Title 7: Crimes committed by Public Officers (PO)

Who are Public Officers?

Elements for one to be a public officer
a. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government or performing in said government or in
any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
b. That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be:
i. by direct provision of the law;
ii. by popular election; or
iii. by appointment of competent authority
NOTE: The term public officers embraces every public servant from the highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the
RPC, it obliterates the standard distinction in the law of public officers between officer and employee (Maniego v.
People, G.R no. L-2971, April 20, 1951).

Temporary performance of public functions by a laborer makes him a public officer (ibid.).

Under title 7 the felonies under this title are in violation of PO/Es oath of office. Whenever a person enters public
service, he has the so called oath of office. If he is an official, he takes his oath of office before the president; the CJ of
the SC. If he is an ordinary PO, he takes his oath of office simply by signing a document entitled oath of office and it is
included in his files and filed to the CSC. The felonies under title 7 are all in violation of a PO oath of office, and these
violations can either be a malfeasance, a misfeasance or a nonfeasance. There is a malfeasance when a PO performs in
his public office an act prohibited by law. There is misfeasance when a PO performs an official act in a manner not in
accordance with what the law provides. And there is nonfeasance when a PO willful refrains, omits or refuses to do an
act w/c is his official duty to do. These are the 3 violation of an oath of office w/c constitute all the felonies in title 7.

Elements for the crime of Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment

a. That the offender is a judge;
b. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
c. That the judgment is unjust; and
d. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
The first felony under title 7 that is knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is
committed by a judge who in a case submitted to him for decision renders an unjust judgment knowing that the said
judgment is unjust. So here the judge knows that the judgment hes going to render is unjust, nevertheless, he issued
the said unjust judgment despite knowledge that it is unjust. An unjust judgment is one that is contrary to law or is not
supported by evidence or both. The source of an unjust judgment can either be mere error or ill will. So, the source is
can either be mere error or ill will in the part of the judge. If the source of unjust judgment is mere error on the part of
the judge provided he acted in GF he is not criminally liable. But if the source is ill motive on th part of the judge that is
he render the said unjust judgment grounded by hatred, envy, revenge or any other ill motive, in other words, he

acted in BF, he becomes liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. So if the source of the unjust judgment is
mere error a judge cannot be held liable under article 204.
Q:

The judge is going to render a decision in a case, the appropriate law in the said case has already been
repealed by a new law. So a new law has been enacted and that is the law to be applied in the decision.
Since it is a new law, there is yet no jurisprudence as to the interpretation of the provisions in the said
law. So based on the judges own interpretation of the said law, applying the same to the case he is
going to decide, he ruled in favor of the defendant. Ruling in favor of the defendant, the counsel for the
complainant filed a MR, stating therein his own interpretation of this new provision cited in the new
law. When the judge denied the said MR aside from filing an appeal, the said counsel of the private
complainant, filed also a case against the said judge for violation of art. 204, knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment. Is the judge liable?

A:

The judge is not liable. He may have a wrong interpretation of the said new law, of the said new
provision, but such wrong interpretation is based on mere error on his part. It is a new law, no
jurisprudence yet, his interpretation of the new law is good as the interpretation of the counsel of the
private complainant, therefore, since the alleged unjust judgment is based merely on an erroneous
interpretation of the law, it is mere error, the judge cannot be held liable under art. 204 for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment.

Elements for the crime of Judgment rendered through negligence

a. That the offender is a judge;
b. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
c. That the judgment is manifestly unjust; and
d. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Then we have judgment rendered through negligence. Judgment rendered through negligence again is committed by a
judge, who in a case submitted to him for decision, renders a manifestly unjust judgment based on inexcusable
negligence or ignorance of the law. So this time, the judgment is not just unjust, it is manifestly, obviously, evidently an
unjust judgment. Any first year law student would know, it is unjust, therefore, the judge can be held liable because of
his ignorance, because of his negligence. It must be a manifestly an unjust judgment.

Elements for the crime of Unjust interlocutory order

a. That the offender is a judge; and
b. That he performs any of the following acts:
i. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
ii. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
An unjust interlocutory order, again this is committed by a judge who issues an interlocutory order and the said
interlocutory order is an unjust one and he issues the said unjust interlocutory order either with knowledge that it is
unjust or based on his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Elements for the crime of Malicious delay in the administration of justice

a. That the offender is a judge;
b. That there is a proceeding in his court;
c. That he delays the administration of justice; and
d. That 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.
Then we have under art. 207 malicious delay in the administration of justice. Malicious delay in administration of
justice is again committed by a judge, and the judge delays maliciously the administration of justice in his court, in a
proceeding in his court.
Q:

When do you say that delay is malicious? When do say that the delay done by the judge was w/ malice?

A:

The delay done by the judge is said to be malicious or w/ malice when it is intended to favor a litigant
and to prejudice the other litigant. So when the said delay caused by the judge favors 1 litigant and
prejudices or damages the other litigant, then the said delay is said to be done w/ malice or maliciously
done by the said judge.

Punishable acts under Art 208

a. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law; and
b. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
a. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses.
b. That there is dereliction of the duties of his officeknowing the commission of the crime, he does not cause
the prosecution of the criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he tolerates its commission;
and
c. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.
Then we have under art. 208, we have dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. Under art. 208, dereliction of
duty in the prosecution of offenses, this is committed by a PO/an officer of the law who has the duty to prosecute or to
cause the prosecution of offenses and the said PO commits a dereliction of his duty in any of the following manner: first,
knowing that a crime has been committed, he does not cause the prosecution of the offense, or knowing that a crime is
about to be committed, he tolerates its commission, and the third element, he does so w/ malice and deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law, crime committed is dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. So under art. 208, the
offender is not any PO. He must be PO/officer of the law who is in charge with the prosecution or to cause the
prosecution of offenses, and then he commits the dereliction of duty. He knows a commission of a crime, but he does
not (???), he knows that a crime is about to be committed but he tolerates its commission and these are all done with
malice to favor the perpetrator of the said crime, to favor the violator of the law.

Q:

What if, the defense counsel is about to present his witness, so the defense counsel is about to present
his witness after the presentation of the said witness for that day, the defense counsel said that he has
no other witness to produce, thereafter the defense counsel moved that he be given 15days w/in w/c to
file his formal offer of exhibits, the judge granted the said motion of the defense counsel, however w/o
any valid reason, despite the lapse of 15days, the defense counsel failed to file the defense formal offer
of exhibit, so on the next schedule of the trial, the defense counsel told the court, Your honor, may I be
given another 15days to file our formal offer of exhibits? Granted, another 15 days from the day.
15days had again lapsed, w/o giving any justifiable or valid reason; the defense counsel still did not file
any formal offer of exhibit, on the next schedule day of hearing, the defense counsel asked the judge,
Your Honor, for the one last time, may I moved that I be given another 15days your honor, last time
your honor, another 15days. But the judge said, no, Im only giving you 5days from today w/in w/c to
file your formal offer of exhibits, thereafter, w/ or w/o your formal offer of exhibit, the case is
submitted for decision. It was the order of the court. 5days had again lapsed, the defense counsel, w/o
giving any valid reason, still, did not file the defense formal offer of exhibits. So the judge decided the
case, and convicted the said accused. The accused now wants to file a case against his own counsel, for
not filing the formal offer of exhibits w/c caused his conviction, because no evidence in his favor was
admitted, therefore, according to him, his conviction was due to his counsel. What case may the said
accused file against his counsel?

A:

He may file a case of betrayal of trust by an attorney under art. 209.

Under art. 209, the following acts are punished as betrayal of trust by an attorney: first, by causing any damage to his
client either by malicious breach of professional duty or by inexcusable negligence or ignorance; 2nd, by revealing any of
the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity; 3rd, by undertaking the defense of the opposing party
in the same case w/o the consent of the 1st client after having undertaken the defense of the said client or after having
received confidential information from said client. These are the 3 acts punished as betrayal of trust by an attorney. The
case that I mention falls under the 1st act. The counsel did not give any justifiable reasons, that counsel did not give any
valid reason, yet, for many days, for 2 fifteen days, another 5 days he failed to file the formal offer of exhibits. He caused
damage to his client by reason of his malicious breach of professional duty. There was malicious breach of professional
duty because he did not offer any reason why he failed to file the said formal offer of exhibits. He is liable under art. 209,
1st act.
Under art. 209, 2nd act, by revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity. These
secrets refers only to those learned by him in his professional capacity and these secrets, does not refer to future crimes
to be committed. It refers only to a crime w/c the counsel is handling but not a future crime that is about to be
committed.
Q:

So, what if Atty. A is handling the case of X. X is liable or X is being charged for the crime of kidnapping
for ransom. And so, it is a non-bailable offense, during the trial of the case, he was (???), and so, Atty. A
visited X, in order to ask for the facts of the case, in order to prepare a valid and good defense. In the
course of their conversation, X informed Atty. A, that tomorrow night, his gang mates, who are still, will
kidnap another person, also, to extort ransom. X divulge this to his counsel because he trust the counsel,
however, right after leaving the (???), the counsel went to the police of the place where the said
kidnapping would take place, based on the information given by his client. Is Atty. A liable for betrayal of
trust by an attorney, under art. 209?

A:

The answer is no, because this information refers to future crimes, and note, that you as lawyers, when
you take your oath next year, you will realize, that in taking your oath of office, you have an obligation,
not only to your client, but also to the State. Therefore, it is your duty to reveal a crime that is about to
be committed. You are not committing a violation the privilege communication, between the lawyer and
the client because that is only exclusive to the crime you are handling. But it cannot refers to future
crimes, about to be committed, you as counsels had also the obligation to divulge it, in order to prevent
its commission.

Q:

What if, A filed a case against B, a civil case, for 5 consecutive hearings, a failed to give the appearance
fee of his counsel, Atty. X, and so Atty. X told A, I am withdrawing as your counsel. Youre not giving me
appearance fees. He filed a motion to withdraw as counsel before the court. Granted by the judge. So
now atty. X is no longer the counsel of A. when B learned that Atty. X is no longer the counsel of A, B
went to the office Atty. X, and he secured the service of Atty. X Atty. X agreed, and so now there is a L-C
relationship, this time between B and X. Is Atty. X liable under the 3rd act?

A:

The answer is yes. Because he, handle his case of B, in the same case, B as the opposing party of the said
case. He handled it after having handled the case of A and after having obtained confidential
information from A.
Q:

How can Atty. X free himself from criminally liability?

A:

Before accepting the offer to be the counsel of B, Atty. X ask consent from A. if A gave his
consent, then Atty. X cannot be held liable for betrayal of trust by an attorney. Under art. 209, in
case of betrayal of trust by an attorney, please note that under art. 209, the law says that the
said lawyers prosecution for betrayal of trust by an attorney is in addition to a proper
administrative case w/c may be filed against him. Therefore, this criminal case is only in
addition to any administrative case file w/c may be filed against the said counsel. For example,
violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Punishable acts in Direct Bribery

a. Agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties;
b. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official duty; and
c. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to, in consideration of
gift or promise.
Elements of Direct Bribery
a. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art 203;
b. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
c. That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer:
i. with a view to committing some crime;

ii. in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be
unjust; or
iii. to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do.
d. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance
of his official duties.
Under art. 210, what is punish is direct bribery. Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who shall receive bribe
in connection w/ the performance of his official functions. The acts constituting direct bribery are as follows: first, by
agreeing to perform or by performing in consideration of an offer, promise, gift or present, an act constituting a crime,
in connection with the performance of his official function. The 2nd act punished is by accepting any gift or present as a
consideration for an execution of an act w/c does not constitute a crime, in connection w/ the performance of his official
function; and the last act punished is by agreeing to refrain or by refraining, from doing an act w/c it is his official duty
to do, in consideration of an offer, promise, gift or present. So these are the 3 acts constituting direct bribery. Direct
bribery is the crime of the receiver; it is the crime of the PO/E who receives bribe. The crime of the person who gives
the bribe is under art. 212 that is corruption of PO. So direct bribery is the crime of the PO who receives the bribe. Under
the 1st act punished, when the thing of the PO is being required to do is to perform an act w/c amounts to a crime, mere
agreement will suffice. It is not necessary that the he actual receive the offer, promise or present. It is not necessary that
he actual performs the said act that amount to a crime. It suffice that he agrees to perform the said act amounting to a
crime by reason of the said offer, promise gift or present. The same is true under the 3rd act, under the 3rd act by
agreeing to refrain or by refraining from doing an act w/c is his official duty to do, in consideration of offer, promise, gift
or present. Under the 3rd act, the PO is being required not to do an official duty. If the thing is being required to do by
reason of the bribe is not to perform his official duty, a mere agreement will suffice. It is not necessary for the PO would
not actually perform the duty. It is not necessary that he actually receives the bribe. It suffices that he agrees not to
perform his official duty by reason of the said bribe given to him, offer or promise. So the 1st and 3rd act mere
agreement will suffice. In the 1st act, because the thing is being required to do would amount to a crime; under the 3rd
act because he is being asked to refrain from doing his official duty. In both instances, mere agreement will suffice.
However, in the 2nd act, it is necessary that there must be actual acceptance of the gift or present. The 2nd act punished is
by accepting any gift or present in consideration of the execution of an act w/c does not constitute a crime, in
connection w/ the performance of his official function. So in the 2nd act, it is required that there must be an actual
acceptance of offer, promise, gift or present. The reason is that the thing a PO is required to do under the 2nd act does
not amount to a crime. It would not constitute a crime. It is his duty to do it, but he does not want to do it w/o the bribe,
therefore, he becomes liable for direct bribery under art. 210. Under art. 210, if the offender by reason of the said bribe
committed the act he is being required to do w/c constitute a crime; he becomes criminally liable for the said crime
committed by him in addition to direct bribery.
Q:

So what if, the judge has rendered judgment on a case, so the case now is submitted for decision,
because of the overwhelming evidence of the said case, the accuse knew it would be a conviction, but
this accused did not want to stay behind bars; and so what he did, he talked to the judge secretly, inside
the judges chamber. And he offered the judge PHP10M in exchange for an acquittal. The judge
accepted the PHP10M, and on the day of the promulgation of judgment, indeed, the judge ruled for an
acquittal. So despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the said accused,
because of PHP10M received by the judge, the judge rendered an acquittal judgment, the said accused,
therefore, was absolve of his criminal liability. What crime/crimes is/are committed by the said judge?

A:

For having received the said PHP10M bribe in exchange for a commission of an act w/c amounts to a
crime in connection w/ his performance of official function, he becomes liable for direct bribery. Now,
the judge actually rendered an acquittal, he actually rendered an unjust judgment w/c is based on ill will

on his part, therefore, he also becomes liable for under art. 204, for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment. So here, since the judge, actually committed the crime or the criminal act that he is being
required to do; then he also becomes liable for another crime, that is that of knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment.
Q:

But isnt it w/o the bribe money, w/o direct bribery he would not have rendered such unjust judgment,
therefore, direct bribery is a necessary means to commit knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, so
should they be complex?

A:

The answer is no, because under art. 210, complexity of crimes is prohibited. Under art. 210, the
penalty for direct bribery shall be in addition to the liability attaching to the said PO for the commission
of any other crime, therefore, aside from direct bribery, the judge can be held liable under art. 204,
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. 2 cases can be filed against the said judge.

Q:

What if, A wanted to get a certified true copy of the birth certificate of his daughter, and A wanted his
daughter to work in another country and to earn money, but his daughter happens to be a minor. And
so A went to the office of the civil registrar, and talked to the local registrar. He told the local registrar
that if he could alter the birth date of his daughter, to make it appear that the daughter is already
18years of age, he promise to the local civil registrar the 1st 3months salary of her daughter, the
moment the daughter works in another country. By reason of the said promise, the local civil registrar
indeed altered the birth date, particularly the year. Hence it now appeared that the said child, although
still a minor, 17years of age, is already 18years of age. What crime, if any, is committed by the said local
civil registrar?

A:

The local civil registrar is liable direct bribery under art. 210. What is being offered is a promise, a
promise that the 1st 3months salary would be given to him, in exchange for a commission of an act
amounting to a crime, falsification, to alter the birth date in the said certificate of live birth; therefore,
he becomes liable for direct bribery. But this PO indeed altered the said birth date in the said certificate
of live birth, so he in effect committed falsification a public document by altering true dates, therefore,
he becomes liable for 2 crimes; one, direct bribery and the other one is falsification of a public
documents under art. 171. So here again, there will be 2 crimes committed by the said PO.

Q:

What if, A has been newly appointed as the secretary of a new department in the Aquino
administration; having been appointed as the new secretary, on his first day of his, many visitors, many
(???) arrived. Among the (???) was X. X had a pleasant talk with the newly appointed secretary, A, and
after the said talk, X a small box on the top of the table of the said newly appointed secretary. The
moment X left, the newly appointed secretary of the department opened the said box and it contains a
key; it is the key to a new car. The newly appointed cabinet secretary went down the garage, saw the
car, opened the car, drove it, tested it and thereafter registered it in his name. what crime, if any is
committed by the said PO?

A:

The said PO is liable for indirect bribery under art. 211.

Elements of Indirect Bribery

a. That the offender be a public officer;

b. That he accepts gifts; and
c. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
Under art. 211, indirect bribery is committed by any PO who shall accepts any gift by reason of his public office, by
reason of his public position. In case of indirect bribery under art. 211, the PO is not being required to do an act. The gift,
the present was given to him by 1 reason only; because he is occupying that office, because he is occupying that
position. He is not asked to do anything. So the moment he accepts the said valuable gifts, he becomes liable for indirect
bribery. If he does not accept the said valuable gift, he is not liable of any crime. Hence, indirect bribery under art. 211
can only be committed in the consummated stage. There are no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery, because the
essence of the crime is in the acceptance of the said gift or present. Since he is not being required to do a thing, an act.
The moment he accepts, consummated indirect bribery. If he does not accepts, he is not liable of any crime.

Elements of Qualified Bribery

a. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
b. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death; and
c. That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or
present.
Under art. 211-A we have qualified bribery. Qualified bribery is committed by any PO who is charged w/ the
enforcement of the law. 2nd element requires that he does not arrest or prosecute an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by RP and/or death. 3rd element requires he does so in consideration of offer, promise, gift or present.
So in case of qualified bribery under art. 211-A, it can be committed only by a PO who is charged w/ enforcement of the
law. The crime will arise when he does not arrest, when he does not prosecute an offender who has committed a crime
where in the penalty prescribe by law is RP and/or death because of the bribe money, offer, gift or present that he
received.
Q:

So what if, while the police officer was patrolling the area, he stopped because he noticed a man. The
man was hiding behind a big tree and intensely looking on the gate of the house in the opposite
direction. There was a motorcycle behind the man. So the police stop his car, his police car, in order to
see what is the next move of the said man. He found the man suspicious. The moment the gate of that
house opened, and a car went out, the man hurriedly boarded his motorcycle, went directly to said car
that went out of the gate, went near the drivers area and fired several shots on the said driver, until the
driver died. On board his motorcycle he left. The police officer who saw everything, chased the said
person, chased the man. And thereafter, after having been able to catch up with the said man, he
arrested the man. But the man gave the police office PHP100k, he told the police officer to allow him to
leave in exchange of PHP100k. the police officer accepted the PHP100k and allowed the said offender to
leave. What crime, if any is committed by the said police officer?

A:

The police officer is liable only w/ 1 crime and that is qualified bribery. The PO is in charge w/ the
enforcement of the law. He failed to arrest, he failed prosecute the said man who has committed a
crime punishable by RP and/or death. Because of killing the said driver, it is evident, therefore the crime
committed by the man is murder. And the penalty for murder under art. 248 is RP to death. When the

PO failed to arrest and prosecute him, the PO becomes liable for qualified bribery, because he failed to
arrest and prosecute him by virtue of the said bribe money in the amount of PHP100K.

Q:

What if, same problem, the PO was patrolling the area, when he saw two men fighting, A and B were
fighting. He just waited inside his car patrol, watching these two men fight against each other. As they
were fighting, one of the men, A, took out a knife, and stabbed B repeatedly. Thereafter, he hurriedly
ran away from the scene. The PO chased A and arrested him, but A gave the PO PHP10k so that he
would be allowed to leave. The PO allowed A to leave. Although it is the duty of the PO to arrest him,
the PO did not arrest nor prosecuted him. What crime, if any, is committed by said the PO?

A:

The PO would be liable for 2 crimes, one is direct bribery. He is liable for direct bribery under art. 210
because by reason of the said bribe money, in the amount of PHP10k, he refrains from doing an act w/ is
his official duty to do. It is duty of a PO who saw a person committing a crime in flagrante delicto to
arrest that person, but he failed to arrest him because of the bribe money, given to him, therefore, the
PO is liable for direct bribery under the 3rd act. Now the PO actually refrained from doing the said act. He
did not actually arrest, he did not actually prosecute the offender, therefore the PO is also liable under
art. 208, dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. The said PO is one vested the duty to caused
the prosecution of the offender, but despite knowing that a crime has been committed, he does not
caused the prosecution of the said offender and he did so w/ malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law. So the PO, this time, becomes liable for 2 crimes: one direct bribery under art. 210,
3rd act and the other one is, dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses under art. 208. So
remember that if in addition or if by reason of the said bribe given to the PO, he actually committed the
crime he is asked to do, then he commits another separate and distinct charge for the said crime that he
committed. So that is direct bribery and the crime he committed in this case, that is dereliction of duty
in the prosecution of offenses.

But if the crime committed by the offender, whom the PO who does not want to arrest or prosecute is punishable by RP
and/or death, the said PO will be liable only of 1 crime and that is, qualified bribery under art. 211-A.

Elements of Corruption of public officials

a. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
b. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances
that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Under art. 212, corruption of public officials. Corruption of public officials, this committed by any person, who makes an
offer or promise, or gifts, any gift or present to a PO/E under circumstances in w/c the said PO/E would become liable for
direct bribery or indirect bribery. So who is the offender in corruption of PO/E? The offender is any person. He could be
a PO/E, he could be a private individual, for as long as he gives the bribe, makes an offer or promise, under
circumstances in w/c the receiver, the PO/E would become liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery, the said giver is
liable for corruption of PO.

Related to direct bribery is RA 3019 that is the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices.
Under sec. 3 of RA 3019, there are different graft and corrupt acts, and among or the most important among these are
art. 3 or sec. 3(e). Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 provides by causing any undue injury to any party including the government or by
giving any private party(PPa) any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident BF or gross inexcusable negligence (GIN).
So based on sec. 3(e), the following are the elements:
1. The offender is a PO performing official, judicial or administrative functions
2. He acted w/ manifest partiality, evident BF or GIN
3. By reason of the said act,
a. he caused undue injury to any party including the government; or
b. he gave any PPa any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the said
action
These are the 3 requisites or the 3 elements of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. So under the 1 st element, it is necessary that the
offender, PO, must be performing official, administrative or judicial functions. 2nd element, he acted w/ manifest
partiality, evident BF or GIN. In the case of Caugma vs. People, the SC said that, when the allegation in the information is
that the said PO acted w/ evident BF, although as a rule, in case of violation of special penal law, GF is not a defense,
since the allegation state that the PO acted w/ evident BF, GF is a defense on the part of the said PO. The 3rd element of
sec. 3(e) requires that, the offender either caused undue injury to any party including the government or, the law use
the disjunctive or, or gave any PPa any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. In the case of Santos v People,
Uy v People, Santiago v Gachitorena, the SC said that, the law uses the disjunctive word or, therefore, any of these 2 acts
will already constitute a violation of sec. 3(e). Therefore even if the offender PO only caused undue injury to any PPa,
that is already a violation of sec. 3(e); or if he gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to a PPa, that is
already a violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. Either of the acts may be committed.
Q:

What if, the mayor in the said city was charged for the crime of murder. The said mayor is now behind
bars at the provincial jail. The governor w/ the concurrence or with the consent of the provincial jail
warden removed the said city mayor from the provincial jail and brought the said city mayor to the
house of the governor. So the said city mayor was serving his preventive imprisonment inside the house
of the governor. The NBI conducted an investigation, after a unanimous letter arrived or came to the
said NBI, and based on the said investigation of the NBI, a case was filed against the said governor
before the office of the ombudsman. The case was violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. It was alleged in the
information that the governor, as a PO performing official and administrative functions caused, I mean
gave PPa that is the city mayor, party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. And that the said
mayor or the said governor acted w/ manifest partiality and evident BF. So these are the allegations in
the information, for violation of sec. 3(e) filed. The ombudsman found probable cause, and the case
went to the SB. Before the SB, the following were the contentions of the said governor, according to the
governor, not all the elements of sec. 3(e) are present. 1st according to him, he did not acted with
manifest partiality and evident BF, because as the mayor or as the governor he has the right to transfer
detention prisoners. 2nd according to him, the said act allege, giving PPa any unwarranted benefits, does
not apply to him, because the city mayor is a PO and therefore not a PPa as referred to in sec. 3(e).
Therefore according to the said governor, he is not liable for sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. On the other hand,
the Provincial Jail warden alleged that, the SB has no jurisdiction to this case. According to Provincial Jail
warden, as a public officer, he is only of salary grade of 21 and not salary grade of 27, therefore, the SB

has no jurisdiction over the his case. If you were the judge how would you rule on the contentions of
both the governor and the said Provincial Jail Warden?
A:

1st contention of the said governor, he did not act w/ manifest partiality and evident BF. The SC in that
case of Polinares v People, Ambiel v People, the said governor acted w/ manifest partiality and evident
BF. SC said, when did the governor released the said city mayor, accused of murder, from the said
provincial jail and brought him inside his house, there was evidently manifest partiality. He was partial
against the other detention prisoners. Inside his house, this mayor may roam around, may watch TV,
may do other things, like a free individual. 2nd SC said there was also evident BF on the part of the said
governor. SC said under the ROC, any prisoner can only be transferred from his detention upon an order
coming from the court. In this case, no order ever came from the court to transfer detention of the said
city mayor. The governor does not have the power to transfer his detention, hence the governor acted
w/ evident BF. As to the 2nd contention, the allegation in the information is that the said governor gave
the said mayor unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. So the said governor contended that the
city mayor is a PO, the law says giving any PPa unwarranted benefit. The city mayor is a PO not a PPa;
therefore the said allegation would not lie against him. SC said, no, wrong interpretation. SC said the law
uses the word PPa not private individual (PIn), and the SC distinguished the two. According to the SC,
when you say a PIn it means a person who is not a PO/E; he is a private person, a PIn; but when the law
uses the phrase PPa, it refers to a PIn or a private person and a PO acting in his private capacity. SC then
said when the city mayor killed, allegedly killed another person and now he is prosecuted from the
crime of murder, in doing the said act for killing, although a PO, he acted in his private capacity.
Therefore, he is in the meaning of PPa. Therefore his contentions all failed again, all failed and was not
considered by the SC.

Q:

How about the contention of the provincial jail warden? The provincial jail warden said that he is not
under the jurisdiction of the SB because of he is only of salary grade 21.

A:

SC said that, what is required by law is that any of these persons must be under the jurisdiction of the
SB. The provincial jail warden is charged, accused of as a co-principal of the said provincial governor.
And since the provincial governor is of salary grade 27 and above, it suffices that anyone of them is
under the jurisdiction of the SB. Since they are charged of co-principal, it suffices that only the governor
is above salary grade 27. They are both w/in the jurisdiction of the SB. So in that case, the said governor
and the said provincial jail warden were both convicted by the SC, of violation of sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.

Under important graft and corrupt act under sec. 3 is sec. 3(g), by entering on behave of the government into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, WON the PO profited or will profit
thereby.
The elements of sec. 3(g) are:
1. the offender is a PO who enters into contract on behave of the said government
2. the said contract is both manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government
In the case of Nava v Palattao, the DESC officials ordered laboratory materials. When the COA audit was shown, the
auditors from COA discovered that this act of buying laboratory materials by the DESC officials was anomalous. There
was overpricing amounting to millions of pesos. So the government was defrauded. The contract was manifestly
disadvantageous. So a case was filed w/ the SB. In order to prove that the presence of overpricing, in order to prove the
presence of anomalous transaction, the COA officials bought the same laboratory materials from the same supplier
where the DESC officials bought the said laboratory materials and indeed the overpricing was discovered. The said

transaction was way above the real price of these laboratory materials, as a result the SC convicted these DESC officials
of violation of sec. 3(g) of RA 3019.
In another case, the case of Caunan v People, in that case, the former mayor of Paraaque, Joey Marquez, and company
bought walis ting-ting. And this walis ting-ting amounted to millions of pesos. Here comes the COA auditor. The COA
auditor said it was an anomalous transaction, there was overpricing and so the former mayor and other officials of city
hall were charged for violation of sec. 3(g) of RA 3019. During the hearing, before the SB, in order to prove the said
overpricing, the COA officials bought walis ting-ting from a supplier in the city, but the former mayor of Paraaque and
his men bought walis ting-ting from a supplier in MNL. So the walis ting-ting bought by COA officials were of different
specifications from the walis ting-ting bought by the former mayor and his men. As a result, although convicted by the
SB, the SC acquitted Marquez and company. According to the SC, the prosecution failed to prove that there was an
overpricing, because the walis ting-ting that they bought were from a different supplier than that where Marquez and
company bought their supplies. Therefore, the COA officials, the prosecutions were not able to prove that there was
overpricing in the said transaction. So here, there was an acquittal. Very same, almost the same facts but different ruling
of the SC.
In both cases, there was no public bidding. In the case of Nava v Palattao, no public bidding in the buying of the
laboratory materials. In the case of Caunan v People, there was no also public bidding in the transaction involving walis
ting-ting.
Q:

Will mere lack of public bidding, bring about violation of sec. 3(g) of RA3019?

A:

The SC ruled in the negative. SC said, mere lack of public bidding, will not give rise to a violation of sec.
3(g) of RA3019. Lack of public bidding may mean that the government was not able get the best price
for this transaction, however, for sec. 3(g) to be committed, it is necessary that the transactions is
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous, and mere lack of public bidding will not and will never show
such manifest and gross disadvantage to the government, therefore, if is just mere lack of public
bidding, sec. 3(g) will not be violated.

Under sec. 7 of RA3019, all PO are required to file their SALN, Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth w/in 30days
from assumption into office and on or before the 30th day of April for every year. Now in sec. 7 of RA3019, it is stated
there on or before 15 of April that is not what is being followed. What is being followed that is that derived from RA(???)
the code of ethical standards of the PO and that is on or before the 30th day of April of every year. Each PO must file
their SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth. Failure to do so, will make them liable under sec. 7 of
RA3019. What if the PO filed, but what contains in his SALN were all falsities he becomes liable not of violation of sec. 7
but he becomes liable for perjury, because falsification is committed in a document w/c is required to be under oath. A
SALN, Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth, is required to be under oath.
Under sec. 8 of RA3019, there exists prima facie evidence that a PO is liable for graft and corrupt practices act if he is
found during his incumbency, in possession whether in his name or the name of other person, money or property w/c is
manifestly out of proportion from his lawful income or any other salary. So here, the moment the PO is found to have in
his possession, whether in his name or in the name of another person, money or property w/c is manifestly out of
proportion from his salary, from his lawful income, there is the prima facie presumption that he is liable for violation of
RA3019, and that is a start of an investigation against him, wherein he shall be suspended administratively.
Q:

Under sec. 10, where do you file a case for violation of RA3019? What court has jurisdiction over
violation of RA3019?

A:

Under sec. 10 it is provided, unless otherwise provided, it is the SB that has jurisdiction, unless
otherwise provided by law. And there is a law, the SB Act as amended by RA8429, w/c provided for the
jurisdiction of the SB.

So In the case of Urbano v People, the SC held that, a PO committing violation of RA3019 is in the jurisdiction of the SB if
he is of salary grade 27 or above. But if the PO is below salary grade 27, then he shall be charged w/ the appropriate trial
court not before the SB.
Q:

When does violation of RA3019 prescribe?

A:

Under sec. 11, the prescriptive period is after 15 years, therefore after 15 years the State losses the right
to prosecute the said PO for violation of RA3019.

Q:

When is (???) running the prescription of the crime?

A:

You start counting the running of the prescription of the crime from the time the said crime is
committed, if it is known; but if it is not known, you start counting the prescriptive period from the time
of its discovery or from the time of the institution of criminal proceedings for purposes of investigation
and punishment.

Although prosecution for RA3019 shall prescribe after 15years, the State would lost the right to prosecute the offender,
the right of the State to recover ill gotten wealth is never barred by laches, prescription and estoppels. So forever the
State has the right to recover the ill gotten wealth taken by the said PO.
Q:

What if, a PO has been charged of sec. 3(e) of RA3019. So the case was filed before the Ombudsman.
After 2years of investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause, and so the Ombudsman filed a
case, filed the information before the SB. Upon the filing of the case, before the SB. Should the SB place
the PO under preventive suspension, right after the filling of the case?

A:

No. preventive suspension under RA3019 is mandatory but it is not automatic. It is not automatic
because it is required that upon the filing of the case before the SB, the SB would set the case for a presuspension hearing. In this pre-suspension hearing, the SBs only jurisdiction is to determine, is the
information filed by the Ombudsman valid, sufficiently in form and substance to bring about the
conviction enough? Is there probable cause against the said PO? The moment the SB finds probable
cause, it is now mandatory to place the PO concerned under the preventive suspension. It is mandatory
because it is ministerial on the part of the SB, to place the PO concerned under preventive suspension. It
is not, either or, the SB has to place him under preventive suspension. A ministerial job, the moment
they found probable cause against the said PO after a pre-suspension hearing. So, preventive suspension
for violation of RA3019 is not automatic but it is mandatory.

Q:

Is there any exception? A PO receives gift, a PO receives (???), is there any exception for him not to
become liable under RA3019?
So what if, what if, a pregnant woman who is the head of an agency receives a notice that her
application for license has already been approved. And so, on the date she is being required to get the
said license that has already been approved, the date of the release of the license, she went to the said
agency or department of the government. Upon going to the said place, there was a long line of people,
all w/ notices that their license would be released on that day and they could get it on that day. And so
this pregnant woman position herself at the end of the line, and she was there waiting, under the heat
of the sun. Here comes the head of the agency, when the head of the agency arrived, he passed by the

long line and he saw this pregnant woman. There, very tired already, looking so awful already because
of she was under the heat of the sun and she seems to be 9mons pregnant, veins on her tummy pouts
and so by reason thereof, this head of office called the said pregnant woman, and this head of office
told the pregnant woman to come along w/ him. And the pregnant woman went along the said head of
office. Inside their office, this PO asked the pregnant woman what is her business, and the woman said
or showed the notice. The woman said, her license is already been approved, it is to be released today
and she is there to get it. And so the head of office told her secretary and asked if indeed that the
license of the woman has been approved, and the secretary said yes, yes sir. And so, the head of office
told the secretary to bring to him the said license that has been approved. The moment the secretary
gave to the head of office, the head of office gave it to the pregnant woman. And thereafter, the
pregnant woman was so thankful; she did not wait at the end of the line in order to get the said license.
The following morning the said pregnant woman and her husband went back to the office. And they
have this big kaing of lansones, they are giving it to the said head of office and to his staff, and the head
of office and h staff ate the sweet lansones. Are the head of office and his staff liable under RA3019?
A:

No, because it is under the exception. Under sec. 14 of RA3019, unsolicited gifts or presents of small
insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude of friendship is exempted from
the provisions of RA3019. It is an unsolicited gift. The head of office did not asked for it, and it is not that
valuable, therefore it was only given as an act of gratitude, to say thank you. Therefore it is outside the
provisions stated under RA3019. So here, the PO cannot be held liable.

We go back to the RPC, under art. 213. Under art. 213 of the RPC, there are 2 acts punished. Under art. 213 the 1st act is
fraud against the public treasury and the 2nd act punished is illegal exaction. So the 1st act punished is fraud against the
public treasury and the 2nd act punished is illegal exaction.
Fraud against public treasury is committed when the following element is present:
a. That the offender is a PO;
b. the takes advantage of his official capacity;
c. the said PO enters into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other
scheme with regard to furnishing supplies, making of contracts or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds; and
d. That the accused had intent to defraud the Government.
In crime against public treasury, the PO took advantage of his official position in entering into contracts w/c involves
furnishing supplies so that he would defraud the Government. The essence of fraud against public treasury is making the
government pay for something w/c is not due. Making the government pay more for what should be (???), making the
government refund more from what should be refunded. Hence, there is fraud against the public treasury. It is not
necessary that there be actually fraud. It suffices, that the offender in entering the said contract, in entering w/ the said
agreement, has the intention to defraud the public treasury that would suffice.
The other act punished under art. 213 is illegal exaction. Illegal exaction is committed by a PO who is charged w/ the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposed. Therefore, the offender in illegal exaction is a collecting PO. He
must be involved in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposed. It is a crime committed by a collecting
officer. And the said PO commits any of the following acts:

1. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law;
2. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him official; or
3. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.
These are as constituting illegal exaction. Under the 1st of illegal exaction, mere demand on the tax payer to pay an
amount different from that w/c is provided for by law will make the offender already criminally liable. It is not necessary
that amount demanded will always be larger, even if the amount demanded is smaller than that w/c is provided for by
law, for as long it is different from that is authorized by law, the offender becomes criminally liable, and the collecting
office becomes criminally liable. It also not necessary that the tax payer did pay the amount, it suffices that there was a
demand for an amount different from that w/c is provided for by law. The 2nd act punished is failing voluntarily to issue a
receipt, as provided for by law. This receipt refers to the official receipt. So based on law, whenever money is collected,
the offender must issue, the collecting officer must issue an OR, official receipt. If the collecting officer voluntarily failed
to issue the said receipt, he becomes liable for illegal exaction.
Q:

What if there was a long line of tax payers, because of the many people paying, the collecting officer
runs out of OR, he runs out of official receipt, and so on its last tax payer what he issued is a mere
provisional receipt, is the said collecting officer liable under art. 213?

A:

No, because he did not do so voluntarily. He runs out of receipt, it was an emergency situation. He has
no OR to issue; therefore what he issue is a provisional receipt. Therefore, he is not liable under art. 213.

Under the 3rd act punished, 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. So, if the law says, that payment shall only be in cash, anything
accepted by the collecting officer w/c is not cash, makes the collecting officer liable under art. 213. It is necessary that
the thing he collects, if the law says money, cash, then it should only be cash, otherwise he becomes liable for illegal
exaction.
Q:

What if, here comes a tax payer, he asked the collecting officer, A, how much should be paid, and the
collecting officer said that, he has to pay PHP1k, but in truth and in fact, based on authorized by law, the
tax payer should only pay PHP500. And the said tax payer paid the collecting officer PHP1k bill,
thereafter, he asked for receipt. The collecting officer said, he runs out of receipt, and so he did not
issued any receipt to the said taxpayer. The moment the tax payer left, this collecting officer placed the
PHP1k bill inside the public cash vault; and thereafter he locked it, cause its already 5 oclock, he left
the office. The following morning, the said PO, collecting PO, it was merienda time; he realized he has
extra money, because yesterday he collected PHP1k bill but what only authorized by law is PHP500, so
the other PHP500 should go to him; and so what he did he open the cash vault, and thereafter took, one
PHP500 bill from the said cash vault. What crime/crimes is/are committed by the said PO, by the said
collecting PO?

A:

For having demanded different from what is provided by law, for having voluntarily failed to issue a
receipt, the said collecting PO is liable for illegal exaction under art. 213. However, the moment he
comingled the PHP1k bill paid to him, in the said vault w/c contains public funds, the said PHP1k bill now
becomes part of public funds. When he took the said PHP500 from the said cash vault, he was in the act
of taking public funds/property, therefore in addition to illegal exaction he becomes liable for
malversation of public fund and property under art. 217. So illegal exaction is a crime solely based on
the rules of collection. The collecting officer violated the rules of collection. If in addition to violating the

rules of collection, he malvers, he misappropriates the amount collected by him, he becomes liable for
another crime and that is malversation of public funds and property under art. 217.

Under art. 217 the elements malversation are as follows:

1. The offender is a PO/E
2. He has in custody funds or property by reason of the duties in his office
3. This funds or property are public funds or property w/c he has the obligation to account later to the
government
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through his abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them
These are the elements of malversation under art. 217. The first element, who may be the offender in malversation of
public funds? The offender is a PO/E. Can any PO/E commit malversation? NO. Because the PO/E must be an
accountable PO/E.
Q:

So, who is an accountable PO/E?

A:

An accountable PO/E is 1 who by reason of the duties in his office, receives public funds or property w/c
he has the obligation to account later to the government, he is an accountable PO/E.

The last element provides for the ways w/c malversation may be committed, and these are when the PO appropriated,
took, misappropriated or consented, or through his abandonment or negligence, he permitted others to take the said
public funds or property. So based on this last element, there are 2 ways in committing malversation:
1. Thru a positive act, that is when the PO himself appropriates, takes, misappropriates or consents to the
taking of the said public funds or property
2. Thru a passive act, that is when by reason of his negligence or abandonment he permitted others to
misappropriates the said public funds or property
In other words we have malversation thru dolo or deliberate intent and we have the other one malversation thru culpa
or negligence, when thru his abandonment or negligence, he permitted others to misappropriate the said public funds
or property. So these are thee 2 ways in committing malversation of public funds and property.
Q:

When is there prima facie presumption of malversation?

A:

Under art. 217 if demand is made by a competent PO to an accountable PO to account for the public
funds and property and the same is not forthcoming, there arises the prima facie presumption that the
said accountable PO has malvers the said public fund or property.

The SC held, however said that, mere non production of this public fund or property will not give rise immediately to a
prima facie presumption. SC said, there must first be complete, thorough, and reliable audit and in the said complete,
thorough, and reliable audit the following facts are established: 1st that the said funds/property actually existed; 2nd that
the concerned PO receives the said public funds/property; 3rd that the said public funds/property are missing or there is
a shortage; and lastly that the PO concerned cannot give a valid or justifiable reason for the said shortage or for the lost
or said act of missing of the said public funds/property. If these had been established, in the said complete, thorough,
and reliable audit then, there arises a prima facie presumption that the said PO has malvers the said public
funds/property. Direct evidence is not necessary in case of malversation, that would be, when you take something, you

do not want someone to witness you right? There is no direct evidence, in case of malversation, there is no witness. So it
must be proven with complete, thorough, and reliable audit.
Q:

What if, there was a raid in a big house, in Alabang, and millions of pesos of dangerous drugs were
seized in the said big house in Alabang. All these dangerous drugs were millions of pesos boarded and
they were brought inside the warehouse of PDEA. Then, the persons all inside were arrested and they
were charged w/ illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The case is now ongoing trial. The public
prosecutor moved for the issuance of a subpoena to the PDEA custodian to bring in court the said
dangerous drugs on the next day of hearing. So in the next day of hearing, since the PDEA custodian
received the said subpoena, on the said date of hearing, the PDEA custodian boarded the said
dangerous drugs inside the PDEA van, and off he went to the court. He failed to reach the court, because
when he is on his way to the court, suddenly 2 men on board a motorcycle appeared in front of the said
PDEA custodian and these 2 men fired shoots, repeatedly at the said PDEA custodian. The said PDEA
officer, fell out the driver seat, almost lifeless. At the precise moment 2 van arrived forcibly open the
PDEA van and they took the millions of pesos worth of dangerous drugs. They took the same and place it
inside their private van. The PDEA agent survive, what crime, if any, is committed by the PDEA agent?

A:

the PDEA agent was liable for malversation under art. 217, because through his negligence, he
permitted other people to misappropriate the public property, w/c is the dangerous drugs. When these
dangerous drugs have been seized by the authority, these dangerous drugs are now in custodia legis.
Now they are in custodia legis, it becomes part of public funds/property. When by reason of said PDEA
agents negligence, other people misappropriates these dangerous drugs, he becomes liable of
malversation thru negligence, malversation thru culpa. Since the dangerous drugs are worth millions of
pesos, the PDEA agent should have asked for back up or other PDEA officers to go along w/ him. He
should not have taken the tasked bringing the entire dangerous drugs to the court. For being negligent,
he permit others to misappropriate that is a public property, hence he becomes liable for malversation,
under art. 217.

Q:

What if, A was, A is a principal in a school. Based on the procedure in the school, the checks
representing the salaries and allowances of the teachers and employees in the school will be given to
the principal, and the principal will be the one to encash it to the bank. And so based on the procedure,
checks were given to the said principal. And the principal went to the bank and encash the said checks.
After encashing the checks, the procedure was that he would go back to the school, give the money to
the treasurer to give it to the teachers and employees, but this time, after encashing the checks, he did
not go back to the school. Instead, he took the first flight to MNL, saying that he was suffering from
chest pain and therefore he wanted to be treated by the best doctors in MNL. So he flew to MNL. He
never returned the money to the school. And so the principal was charged w/ malversation under art.
217. In the information it was alleged that the said principal appropriated, took, misappropriated the
said public funds that is the money encashed w/c is due to the said teachers, public school teachers.
During the trial of the case, the said principal, as his defense, stated that he did not misappropriate the
said public funds/property. According to him, while in MNL after the check up, while he was waiting for
a ride he was held up by several men. And these several men took his bag, contains the money encashed
by him, and so according to him it was not him the person who took the public funds. The judge believes
the defense of the said principal, so the judge convicted him of malversation thru culpa, thru negligence,
although the information charged against him is malversation thru dolo, thru deliberate intent. So the
conviction was for malversation thru culpa or negligence. Because of this conviction, he appealed. His
contention in the appeal, he contended that he was deprived to be informed of the nature of the cause

of accusation against him, and therefore the judges conviction was erroneous. According to him the
charge was for deliberate intent yet, the conviction was for malversation thru culpa, therefore, he said
he had been deprived to be informed of the nature of the cause of accusation against him. A violation of
his rights as an accused. What was the ruling of the SC?
A:

the SC held that culpa or dolo whether it is, culpa or dolo. Culpa or dolo are merely modalities in the
commission of malversation. They are merely modes of committing malversation, but whether
malversation is committed thru dolo or thru culpa, there is still the crime committed and the penalty is
still the same. 2nd SC said malversation thru culpa is necessarily included in malversation thru dolo,
hence it cannot be said that the said offender has been deprived to be informed of the nature of the
cause of accusation against him, SC affirmed the conviction of malversation thru negligence.

So even if the charged in the information is that the offender PO committed malversation thru dolo or deliberate intent,
he can very well be convicted of malversation thru culpa or negligence if the evidence is (???), the reason again is that
whether it be committed thru dolo or thru culpa, these are merely modalities, the same felony of malversation is still
committed, theu have the same penalty. 2nd, malversation thru culpa is necessarily to commit in malversation thru dolo.
Q:

What if, A was charged of malversation thru dolo under art. 217. So in the information stated, it was
stated that A, being a PO and in charge of public funds misappropriated the amount of public funds of
PHP500k, w/c has been entrusted to him. So he was charged under art. 217. During the hearing of the
case, upon the presentation of the defense evidence, the defense was able to prove that this PO indeed
received the PHP500K, however, the defense was able to prove that this PO did not use the PHP500k for
his own personal benefit, but rather, he used the said PHP500K for another public use other that than
from w/c it has been appropriated. Because of the evidence presented by the defense, the judge
convicted the said offender PO of malversation under art. 220 that is technical malversation, although
the information charged to him of malversation under 217, is the judge correct?

A:

NO. The judge is wrong because malversation under art. 217 is totally a differen felony from art. 220
technical malversation. Under art. 220, the elements of technical malversation are:
1. The offender is a PO/E
2. He has public funds/property under his administration
3. such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance for a particular use
or purpose
4. he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has
been appropriated by law or ordinance.

Under art. 220 in case of technical malversation just like in malversation under art. 217 the PO has with him public
funds/property, but unlike art. 217, under art. 217 a PO has in his possession public funds/property for safe keeping, for
custody or for (???), however in case of technical malversation the PO has public funds/property only for purposes of
administration, to apply it for a particular purpose for w/c it has been appropriated by law or ordinance, but he did not
applied it for that purpose; rather he use it, he applied it for a different public use other than that for w/c it has been
appropriated by law or ordinance. Hence, it is called technical malversation. He did not use the funds for his own
personal benefits, but for a different purpose other than for w/c it has been appropriated. And it is immaterial whether
the public use made by him is more beneficial to the (???) or not. It does not matter, for as long as he use for any other
purpose, he becomes liable for technical malversation.
Q:

So the city administrator was entrusted w/ PHP500k w/c shall be use for the construction of a bridge. So
this PHP500k was for him to apply to the construction of a bridge that will connect 2 barangrays in the

said city. Suddenly there was a big fire in the said city. About 100 families lost their houses in the said
fire. So the constituents need basic necessities: food, clean clothing, etc., and as the city administrator,
since he has PHP500k in cash, he used this PHP500k to buy the basic necessities of his constituents, of
the people, those who lost their houses in the said fire. An audit arrived, there was an audit conducted
and the PHP500k, it was use in order to buy the basic necessities of the victims of the said fire. What is
the liability of the said PO?
A:

the PO is liable for technical malversation. Even if the purpose he use it is for a better, more noble
purpose than that of constructing the bridge, it doesnt matter. He pays the prices that he use it for a
different purpose than that (???) by law or ordinance for that he commits the crime. GF is not an
element in technical malversation.

Q:

Can a private individual commit a malversation?

A:

Yes. A private individual or private person can also commit malversation, in any of the following manner:
1. when the said private individual acted as a conspirator of the PO in committing malversation
2. when the private individual acted as an accomplice or as an accessory of the PO in
committing malversation
3. under art. 222, when the said private individual has been designated as the custodian or the
one in charge of public funds/property whether or the national government or of the local
government and he misappropriates the same
4. Also under art. 222, when the said private individual has been designated as the custodian,
the administrator or the depositary of the public funds/property seized, attached or
deposited by public authorities and he misappropriates the same

In these 4 instances, a private individual would commit malversation, not theft, not qualified theft.
Q:

Can private properties be the subject of malversation?

A:

Yes. If this private property have been seized, attached or deposited by the public authorities, they are
now in custodia legis, now they are considered part of public funds/property the moment they are taken
or misappropriated the crime committed is not theft, but rather malversation. Because they have
already been seized, attached or deposited by the public authorities, they losses their private character
and assumes now public character that being of public funds/property.