MODULE: Criminal Law: Book II

Chapter VII
Crimes Committed
by Public Officer

At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:

• Understand the Specific crimes and their elements

• Recognize crimes committed by public officer.

Within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, a

public officer includes all persons “who, by direct provision of the law, popular
election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippines Islands, or
shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any or class.” (See Marifosque v.
People, G.R. No. 156685, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 332)

Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment (Article 204)

The elements are: (1) That the offender is a judge; (2) That he renders a
judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; (3) That the judgment is
unjust; (4) That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

The fact that, despite his court having no

jurisdiction, the judge proceeded with the case
does not mean a violation of Article 204 of the
Revised Penal Code. (US v. Grantan, 28 Phil. 100)

Page 1 of 5
MODULE: Criminal Law: Book II

Direct Bribery (Article 210)

The elements of the crime of direct bribery are thus: (1) That the offender
is a public officer within the scope of Article 203; (2) That the offender accepts
an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another; (3) That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received
by the public officer – (a) With a view to committing some crime; (b) In
consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but
the act must be unjust; or (c) To refrain from doing something which it is his
official duty to do; (4) That the act which offender agrees to perform or which
he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.

Indirect Bribery (Article 211)

On the other hand, the elements of the crime of indirect bribery, as

defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (1) That the offender is a
public officer; (2) That he accepts gifts; (3) That the gifts are offered to him by
reason of his office.

The essential ingredient of indirect bribery is

that the public officer concerned must have
accepted the gift or material consideration.
(Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 155574,
November 20, 2006)

Qualified Bribery (Article 211-A)

The elements of the crime are: (1) That the offender is a public officer
entrusted with law enforcement; (2) That he refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by Reclusion

Page 2 of 5
MODULE: Criminal Law: Book II
Perpetua and/or death; (3) That the offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any promise, gift, or present.

Malversation by Appropriating, Misappropriating or Permitting any other Person

to take Public Funds or Property (Article 217)

Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement.

The acts being punished under Article 217 are: (1) Appropriating public
funds or property; (2) Taking or misappropriating the same; (3) Consenting, or
through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such
public funds or property; (4) Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property.

Common elements are: (1) That the offender be a public officer; (2) That
he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office; (3) That these funds or property were public funds or property for which
he was accountable; (4) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
take them.

“Estafa and Malversation are very similar, the

difference lying in the character of the guilty
person, the circumstances under which the
crime were committed, and the things which
were the objects of the criminal purpose; private
property in estafa; public effects in
malversation. Where the accused is a public
officer or employee, one test for determining the
nature of the crime is whether he received the
funds or property in an official or in a private
capacity. If the accused had charge of the funds
or property embezzled by reason of his office or
employment or was accountable for the same,
then the crime is malversation, if not, then the
crime is estafa.” (Aquino and Grino-Aquino, The
Revised Penal Code Volume Two (1997 Edition), p.
509, citing Zoilo Tolentino, 69 Phil. 715 and
Lafuente, 37 Phil. 671)
Page 3 of 5
MODULE: Criminal Law: Book II
The presumption of malversation under Article 217 is merely prima facie
and rebuttable. (Mahinay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 61442, May 9, 1989)

Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts (Article 218)

The elements of this crime are: (1) That the offender is public officer,
whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other
cause; (2) That he is an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3)
That he is required by law or regulation to render account 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. (See Lumauig v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014)

It is not required that there be a demand first

before an accountable officer is held liable for a
violation of the crime.

Technical Malversation (Illegal use of Public Funds or Property) (Article 220)

The crime has the following elements, viz.; (1) That the offender is a
public officer; (2) That there are public funds or property under his
administration; (3) That such fund or property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance; (4) That he applies such public fund or property to a public use other
than that for which it has been appropriated by law or ordinance.

In Technical Malversagtion (Illegal use of Public

Funds), it is not necessary that the offender
derives pecuniary benefit unlike in
malversation. (See Nolledo, The Revised Penal
Code Annotated [2008 fifteenth Revised Edition],
p. 326)

Where the public officer disposes of the money pursuant to an

administrative directive of a superior, there is no crime of technical malversation
committed. (See US v. Santos, 13 Phil. 1)

Page 4 of 5
MODULE: Criminal Law: Book II

Reference:
The Revised Penal Code: Book II
Specific Crimes and Their Elements
Atty. Victor T. Tulalian

Page 5 of 5