Lecture 5
Hence, individuals who committed an offense against decency and
Public morals may refer to moral and ethical norms imposed in a
society, whether by law, police action, or societal pressure, and applied
to public life, media content, and behavior in public spaces.
Decency entails correct behavior and adherence to the criteria of
modesty and good taste. On the other hand, customs are social
conventions handed on by tradition and enforced by societal
disapproval of any infraction thereof.
What do you mean by Offenses against Decency and Good
Customs?
 Offenses against decency and good customs are private acts
committed in public places which is considered as highly
scandalous and offensive to good customs and morals is an
offense against decency and good customs.
 The Revised Penal Code [RPC] specifies offenses against
decency and good customs which includes Grave scandal
(Article 200), Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions (Article 201) and Vagrancy and prostitution
(Article 202).
What are the Offenses against Decency and Good Customs?
The following are offenses against decency and good customs:
1. Grave Scandal (Art. 200)
2. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions (Art. 201)
3. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202)
In the Revised Penal Code, Book Two of Reyes, he defined “decency”
as the propriety of conduct; proper observance of the requirements of
modesty, good taste, etc.; while “customs” means established usage,
social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval or violation thereof.
Decency and custom might still vary in each region or place. Thus,
what might be seen as a normal or usual act for newcomers in a specific
location might be taken seriously by the citizens residing to that place if
it is not widely accepted.
How is the crime of Grave Scandal committed?
Grave scandal is defined as those which “consists of acts which are
offensive to decency and good customs which, having been committed
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the same.”
The crime of grave scandal is committed in the presence of the
following elements:
1. Offender performs an act or acts;
2. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending
against decency or good customs;
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code; and
4. The act or acts complained of be committed in a
public place or within the public knowledge or view.
The acts punishable by Article 200 are those which by their publicity
and character can cause public scandal among the person witnessing
them, besides being contrary to morals and good customs.
The essential element in the crime of grave and scandal is publicity.
good customs might not be liable under Article 200 of the Revised
Penal Code if it was not committed in a public place or within the
public knowledge or view.
As illustrated in the 1996 bar exam an individual unaware that the
business executives holding office at the adjoining tall buildings
reported to office every Sunday morning sunbathed naked in a
penthouse of a condominium; business executives used binoculars
to gaze at her while she sunbathed.
In this case the individual is not liable for grave scandal since in
the first place it was not done in a public place and within public
knowledge or view.
How is the felony of Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publication and
Exhibitions, and Indecent Shows perpetrated?
Under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are
identified as immoral doctrines, obscene publication and exhibitions,
and indecent shows:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines
openly contrary to public morals;
2. The authors of obscene literature, published with their
knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such
literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
3. Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other
place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or
shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether
live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall
include those which:
(3.1) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
(3.2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for
violence, lust or pornography;
(3.3) offend any race or religion;
(3.4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and
(3.5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good
customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and
edicts; and
4. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints,
engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to
morals.
Similar to Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code, publicity is also
essential in Article 201. The purpose of the law is to protect the morals
of the public. The mere possession of obscene literature is not
punishable. There must be publishing, selling, exhibiting, or giving
away (meaning, distribution) of such literature.
Since distribution is contemplated by this article, it was held that the act
of giving copy of the obscene literature to only one person is not
punishable under this article (People vs. Tempongko, 1 CA Rep. 317).
However, the above must be distinguished from the case of a magazine
dealer who was caught in possession of several copies of immoral
publications, and was consequently convicted under this
provision (People vs. Tabao, CA-G. R. No. 16703-R, Jan. 28, 1958).

Obscenity
People vs. Kottinger, ( G. R. No. L-20569, October 29, 1923)
 “obscene” is defined as something offensive to chastity, decency or
delicacy. To assess if a particular item, object, or event is obscene,
there is a test of obscenity.
Obscenity is defined as the tendency of the matter charged as obscene
to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are susceptible to such
immoral influences and into whose hands such a publication may fall,
as well as whether such publication or act shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency. “Indecency” is an act against
good manners and a proper delicacy.
“Indecency” is an act against the good behavior and a just delicacy
(People vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil 352) Thus, the degree of obscenity to say
that it is an indecent act is subject to its gravity or effect on ordinary
men. To illustrate, pictures with a slight degree of obscenity which are
used for commercial purposes fall under this Article 201 of the RPC.
As elaborated by Reyes, if the pictures were sold or exhibited for
people to satisfy their curiosity, taste, and lust, and for love of
excitement, including the youth who, because of their immaturity, are
not in a position to resist and shield themselves from the ill and
perverting effects of the pictures, the said display of pictures for
commercial purposes will constitute as a violation of Article 201.
Does being a prostitute a punishable offense?  Chapter two of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes under
Prostitution in the Philippines is committed by women who, for money
or profit, engage in sexual intercourse or lewd behavior on a regular
basis. This is punishable under Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code.
Note that this provision focuses exclusively on women prostitutes.
Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code speaks of prostitutes as women
who habitually engage in (1) sexual intercourses or (2) lascivious
conduct, for money or profit. The key point to remember here is the
engagement in the said acts of a woman for money or profit.
Only female prostitutes are covered by this provision and to be liable
thereunder, it is required that she engages in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, that it be for consideration, and that such
misconduct is habitual.
Vagrancy
Republic Act No. 10158 (An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy,
Amending for This Purpose Article 202 Of Act No. 3815, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as The Revised Penal Code) has
decriminalized Vagrancy under Article 202 of the Revised Penal
Code. It deleted the related provisions of vagrancy, hence, not anymore
a punishable act. Thus:
Section 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby, amended to
read as follows:
Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes of this article,
women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
“Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article
shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to
2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.”
Section 2. Effect on Pending Cases. – All pending cases under the
provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior
to its amendment by this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of
this Act.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS:
Title seven of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is entitled Crimes
Committed by Public Officers.
The crimes defined under this title are grouped into five.
 The first group found under the chapter two are the
“malfeasance and misfeasance in office” of public
officers.
 Second group under the chapter three are the “frauds and
illegal exactions and transactions” of public officers.
 The third group under chapter four are the
“malversation of public funds or property” of public
officer.
 The fourth group under chapter five are the “infidelity of
the public officers”.
 Lastly, the fifth group under chapter six are the crimes of
“other offenses or irregularities by public officers.”
malfeasance and misfeasance in office. As the legal authority Justice
Luis B. Reyes defined in his book, misfeasance is the improper
performance of some act which might lawfully be done, and
malfeasance is the performance of some act which ought not to be
done.
Another relevant concept to this group is the nonfeasance which Reyes
defined as omission of some act which ought to be performed. These
crimes tackle the culpable performance or nonperformance of a public
officer of the function of his or her office.
Chapter three of the title seven of the RPC defines crime under frauds
and illegal exactions and transactions. These crimes relate to dealings
of financial transaction of the government relevant to his or function or
office.
Chapter four of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes of
malversation of public funds or property. These crimes tackle the
improper handling of the funds and property of the government to
which the public officer is accountable in relation to his or her office or
function.
Chapter five of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes of
infidelity of the public officers. These crimes tackle the disloyalty of
public officers in exercising their public function.
Who is a Public Officer?
An element common to the crimes punished under the title seven of the
RPC, with the exception of the crime of corruption public official, that
these are perpetrated by a public officer. The definition of a public
officer for the purpose of the crimes under title seven of the RPC is in
the Article 203 of the RPC.

Article 203. Who are public officers. – For the purpose of applying
the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book any
person who by direct provision of the law popular election or
appointment by competent authority shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine
Islands of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee agent or subordinate official of any
rank or class shall be deemed to be a public officer.
It provides that for one to be a public officer he must be (a) taking part
in the performance of public functions in the Government or in any
of its branch public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official; and (b) his authority must be by direct provision of the law,
popular election, or appointment by competent authority.
The term public officer is variously defined in the Philippine laws. In
Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees, a public officer is defined as
“elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including
military and police personnel, whether or not they receive
compensation, regardless of amount.”
While in Republic Act No. 7080 or the Plunder Law, public officer
“means any person holding any public office in the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election
or contract.”
And in Republic Act No. 3019 or The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the term public officer mean to include “elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government.”
Comparing the various definitions of the term public officer under cited
laws with that of under the RPC, when can see that the RPC is more
specific. The various laws only require the lawful occupation of a
person of a public office.
While RPC does not only require occupation of a person of a public
office but also performance of the public function to be a public officer
within the contemplation of its provision.
How is the crime of Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment
committed?
The crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgement is committed when
a judge deliberately and maliciously rendered an unjust judgement,
motivated by ill-will or revenge, or a result of bribery, to a case
submitted to him for decision.
The elements of the crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgment
are as follows, to wit:
(a) offender is a judge;
(b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
decision;
(c) the judgment is unjust; and
(d) he knew that said judgment is unjust.
The very essence of this crime is the deliberate malicious rending of
an unjust judgement to the case submitted for decision before a judge.
Diego vs. Judge Castillo
The Supreme Court held, in the case of Diego vs. Judge Castillo,
(Eduardo P. Diego vs. Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, Regional Trial Court,
Dagupan City, Branch 43; A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1673; August 11, 2004)
that for the judge to be a guilty of this crime, it must be proved that the
judgment is unjust as it constitutes contrary to law or is not
supported by evidence and that the judge made it with conscious and
deliberate intent to do an injustice.
Still from the same case, the Supreme Court clarified that crucial for
this crime is the bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on the part of
the judge. Absent the bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose the judge
cannot be charged of this crime.
How is the felony of Judgment Rendered Through Negligence
Committed?
The crime of judgment rendered through negligence is committed when
a judge maliciously rendered an unjust judgement to a case submitted
to him for decision due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
The elements of the crime of judgment rendered through
negligence are  as follows, to wit:
(a) offender is a judge;
(b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
decision;
(c) the judgment is manifestly unjust; and
(d) it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Unlike with the crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgement,
judgment rendered through negligence is NOT attended by bad faith,
malice or corrupt purpose.
How is the offense of issuing Unjust Interlocutory Order
committed? What does an Interlocutory Order mean?
The crime of issuing unjust interlocutory order is committed when a
judge maliciously rendered an unjust interlocutory order deliberately
and maliciously, or due to inexcusable negligence.
The elements of the crime of issuing unjust interlocutory order are
as follows, to wit:
(a) offender is a judge; and
(b) he knowingly renders or through inexcusable negligence
or ignorance manifestly renders unjust interlocutory
order or decree.
Noticeably, this crime does not distinguish between the deliberate and
the inexcusable negligent issuance of unjust interlocutory order. The
essence is of this crime is the issuance of unjust interlocutory order
in bad faith.
Heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao vs. Atty. Abdullah
Alug et.al.,
In the case of heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao vs. Atty.
Abdullah Alug et.al., ( February 18, 2015), an interlocutory order is
defined as “an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does
not end the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and
determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court”.
Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Company vs
Yard Crew Union et. al,
Further, the case of Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila
Railroad Company vs Yard Crew Union et. al, (October 31, 1960)
provided a test to determine whether an order is an interlocutory
that is “Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with
respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory”.
How is the crime of Malicious Delay in the Administration of
Justice perpetrated?
The crime of malicious delay in the administration of justice is
committed when a judge maliciously delayed the proceedings in
administration of justice.
The elements of the crime of malicious delay in the administration
of justice are as follows, to wit:
(a) offender is a judge;
(b) there is a proceeding in his court;
(c) he delays the administration of justice; and
(d) the delay is malicious.
That is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in the case. Malice is an essential
element of this crime.
What is Dereliction of Duty under Article 208 of the Revised Penal
Code?
The crime of dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the RPC is
committed either through maliciously refraining from
instituting prosecution against violators of the law or through
maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
The elements of the crime of dereliction of duty under Article 208
are as follows, to wit:
(a) the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has
a duty to cause the prosecution of or to prosecute the
offender;
(b) there is dereliction of the duties of his office either by
knowing the commission of the crime yet he does not cause
the prosecution of the criminal or by knowing that a crime
is about to be committed he tolerates its commission; and
(c) he acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law.
TN: Worthy to note that this crime could only be committed by public
officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of
or to prosecute the offender.
Who are these people?
Under the law, those who can cause the prosecution of the offenders are
the Judges, barangay chairman and persons in authority. While
charged with the prosecution of the offenders are fiscals and state
prosecutors.
US vs. Mendoza, G.R no. 7540
Following the ruling in the case of US vs. Mendoza, G.R no. 7540, for
the person charged with dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the
RPC to be convicted, the crime of the offender, that the public officer
or the officer of the law maliciously failed to prosecute or maliciously
tolerated, must be proved first.
What is betrayal of trust under Article 209 of the Revised Penal
Code?
As provided in Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code, betrayal of trust by
an attorney shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any person
duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, by
any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of
the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any
person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who,
having undertaken the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the
defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of
his first client.
How is the crime of revelation of secrets under Article 209 of the
Revised Penal Code committed?
As provided in Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
revelation secrets is committed by an attorney or a solicitor by
revealing any of the secrets of his clients learned by him in his
professional capacity.
Republic Act No. 10951 amended the provision of Article 209 of RPC.
It now reads, as follows, to wit:
Section 36. Article 209 of the same Act is hereby amended to read
as follows:[10]
“Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.—
Revelation of Secrets. – In addition to the proper administrative
action, the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum period,
or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000), or both, shall be imposed
upon any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to
represent and/or assist a party to a case who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of
the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
“The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or
any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a
case who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first client.”
What are the three modes of commission of the felony of direct
bribery?
Pursuant to Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, a public officer
commits direct bribery:
1.  If the public officer shall 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 received by such
officer, personally or through, the mediation of
another;
2. If the public officer accepted a gift in consideration
of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime, and the officer executed said act;
3. If the object for which the gift was received or
promised was to make the public officer refrain from
doing something which it was his official duty to do.
How is the crime of indirect bribery committed? 
As provided in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code, indirect bribery
is committed by any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him
by reason of his office.
The essential elements of this offense is that:
(a) there is a public officer
(b) someone gave him gifts or something of value by reason of
his office
(c) the public officer accepts the same
It must be noted that the thing of value has been given to the public
officer not for any favor solicited but merely by reason of his office.
The provision seeks to prevent the situation that said public officer may
subsequently be at the influence, if not mercy, of the one giving the
gifts.

Is the provision on indirect bribery a “dead” law?
Legally, there is no dead law if the same is still in the statute books and
has not been repealed, whether express or implied, or amended. It must
be noted that Filipinos like to give gifts, even to public officers.
Wittingly or unwittingly, they have been giving such, whether or not
the motive is by reason of the public official’s office.
What is qualified bribery?
Under Article 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, qualified bribery is
committed if any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and
he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present, he shall suffer the
penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.
Further, if it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. Thus:
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. – If any public officer is entrusted
with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present,
he shall suffer the penalty of death. (As added by Sec. 4, RA No.
7659).
Differentiate direct bribery, indirect bribery, and qualified
bribery?
Pursuant to Articles 210, 211 and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, in
a direct bribery, there is already a consummation of the crime by mere
acceptance of an offer or promise or gifts; in indirect bribery, the gift
must be accepted by the public officer for the act to be consummated.
In qualified bribery, the mere acceptance of any offer, promise, gift or
present consummates the crime.
Moreover, in a direct bribery, the reason for the promise, gifts or offer
is in consideration of the agreement of the public officer to perform or
refrain from the commission of the crime or performance of an act; in
indirect bribery, it was not because of a performance of an act but of
his office; and in a qualified bribery, in consideration to not arrest or
prosecute an offender who has committed a crime.
Lastly, in a qualified bribery, it focuses on public officers entrusted
with law enforcement whereas in direct and indirect bribery, it
pertains to all public officers.
Can you complex Direct Bribery with other felonies?  gifts or presents to a public officer; and[21]
The felony of Direct Bribery cannot be complexed with other felonies.
From the provision itself, the phrase “in addition to the penalty . . . ”
shall bar the applicability of the doctrine on complex crime under
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that:
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
Under Anti-Graft Law [RA 3019]
Sec. 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states provides that “No
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.”
The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. As provided in Section 7
of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the test is whether one offense is
identical to the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration
thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the other.
Direct bribery cannot be complexed with other felonies if there is an
identity and necessity between the two offenses. Thus, in the case of
Merencillo vs. People, G. R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007 the
Supreme Court ruled that:
“One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition
to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act,
that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a
felony under the Revised Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy if a
person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of
Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code. Although the two
charges against petitioner stemmed from the same transaction, the
same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No double
jeopardy attached since there was a variance between the elements of
the offenses charged. The constitutional protection against double
jeopardy proceeds from a second prosecution for the same offense, not
for a different one.”
How is the felony of Corruption of Public Official committed?
What if a man who was caught for a traffic violation gave money to the
traffic police? What crime will he be liable for? Most of us would have
answered, it is bribery. But, as we learned in the previous discussion,
bribery is committed only by a public officer, who accepts. Does this
mean that the one who bribes is scot-free? No, he will be liable for the
crime of corruption of public officials.
Corruption of Public officials is committed when any person has made
an offer, promise, or give gifts or money to a public official in order to
gain favor. This is the crime committed by the bribe giver, promissor,
or offeror.
It is a crime defined and penalized under Article 212 of the Revised
Penal Code. It states that the same penalties imposed upon the officer
corrupted shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the
offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the
preceding articles, except the penalty of disqualification
and suspension.
The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of
the Revised Penal Code are:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or
presents are given to a public officer under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable
for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Corruption of public officials has only two stages: attempted if the gift,
offer or promise was rejected and consummated if the same was
accepted. Simply put, any person who merely makes offers or
promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer and the latter
rejected the same, he or she committed the crime of corruption of
public official.
In the case of Disini vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, G. R. Nos. 169823-24,
September 11, 2013, the Court ruled that the second element of
corruption of public officers simply required the public officer to be
placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make
him liable for direct or indirect bribery.
Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted
Disini’s offers, promises, and gifts – an essential element in direct
bribery – the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of the
contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him
under circumstances of being liable for direct bribery.
What is the relation of this crime to bribery?
The words “as described in the preceding articles” mentioned in Article
212 of the RPC refers to direct bribery (Article 210) and indirect
bribery (Article 211).
Art. 212 punishes the bribe giver or the person who made the offer or
promise of giving the gift, even if the gift was not made voluntarily
prior to the said demand by the public officer. While it is the bribe-
taker or the public officer who is punished under Articles 210 and 211.
Under Article 212 of the RPC, it provides that:
Article 212. Corruption of public officials. – The same
penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those
of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon
any person who shall have made the offers or promises or
given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding
articles.
Hence, it bears emphasizing that Article 212 carries the same penalties
imposed upon the violators of Articles 210, 211, and 211-A of the
Revised Penal Code.
What is the crime of Illegal Exaction?
Illegal Exaction is the unlawful exaction of taxes, licenses, fees, and
other imposts committed by a public officer. The essence of the crime
is not misappropriation of any of the amounts but the improper
making of the collection which would prejudice the accounting of
collected amounts by the government.
How is the crime of Illegal Exaction perpetrated?
Illegal Exaction under paragraph 2 of Article 213 of the Revised Penal
Code may be committed by a public officer who is entrusted with the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts in three ways.
What are the modes of its commission?
 First is by demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment
of sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law.
 The second is by failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially.
 Third is by collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise things or objects of a
nature different from that provided by law.
Demanding sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law
On the first form of illegal exaction, mere demand will consummate the
crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across the amount
being demanded. In the demand, the amount being demanded doesn’t
need to be bigger than what is payable to the government.
The amount being demanded may be less than the amount due to the
government. However, one is aware that a public officer is demanding
greater fees than those prescribed by law and there is deceit, the crime
committed is estafa and not illegal exaction.
Failure to issue Official Receipt
On the second form of illegal exaction, the act of receiving payment
due to the government without issuing a receipt will give rise to
illegal exaction even though a provisional receipt has been issued.
What the law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law, which
means official receipt. Practically, it is for that reason that if the
payment was given but the public official failed to issue receipts, one
may put a different amount in the receipt.
Collecting or receiving
On the third form of illegal exaction, under the rules and regulations of
the government, payment of checks not belonging to the taxpayer but of
checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle
the obligation of that person. Moreover, in this form one may think of
barter as prohibited by law because in barter the amount is unknown,
thus, the government will lose its funds.
Who are liable?
Furthermore, in Illegal Exaction as a general rule, only specific public
officers are liable and this can only be committed principally by a
public officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license fees, import
duties, and other dues payable to the government.
But, as an exception to the general rule, the last paragraph of Article
213 of the RPC states that “When the culprit is an officer or employee
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the
provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.” (Last
paragraph of Article 213 of the RPC)
In other words, BIR and Customs employees are not covered by article
213. The NIRC or the Revised Administrative Code is the applicable
law. These officers are authorized to make impositions and to enter into
compromises.
Consequently, any public officer who committed the crime of Illegal
Exaction is punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from 40,000 to 2,000,000 pesos, or both.
What is Malversation?
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code defined and penalized the crime
of malversation. It provides that:
Section 40. Article 217 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act
No. 1060, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
Any public officer who, because of the duties of his office,
is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall
consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit
any other person to take such public funds, or property,
wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property,
shall suffer:
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the amount involved in the
misappropriation or malversation does not exceed P40, 000
pesos.

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount involved is more than P40,000 pesos
but does not exceed P1,200,000 pesos.
The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount
involved is more than P1,200,00 pesos but does not exceed
P2,400,00 pesos.
The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and
maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than
P2,400,000 but does not exceed P4,400,000 pesos.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if
the amount involved is more than P4,400,000 but does not
exceed P8,800,000. If the amount exceeds the latter, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer
the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine
equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the
total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any
public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal use.
How is the crime of Malversation committed?
There are four modes or ways of committing the crime of malversation.
 The first is by Appropriating public funds or property.
 The second is by taking or misappropriating the same.
 Third is by consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person to take such public
funds or property.
 Fourth is by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation
or malversation of such funds or property.
The following elements are common to all modes, to wit:
1. The offender is a public officer;
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office;
3. He was accountable for public funds or property;
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented
or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
Furthermore, in malversation the penalty imposed depends upon the
value of money misappropriated, as provided in Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code.
How is Malversation through Negligence perpetrated?
Malversation of public funds in the Philippines may be committed
either with malice or through negligence. As a general rule, when a
crime is committed through negligence, the penalty is lesser by 2
degrees.
However, the law specifically provides that in malversation, there is no
distinction. This is one crime in the Revised Penal Code where the
penalty is the same whether committed with dolo or through culpa.
Negligence, by definition, is the omission of reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the
same situation.
The measure of negligence is the standard of care commensurate with
the occasion, as provided in the Civil Code. On the other hand, for
malversation not committed through negligence, good faith is a defense
as it negates criminal intent.
Who is an “accountable officer” in the crime of Malversation?
Section 101 of Presidential Decree [PD] No. 1445 defines an
accountable officer as one who has custody or control of public
property by reason of the duties of his office.
Malversation bears a relation between the offender and the funds or
property involved. Hence, the offender, to commit malversation, must
be accountable for the funds or property misappropriated.
If the fund or property, though public in character is the responsibility
of another officer, malversation is not committed unless there is
a conspiracy. If the public officer is not accountable for the funds or
property but someone else is, the crime committed is theft or qualified
theft if there is an abuse of confidence..
In Malversation, it is not necessary that the offender profited because
somebody else may have misappropriated the funds in question for as
long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty of safekeeping
public funds or property. He is liable for malversation if such funds
were lost or otherwise misappropriated by another.
An accountable officer does not refer only to the cashier, disbursing
officers or property custodian. Any public officer having custody of
public funds or property for which he is accountable can commit the
crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or property
or allow others to do so.
The Supreme Court ruled in Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan, (G. R. No. L-
59670 February 15, 1990) that “an accountable public officer may be
convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct evidence of
personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved.”
Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, there is prima
facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer
fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is
chargeable upon demand by a duly authorized officer. This
presumption juris tantum is founded upon human experience.
Moreover, in the case of Perez vs. People, (G.R. No. 164763, February
12, 2008) the Supreme Court stated that there is malversation even if
there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is
an unexplainable shortage.
Ilumin v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 85667. February 23, 1995, 241
SCRA 586
In one case decided by the Supreme Court, they said that if the
petitioner, being a public officer, embezzled public funds for which he
is accountable, his crime would be malversation through falsification.
But since he misappropriated public funds for which he is not
accountable, his crime is estafa through falsification. ( ]Ilumin v.
Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 85667. February 23, 1995, 241 SCRA
586)
Time and again, under the law, public officers are the ones primarily be
held liable for the crime of malversation. However, a private person
may also commit malversation under the following situations, to wit:
1. Conspiracy with a public officer in committing
malversation;
2. When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a
public officer who commits malversation;
3. When the private person is made the custodian in
whatever capacity of public funds or property,
whether belonging to national or local government,
and he misappropriates the same;
4. When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or attached
by public authority even though said funds or
property belonging to a private individual.
What is Technical Malversation?
Technical Malversation is enshrined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code, to wit:
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any
public officer who shall apply any public fund or property
under his administration to any public use other than that
for which such fund or property were appropriated by law
or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from
one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of
such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the
offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification.
In short, Technical Malversation is the application of public
funds, earmarked by law or ordinance, other than their
intended public use.
Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, (Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R.
No. 96025, May 15, 1991)
Thus, in Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, (Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, G.
R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991) the Supreme Court held that, “in
malversation of public funds, the offender misappropriates public funds
for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public
funds for the latter’s personal use. In technical malversation, the public
officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or
another’s personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the
fund was appropriated by law or ordinance.”
How is the felony of Technical Malversation committed?
Technical Malversation is committed when the public officers used or
applied public fund or property appropriated by law different from that
which it is intended.
The essential elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:
(a) the offender is an accountable public officer;
(b) he applies public funds or property under his administration
to some public use; and
(c) the public funds or property were used differently from the
purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law
ordinance.
Is Technical Malversation a mala prohibita offense? Why?
The crime of technical malversation, punished under Art. 220 of the
RPC, was held to be a crime that is mala prohibita. It is not inherently
wrong per se but because of the law that prohibits the commission of an
act which make it a criminal offense.
Thus, the Court ruled that:
Ysidoro vs. People, G. R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012
“But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The
law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose.
The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive
law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy,
order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the
law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or
not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is
completely irrelevant.”(Ysidoro vs. People, G. R. No. 192330,
November 14, 2012)
How are the felonies under Articles 223 to 225 of the Revised Penal
Code committed?
The felonies under Articles 223, 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal
Code are committed by public officers to whom the prisoner was
entrusted and he connived with the prisoner (Art. 223), through his
negligence (Art. 224) the prisoner was allowed to escape, or by
private person to whom the prisoner is confided to him and he
consents to the escape or allowed the escape of the prisoner through
his negligence (Art. 225).
The essential elements of these crimes are summarized as follows:
Article 223
(a) The offender is a public officer;
(b) that he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
(c) that such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
(d) that he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s
escape. 
Article 224
(a) The offender is a public officer;
(b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment; and
(c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence. 
Note that when the public officer recaptured the prisoner who escaped
from his custody does not afford him complete exculpation.
Article 225
(a) The offender is a private person;
(b) that the conveyance or custody of prisoner or person under
arrest is confided to him;
(c) that the prisoner or person under arrest escapes; and
(d) that the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest, or that the escape takes place through
his negligence. 
Distinguish the crimes under Infidelity of the Custody of Prisoners
from Delivery of Prisoners from Jail and Evasion of Service of
Sentence
In the crimes under infidelity of the custody of prisoners, the offender
has the custody of the prisoner at the time of the escape or removal of
the latter while in delivery of prisoners from jail, the offender does not
have custody of the prisoner at the time of the escape or removal.
In the evasion of service of sentence, the prisoner is already convicted
by a final judgment while in the infidelity of the custody of prisoners,
the prisoner is either convicted by a final judgment or a detention
prisoner.
Discuss the crimes under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents
The crimes under infidelity in the custody of documents are as follows,
to wit:
(a) Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art.
226);
(b) Officer breaking seal (Art. 227); and
(c) Opening of closed documents (Art. 228)
The first crime under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is
Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that, “any public
officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers
officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
(a) the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused
thereby to a third party or to the public interest or
(b) the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
whenever the damage to a third party or to the public
interest shall not have been serious.”
The essential elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:
(a) The offender is a public officer;
(b) that he abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers;
(c) that the said documents or papers should have been
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; and
(d) that damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to
the public.
Therefore, this crime is committed through:
(a) Removal which presupposes appropriation of the official
documents. However, It is not necessary that the record be
brought out of the place where it is kept. It is enough that
the record be removed from the place where it should be
transferred;
(b) Destruction that is equivalent to rendering useless or the
obliteration of said documents; the complete destruction
thereof is not necessary, and
(c) Concealment which means that the documents are not
forwarded to their destination and it is not necessary that
they are secreted away in a place where they could not be
found.
TN: It is important to note, however, that under this article, the persons
liable are only public officers who have been officially entrusted with
the documents or papers.
Break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Another crime under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is
enshrined in Article 227 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides
that any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property
sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to
be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a
fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
The elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:
(a) the offender is a public officer;
(b) he is charged with the custody of papers or property;
(c) that these papers or property are sealed by proper authority;
and
(d) he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
Under this article, the mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of
the document would already constitute infidelity even though no
damage has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large because
this act violates the confidence or trust reposed on him.
Open or permit to be opened closed papers, documents, or objects
The last crime of Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is found in
Article 228 which states that any public officer not included in the
provisions of the next preceding article who, without proper authority,
shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or
objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto
mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding
2,000 pesos.
Under Art. 228, the closed documents must be entrusted to the custody
of the accused by reason of his office. Thus, this crime is committed by
a public officer to whom any closed papers, documents or objects are
entrusted to his custody and he opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects without proper authority. Also, this
crime does not require that there be damage or intent to cause damage
(Reyes, 2008).
Discuss the offenses under Revelation of Secrets under Articles 229
to 230 of the Revised Penal Code
The revelation of secrets are committed by public officers who know
the secrets by reason of his public position. The secrets include those
secrets of a private person. The revelation of secrets was enshrined in
Articles 229 and 230 of the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code:
“Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. – Any public officer
who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official
capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of
which he may have charge and which should not be published, shall
suffer the penalties of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not
exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000) if the
revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have
caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the
penalties of prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary
special disqualification and a fine not exceeding One hundred
thousand (₱100,000) pesos shall be imposed.”
Violation of Article 229 is committed either by:
(a) revealing any secrets known to the offending public
officer by reason of his official capacity, or
(b) wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of
which he may have charge and which should not be
published.
In revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by
reason of his official capacity, the offender is a public officer who
knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity, and that he
reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons to caused
damage to the public interest.
On the other hand, in wrongfully delivering papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and which should not be
published, the offender is also a public officer to whom the papers
which should not be published were charge and that he wrongfully
delivers those papers to a third person that resulted to damage to public
interest.
Note that if the public officer is merely entrusted with the papers but
not with the custody of the papers, he is not liable under this provision.
In addition, military secrets or those affecting national interest are not
covered by the crime of revelation of secrets.
In Article 230, 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 Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000).
The elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:
(a) the offender is a public officer;
(b) he knows of the secrets of private individuals by reason of
his office; and
(c) he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable
reason.
Note that if the secrets are contrary to public interest or to the
administration of justice, the revelation will not amount to a crime
under this article. Public revelation is not required. It is sufficient and
necessary that the revelation was made to any one person.
Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance, and Maltreatment of Prisoners
The Chapter Six of Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code penalizes
Disobedience, Refusal, and Maltreatment of Prisoners.  It is detailed in
the Articles 231 to 235 of the Revised Penal Code.
Disobedience
Disobedience, even in the setting of our own homes, is despicable one
might say.  It creates disharmony and trouble which leads to failure in
doing what is to be intended. However, disobedience may be justified
with some lawful reason why such disobedience is manifested.
In the herein subject chapter, it penalizes two acts of disobedience,
Open Disobedience (Art. 231) and Disobedience to order of superior
officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer (Art.
232).
Open Disobedience refers to:
“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”
Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was
suspended by inferior officer pertains to:
“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”.
The key difference between the two are the offenders in the said acts,
Art. 231 is only for Judicial or Executive Officers only.
Black’s Law dictionary defines judicial officer as:
“The term [judicial officer], in the popular sense, applies
generally to an officer of a court, but in the strictly legal
sense applies only to an officer who determines causes
between parties or renders decision in a judicial capacity”
and executive officer as “An officer of the executive
department of government; one in whom resides the power
to execute the laws; one whose duties are to cause the laws
to be executed and obeyed.” 
On the other hand, Art. 232 is for Public Officers which refers to
“Any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance
of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall
perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as
an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall
be deemed to be a public officer.” (Art. 203)
 
Art. 231
Is for judicial or executive officers who refuses to execute a judgement,
decision, or order that is within his jurisdiction and was ordered
lawfully by any superior authority without legal justification.
On the other hand, Art. 232 refers to the act of any public officer
suspending the execution of the orders of his superior and continue to
do so even after the disapproval of such suspension.
Refusal
Likewise with disobedience, refusal to act on a mandated job, duty, or
order is also penalized under the Revised Penal Code. There are two
acts of refusal penalized under Chapter VI of Title 7 of the RPC
namely: Refusal of Assistance (Art. 233) and Refusal to discharge
elective office (Art. 234).
Refusal of Assistance refers to:
The act of any public officer who, upon demand from
competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or other public
service.” 
The penalty of shall be imposed therefrom are penalties
arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional
in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification
and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand pesos
(₱200,000).
When the qualifying circumstance of the refusal and “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 One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be
imposed.”
Refusal to discharge elective office refers to an act of an elected
official’s failure to sworn in or discharge the duties of his office.  
Imposed upon this act is the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000), or both.
Maltreatment of Prisoners
It is not old news that violence towards prisoners happens, more often it
was portrayed in the television, cinema, and stories perpetrated by jail
guards and wardens without care or consideration.  Such an act is
inhumane and therefore punishable under the Revised Penal Code. 
Article 235 mentions the crime of Maltreatment of Prisoners which is
as follows:
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 One hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000), in addition to his liability for the physical
injuries or damage caused.
This article mentions that the offender shall be a public officer or
employee and that he overdoes himself in the correction of a prisoner or
detention prisoner by imposition of unauthorized punishments or by
inflicting punishment that is cruel and humiliating in nature.
Said article also mentions a qualifying circumstance wherein if such
maltreatment is done to extort a confession or obtain information a
higher penalty is to be imposed. Art. 235 mentions prisoners, this
includes both detention prisoners and those that are convicted by final
judgement.
Maltreatment of Prisoners, can it be complexed with another
felony?
Maltreatment of prisoners CANNOT be complexed under Art. 48 of
the RPC. It must be noted, again, that, under Article 235 of RPC, in the
imposition of the prescribed penalty, the provision still states “in
addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage
caused.” This phrase divests this felony of a situation where Article 48
of the RPC may seem applicable.
Anticipation, Prolongation, and Abandonment of the Duties and
Powers of Public Office
Often mentioned in numerous written instruments and speeches
that Public Office is a Public Trust, which mandates the public officers
to maintain and uphold the trust the public has for the office in which
they are elected, appointed, employed, or commissioned into.
Under the Revised Penal Code, numerous penal clauses are in effect,
which criminalize and penalize acts or omission done by public
officers  that are disadvantageous and detrimental to the office which
they have held. The action of Anticipation, Prolongation, and
Abandonment of the Duties and Powers of Public Office are not
exceptions to such.
Anticipation of Duties of Public Office (Art. 236) is the act in which a
soon to be public officer assumes office ahead, without first complying
to what is required by law. On the contrary, Prolonging Performance
of Duties and Powers (Art. 237) is a criminal act where a public
officer shall continue to exercise the duties and powers of his office,
employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law,
regulation, or special provisions applicable to the case is the act in
which a public officer.
Abandonment of Office or Position (Art. 238) is different from the
assumption and prolongation of duties and power. It pertains to the act
of any public officer who abandons his office to the damage of the
public interest or when the act of abandonment is done to evade the
discharge of duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any other
crime.
However, when the act of abandonment is done to evade the
discharge of duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any
crimes falling under Crimes Against National Security  and The Law Of
Nations and Crimes Against Public Order, such is considered to be
qualified felony.
Usurpation of Powers and Unlawful Appointments
The Constitution vests separate power to the three (3) branches of the
government namely the Legislative, Executive, and the Judiciary.  As
such, they are co-equal branches with different and distinct functions,
which shall not encroach the power of another as mandated and
delineated by the Constitution. This is the Doctrine of the Separation of
Powers.  Consequently, usurping the power of one another is
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
Usurpation, which is categorized as penal in nature, mentioned in
the RPC, are as follows:
(a) Usurpation of Legislative Powers (Art. 239),
(b) Usurpation of Executive Functions (Art. 240), and
(c) Usurpation of Judicial Functions (Art. 241).
They are specifically defined and referred to as follows:
(1) Usurpation of legislative power punishes 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,
(2) Usurpation of executive functions punishes any judge
who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful
exercise of their powers, and lastly[
(3) Usurpation of judicial functions punishes any officer of
the executive branch of the Government who shall assume
judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order
or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.
Disobedience from disqualifications
Similarly to usurpation, the disobedience of a public officer from
disqualification is also meted with appropriate penalties too. No one is
above the law, as anyone, not even public officers, is not spared, when
penal provision is violated, unless otherwise legally excepted.
Any public officer who continues any proceeding after a question of
jurisdiction is raised and it being not yet decided, therefore was
lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000).  This is mentioned in the Art. 242 of the RPC.
Consequently, if any executive officer who address any order or
suggest to any judicial authority on how to handle certain business or
case in their jurisdiction, said officer shall be punished under Art. 243
of the RPC.
Appointments should also be upheld on a certain degree of care as any
public officer who nominates or appoints a person to any public office
without being legally qualified may be punished under Art. 244 of the
RPC.
Abuse of Chastity
In the famous story of Spiderman, Uncle Ben said that, “With great
power comes great responsibility”, as such, public officers bearing both
the trust of the people and a great responsibility to be of good moral
character.   Among the common immoral acts much more despised by
the people are abuses against chastity.
We are in the modern times and among the rights that has been fought
hard are women’s rights. Persons in power may, in return for their
favor, induce a woman to do his bidding to meet her interest even if it is later the missing amount is found in some unaccustomed
against her will.  Corollary to such, one of the criminal acts penalized place in his office, he is not liable for malversation. (U.S.
under RPC are abuses against chastity which is detailed to wit: vs. Pascual, 26 Pill. 234, G.R. No. L-8686, July 30, 1915)

Article 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. – The penalties of

prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and
temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral
or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest
who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to
a woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in
the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and temporary special disqualification.
Art. 245 punishes any public officer who proposes earnestly and
tenaciously anything unchaste, immoral, and indecent to a woman
interested in matters such a public officer has control or influence over. 
The mere proposal of such unchaste, immoral, and indecent act
consummates the crime of abuse against chastity.  Shall there be an
intercourse, the proof of solicitation in no longer needed.
 Leniency or laxity is not infidelity
People vs. Evangelista, C.A., 38 O.G. 158
During his detention, the prisoner was allowed to eat in a
restaurant near the municipal building. During the town
fiesta, the municipal president acceded to the prisoner’s
request for permission to eat better means in his house.  On
all these occasions, the prisoner was duly guarded.  It is
held that it is only leniency or laxity in the performance of
duty, and not in excess of his duties.( People vs.
Evangelista, C.A., 38 O.G. 158)
 Maltreatment of Prisoners
People vs. Javier, 54 O.G. 6622
Thus, if the jailer inflicted physical injuries on the prisoner
because of personal grudge against the prisoner, the jailer is
liable for physical injuries only. (People vs. Javier, 54 O.G.
6622)

Modes of Commission of the Crime of Abuses Against Chastity

1. By soliciting or making 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. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a
woman under his custody; and
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to
the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree
by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or
officer.

Relevant Jurisprudence on Crimes Committed by Public Officers

The following are excerpts of some jurisprudence which may aid in
understanding Crimes Committed by Public Officers:

 Borrowing money to replace missing funds – when not

malversation.

People vs. Divino, CA-G. R. No. 428, Oct. 13, 1938

The fact that the amount in cash which a municipal
treasurer should have in his café was fully covered by an
amount borrowed from one of his clerks does not relieve
the said treasurer from criminal responsibility. As he did
not explain satisfactorily why the amount which should be
in his hands was in his clerk’s possession, the presumption
is that he misappropriated the missing amount. People vs.
Divino, CA-G. R. No. 428, Oct. 13, 1938)

U.S. vs. Pascual, 26 Pill. 234, G.R. No. L-8686, July 30, 1915
But when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his
office and borrow the sum alleged to be the shortage and