Oro, Jonathan Ivan D.

MW 05:00-07:00
Criminal Law II Quiz No. 2

Quiz No. 2

Yes, Mayor A is guilty of technical malversation. The crime of technical malversation is defined
under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. It is committed by any public officer who shall
apply public funds or property under his administration to purposes other than those for which
such funds or property were appropriated by law or ordinance.
As provided for by law, the elements of technical malversation are as follows: a) the offender is a
public officer; b) the public officer is in charge of public funds or property; c) the public funds or
property are appropriated by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose; and d) the public
officer applies the public funds or property under his charge to a purpose different from that for
which they were appropriated by law or ordinance.
Regarding the case of Mayor A, he appears to have committed the crime of technical
malversation. The fact that the funds were surplus or savings does not give him the authority to
divert them to another program without legal authority. It is not within his discretion to decide
how to use the funds without proper authorization from the appropriate authorities. Even if he
consulted with the heads of the accounting department, this does not exempt him from liability.
As a public officer, he has a responsibility to ensure that public funds are used only for the
purpose they are appropriated and intended to.

II

Yes, B is guilty of violating Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for selling pornographic VHS
tapes and magazines. The fact that he was not present when the police raided his store does not
exempt him from liability.
Under Article 201, it is unlawful to sell or distribute any obscene publication or indecent show,
whether live or in video or audio form. The law does not require that the seller must be present
during the actual sale or distribution of such materials to be held liable. The mere act of selling or
distributing obscene publications or indecent shows, regardless of whether the seller was present
or not, is already a violation of the law.
 In this case, B admitted to selling pornographic VHS tapes and magazines that contain pictures
of men and women in the nude doing sexual acts. These materials are clearly obscene publication
and are prohibited under the law. Therefore, B is guilty of violating Art. 201 of the RPC,
regardless of whether he was present during the police raid or not.

III

As held in Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, to hold a person liable under Article 201 of the
Revised Penal Code, two elements must be proven: a) the materials, publication, picture, or
literature are obscene; and b) the offender sold, exhibited, published, or gave away such
materials.

IV

False, Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to the crimes against public
morals such as illegal gambling, are not repealed by P.D. No. 1602, which is a law that has the
purpose to simplify and provide tougher penalties for illegal gambling activities or violations of
Philippine gambling laws.

Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code defines vagrancy as a crime.

However, as provided for by jurisprudence, the Supreme Court held that Article 202 of the
Revised Penal Code as unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
Therefore, as of the current jurisprudence, the crime of vagrancy under Article 202 of the
Revised Penal Code is no longer enforceable and punishable by law.

VI

Direct bribery is defined as the act of a public officer who agrees to perform an act in exchange
for a gift, present, or consideration offered to him/her, directly or through another person.
 On the other hand, indirect bribery is defined as the act of a public officer who receives for
himself/herself or for another, any gift, present, or other material benefit, in connection with any
transaction or official duty.
The difference between the two is the manner by which the bribe is offered and received. In
direct bribery, the bribe is offered directly to the public officer, while in indirect bribery, the bribe
is offered through another person or intermediary.