PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.

1829
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging
from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or
willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
 (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from
reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by
means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;

 (b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,

document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

 (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he

knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any
offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution
and conviction;
 (d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a
crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;

 (e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service

of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's
offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

 (f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object

with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;
 (g)soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal
offender;

 (h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong
upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or
members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;

 (i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
 If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a
higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.
 Section2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a
public official or employee, he shall in addition to the
penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.
CASES:
 Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu vs. Ombudsman and Dizon

 “In order for a person to be liable for violation of PD 1829 there must be either a warrant
of arrest or there is a valid warrantless arrest. The absence of an arrest warrant, the
absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part of Posadas to believe that the
students had committed a crime, the absence of any law punishing refusal to attend an
investigation at the NBI, all show that there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused
with Obstruction of Justice.
 That Posadas had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag because their
attempted arrest was illegal.”
 Naval vs Panday, Encinas, and Lacson

 In addition, his subsequent act of offering Ceciles father a substantial amount of money in
consideration for the withdrawal of their charges against him is considered, by law, an
obstruction of justice. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides that:
 Canon I

Rule 1.01: A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.

 Canon II
Rule 2.00: A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.
Rule 2.01: A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
 Soller vs Sandiganbayan
“Offenses defined in P.D. 1829 may be committed by any person whether a public officer or a
private citizen, and accordingly public office is not an element of the offense. Moreover, the
Information states that the fabrication of information in the police and autopsy report "would
indicate that the victim was shot by Vincent Soller, the son of herein petitioners spouses
Prudente and Preciosa Soller". Thus there is a categorical indication that the petitioners
spouses Soller had a personal motive to commit the offenses and they would have committed
the offenses charged even if they did not respectively hold the position of Municipal Mayor or
Municipal Health Officer.”

 Angeles vs Gaite
Petitioner argues that the evasion of arrest constitutes a violation of Section 1(e) of PD No.
1829. This Court does not agree.
The failure on the part of the arresting officer/s to arrest the person of the accused makes the
latter a fugitive from justice and is not equivalent to a commission of another offense of
obstruction of justice.
 Disini vs Secretary of Justice
 Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a bill of attainder. The
argument is that the mere failure to comply constitutes a legislative finding
of guilt, without regard to situations where non-compliance would be
reasonable or valid.

 But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of

Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1829, Section 20 necessarily incorporates
elements of the offense which are defined therein. xxx Thus, the act of
non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must still be done “knowingly or
willfully.” There must still be a judicial determination of guilt, during
which, as the Solicitor General assumes, defense and justifications for non-
compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid insofar as it applies to
the provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the Court.
 Rodriguez vs Sandiganbayan
From the records of the case at bar, it is gathered that the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan
took only three months, from November 7, 1996 to February 18, 1997, to come up with its
resolution finding probable cause against petitioners. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon took
eight months to review the case and come up with the joint review action on October 19, 1998.
On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman acted on the case for around two months.
Considering that the records were passed upon by three offices, the period of preliminary
investigation, which did not exceed two years, cannot be deemed to have violated petitioners
constitutionally guaranteed rights to procedural due process and to a speedy disposition of
cases.

 Padiernos vs People
 P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to
obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. The
Information duly alleges all the essential elements of the crime of obstruction of justice.
 The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the accused of taking and carrying
away the truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and
forfeiture in favor of the government as a tool or instrument of the crime.
 Navaja vs De Castro
 Petitioner's acts of allegedly preventing Ms. Magsigay from appearing and testifying in a
preliminary investigation proceeding and offering in evidence a false affidavit were clearly
motivated by a single criminal impulse in order to realize only one criminal objective, which is
to obstruct or impede the preliminary investigation proceeding. Thus, applying the principle of
delito continuado, petitioner should only be charged with one (1) count of violation of PD 1829.

 Enrile vs Amin
 Can a separate crime of a violation of PD 1829 be charged against the petitioner? 
 No. The Supreme Court used the doctrine that if a person cannot be charged with the complex
crime of rebellion, he can neither be charged separately for two different offenses, where one
is a constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance of rebellion. 
 It was also noted that petitioner was already facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with
Honasan. Being in conspiracy thereof, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly
a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of rebellion. It
cannot be made the basis of a separate charge.
 ILUSORIO, Petitioner, vs. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO
 Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
 (b) altering, destroying, suppressing, or concealing any paper, record, document, or object,
with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, as evidence in any
investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
 (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws
in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution, and conviction.1âwphi1
 We hold that the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable cause for the
offenses defined in the provisions cited above. Marietta failed to prove, by competent
evidence, that: (1) Penthouse Unit 43-C was the dwelling place of Erlinda; (2) she has authority
over the said unit; (3) Sylvia and Cristina had no authority to enter the unit and conduct acts of
maintenance thereon; and (4) Sylvia and Cristina were armed when they effected entrance.
 ARTICLE 20 of the Revised Penal Code. Accessories Who are Exempt from
Criminal Liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed
upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

 AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS HIS :

1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same degree.

Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The Principal Is Related To Him, If Such Accessory –
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.
 Nephew and Niece not included

Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by reason of

relationship to the principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of
his official functions.

REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive

than the call of duty.

P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and
the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.

The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829. PD 1829 -

The law penalizing obstruction of justice.
 FOR EXAMPLE:

A Police Officer who assists the principal to escape maybe

prosecuted under PD 1829 not as accessory but as PRINCIPAL.
Provided, a separate information is prepared for obstruction.

 When convicted, the penalty to be imposed is penalty under PD

1829 or any other law, including the RPC whichever is higher.