law uses the sentence “he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender.” Refraining from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death by a law enforcement officer
consummates the crime. Agreement to refrain is not enough to consummate the crime.
Actual receipt or acceptance of the gift or present is not necessary for the
consummation of qualified bribery since the consideration of the refrainment to arrest
or prosecute is either present or gift accepted, or that promised or offered.

INDIRECT BRIBERY

Indirect bribery is committed by any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him
by reason of his office. (Article 211)

Intent to Receive – The essential ingredient of indirect bribery is that the public officer
concerned must have accepted the gift material consideration. 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. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to
conclude that the crime of indirect bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will
encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within
g their physical custody some gift, money or other property. (Formilleza v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-75160, 18 March 1988) This principle applies not only to
indirect bribery but also direct bribery. (Tad-Y v. People, G.R. No. 148862, August 11,
2005)

DIRECT BRIBERY v. INDIRECT BRIBERY

The difference between direct bribery and indirect bribery lies on the existence of an
agreement. If there is an agreement to commit a crime or to refrain from performing an
act in connection with his duty for a consideration, or there is an acceptance of gift or
present pursuant to an agreement to perform a function-related act, which does not
constitute a crime, the public officer, who accepted gifts offered to him by reason of his
office, is liable for indirect bribery.

Where there is no showing that the public officers received the money forma contractor
by virtue of an agreement to commit a crime or act not constituting a crime in
connection with contract with the local government pertaining to the development of
an economic and tourism hub and construction of the Blank Sports Arena, the former is
only liable for indirect bribery while the latter for corruption of public officer.

CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICER

Corruption of public official is committed by any person who shall offer or promise or
shall give the gifts or presents to a public officer, who commits direct bribery, qualified
direct bribery or indirect bribery. (Article 212)

To make an offender, who makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer, liable for corruption of public officers, it is required that the latter is placed
under circumstances that would make him liable for direct or indirect bribery. (Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, September 11, 2013).

Ordinarily, if the public officer and private individual conspired in performing a crime
committed by public officer such as malversation of public funds, both are equally liable
for it. (U.S v. Ponte, G.R. No. L-5952, October 24, 1911) However, in direct bribery only
the public officer may be held liable for it, while the person who conspired with the
public officer, who made the promise, offer, or gave the gifts or presents, may be
indicated only for corruption of public officer, regardless of any allegation of conspiracy.
Indeed, it is axiomatic that all conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals.
However, they may not be necessarily charged with violation of the same offense. The
public officer may be charged under one provision while the private person is indicated
under a different provision, although the offenses originate from the same set of acts.
Thus, the public officer may be accused of direct bribery while the private person may
be charged with corruption of public officials. (Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 172602, September 3, 2007)