Title 7 - [1/2] (203-230) Crimes Committed by Public Officers Flashcards
Title VII?
Crimes Committed by Public Officers
Article 203
Who Are Public Officers
Requisites of Being Public Officer
[NOT]
- 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
- That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be
a. By direct provision of the law, or
b. By popular election, or
c. By appointment by 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.”
Temporary performance OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS by a laborer makes him a public officer
CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212)
CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212)
Define malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance.
Malfeasance – improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done
Misfeasance – performance of some act which ought NOT to be done
Nonfeasance – omission of some act which ought to be performed
What is dereliction of duty?
They are those defined from Article 204 - 209
Article 204
Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment
What are the elements of the crime of knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment?
- That the offender is a judge;
- That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
- That the judgment is unjust;
- That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
judgment v. unjust judgment
A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall:
- be in writing
- personally and directly prepared by the judge,
- stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
- signed by him, and
- filed with the clerk of court.
Unjust judgment – is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by evidence, or both
What is the nature of the action of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment?
- error
- ill-will or revenge
- bribery
What is the defense against a charge for rendering unjust judgment?
no liability for a mere error in good faith
There must be evidence that the judgment is unjust for it CANNOT BE PRESUMED. The Supreme Court must have declared the judgment as unjust in a certiorari, prohibition, or administrative proceeding.
Art. 205.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence.
elements
[NOT]
- That the offender is a judge;
- That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
- That the judgment is manifestly unjust;
- That it is DUE TO HIS inexcusable negligence or ignorance
“Manifestly Unjust Judgment” meaning
It is so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager knowledge of the law CANNOT DOUBT the injustice
is abuse of discretion or error of judgment punishable under this article?
No, they are not punishable
Although there may be [abuse of discretion] in issuing an order, it does not necessarily follow** that there is BAD FAITH or that said abuse of discretion signifies IGNORANCE of the law on the part of a judge
Mere [error of judgment] cannot serve as basis for a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, where there is NO proof or even allegation of bad faith, or ill motive, or improper consideration.
Article 206
Unjust interlocutory order
Elements
[not]
- That the offender is a judge;
- That he performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree, or
b. Renders a [manifestly] unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
What is an interlocutory order?
an order which is issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue
[gpt]
** it’s an order made in the midst of ongoing litigation, resolving certain issues to facilitate the progression of the case.**
[EXAMPLE]
During the pre-trial phase, the defendant files a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint does not state a valid legal claim.
The judge, in response, issues an interlocutory order deciding whether the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. If the judge denies the motion to dismiss, it means the case will proceed to trial. On the other hand, if the judge grants the motion, the plaintiff may be given the opportunity to amend their complaint.
Art 207
Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
elements of malicious delay in the administration of justice
- That the offender is a judge
- That there is a proceeding in court.
- That he delays the administration of justice;
- 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.
- Mere delay without malice is NOT a felony under this article
. - If the delay is NOT malicious, but [committed through gross negligence], the crime committed is that under RA 3019, Sec. 3(e).
Art. 208.
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; NEGLIGENCE & TOLERANCE
what are the acts punished in prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance?
- By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law;
- By maliciously tolerating the commission of a crime.
Elements of prosecution of offenses;
- That the offender is a public officer who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute offenses;
- That knowing 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
- That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.
- The guilt of the offender is a prejudicial question to the liability of the officer charged under this provision.
note: If the offender is not guilty, it might affect the liability of the public officer because, in this case, there may not have been an actual offense that the officer failed to prosecute or tolerated. The public officer’s liability is closely tied to the guilt of the offender, and if the latter is not found guilty, it may impact the case against the public officer.
Who can be offenders art 208?
- Public officer – Officers of the prosecution department, whose duty is to institute criminal proceedings upon being informed
- Officers of the law – By reason of position held by them are duty-bound to cause prosecution and punishment of offenders.
Note: Any person who solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender is liable under PD 1829.
ARTICLE 209
ARTICLE 209
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR (procurador judicial) —
REVELATION OF SECRETS
Acts punished as betrayal of trust by atty.
-
Causing damage to his client, either:
a. By ANY malicious breach of professional duty, or
b. Inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
If NO damage is caused, attorney may be held [administratively or civilly liable.]
- Revealing ANY of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity
- Damage is NOT necessary.
- Undertaking the defense of the opposing party IN THE SAME CASE [WITHOUT] the consent of his first client after having undertaken the defense of said first client or after having received confidential information from said client
- If the client consents to the attorney’s taking the defense of the other party, there is no crime. (WIC to represent the other party)
SECTION 2: BRIBERY
SECTION 2: BRIBERY
art 210
direct bribery
acts punished in direct bribery / forms of Direct Bribery
- By 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 official duties.]
- The acceptance of the offer or promise is enough to consummate the crime. Absent such acceptance, only the person making the offer or promise is liable for Attempted Corruption of a Public Officer.
- By 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.
- By agreeing to refrain, OR by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of a gift or promise.
- The third form of direct bribery differs from prevaricacion in that in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary in the crime of prevaricacion.
elements of direct bribery
- That the offender be a public officer;
- That the offender accepts an offer or a promise OR receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
- That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer –
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; - That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.
note
- The provisions of Art. 210 are made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or ANY other persons performing public duties. (Art. 210, last par.)
- For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer
ART 211
INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements of indirect bribery
- That the offender is a public officer;
- That he accepts gifts;
- That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
note:
[PD 46] punishes
- 1. any public official or employee who receives directly or indirectly
- 2. any private person who gives, or offers to give by reason of official position
- prohibited celebration/entertainment in honor of official or employees
- even on Christmas it is punishable
DB v IB
[as to CONSIDERATION]
- both crimes receives a gift
[as to existence of AGREEMENT]
DB - there is agreement
IB - there is no agreement
[as to necessity of PERFORMANCE OF ACT]
DB - performs/refrains because of gift
IB - not necessary that offender to do anything, sufficient is him receiving gifts by reason of his office
When the act constitutes a crime and the same was accomplished, what should the
penalty be to offender?
both penalties of bribery and the crime committed would apply
Art 211
Qualified Bribery
elements of 211
- That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
- That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusión perpetua and/or death;
note If the crime committed is punishable by a penalty less than reclusion perpetua, the public officer is liable under Article 208 and direct bribery.
- That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or present.
The guilt of the offender is a prejudicial question to the liability of the officer charged under this provision
ART 212
Corruption of Public Officials
Elements
- That the offender makes, offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
- 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.
The crime is attempted if the offer, promise, gift or present was refused and consummated if accepted
Under PD 749 (Granting immunity to givers of bribes), what are required to invoke immunity from prosecution?
PD 749 grants immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices if they;
- willingly testify against public officers or employees in [bribery and OTHER graft] cases
For the immunity to be enjoyed, the following conditions must concur:
a. The [information] must refer to consummated violations of any of the provisions of law, rules and regulations mentioned in PD 749;
b. The [information and testimony] are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;
c. Such [information and testimony] are not yet in the possession of the State
d. Such [information and testimony] can be corroborated (confirm) on its material points; and
e. The [informant or witness] has NOT been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
(ARTS. 213-216)
CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
(ARTS. 213-216)
Art 213
Frauds Against Treasury & Similar Offenses
what are the acts punished
- By entering into an agreement [with any interested party or speculator or making use of any other Scheme], to defraud the Government,
- in dealing with ANY person with regard to furnishing supplies,
- the making of contracts, or
- the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds
note: mere agreement consummates the crime
- By demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums DIFFERENT FROM OR LARGER THAN those authorized by law, in the collection of [tlfi] taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts
- By failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for ANY sum of money collected by him officially, in the collection of [tlfi] taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
- 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, in the collection of [tlfi] taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
Elements of frauds against public treasury
(Par. 1)
- That the offender be a public officer;
- That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity;
- That he entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other scheme [with regard to]
a. Furnishing supplies
b. The making of contracts, or
c. The adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds - That the accused had intent to defraud the Government.
note: It is sufficient that the public officer who acted in his official capacity had the intent to defraud the Government.
Elements of illegal exactions (Pars. 2-4):
- The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of tlfi taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
- He is guilty of ANY of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums DIFFERENT FROM OR LARGER THAN those authorized by law; or
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law , for ANY sum of money collected by him officially; or
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects OF A NATURE DIFFERENT from that provided by law
note: mere demand for larger or different amount is sufficient to consummate a crime
Officers or employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) or Bureau of Customs are NOT covered by this article. The (NIR Code National Internal Revenue Code OR the Administrative Code applies.
what are ways of committing illegal exaction?
Paragraph 2-4
A tax collector who collected a sum larger than that authorized by law and spent the same is guilty of illegal exaction and malversation.
When there is DECEIT in demanding greater fees than those prescribed by law, what crime is committed?
When there is deceit in demanding a greater fee than those prescribed by law, the crime committed is estafa and NOT illegal exaction.
214
Other Frauds
Elements
- That the offender is a public officer
- That he takes advantage of his official position;
- That he commits ANY of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Arts. [315 to 318] (estafa, other forms of swindling, swindling a minor, and other deceits).
- The PENALTY under this article is in addition to the penalties prescribed in the Articles violated.
- NOT a crime but considered as a special aggravating circumstance
Art 215
Prohibited Transactions
Elements
- That the offender is an appointive public officer; (examples: justices, judges, fiscals, OR employees engaged in the collection and administration of public funds)
.
- That he becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in ANY transaction of exchange or speculation;
.
- That the transaction takes place W/IN THE TERRITORY SUBJECT TO HIS JD;
.
- That he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency.
note:
- The transaction must be one of exchange or speculation, such as buying stocks and selling stocks, commodities, land, etc., hoping to take advantage of an expected rise and fall in price.
- Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simply an investment and is not a violation of the article. But buying regularly securities for resale is speculation.
ART 216
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFCER
who are liable for possession of prohibited interest?
- Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in ANY contract or business in which it was his official duty to intervene.
- Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, took part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they had acted.
- Guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or the estate.
note
- Actual fraud is NOT necessary, the act is punished because of the possibility that fraud MAY be committed or that the officer MAY place his own interest above that of the government or party which he represents.
- Intervention must be by virtue of public office held. The official who intervenes in contracts which have NO connection with his office cannot commit the crime defined under this Article
became interested/took part
CHAPTER FOUR: MALVERSATION OF
PUBLICFUNDS OR PROPERTY
(ARTS. 217-222)
CHAPTER FOUR: MALVERSATION OF
PUBLICFUNDS OR PROPERTY
(ARTS. 217-222)
Art 217
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY — PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
what is embezzlement?
Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement.
Note the word “embezzled” in the phrase “or equal to the total value of the property embezzled” in the penultimate (next to last/not comparable) paragraph of Art. 217
what are the elements of malversation?
- That the offender be a public officer.
- That he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
- That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable
- That he **appropriated, took, misappropriated [atm] or [cap] consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them
note
Nature of the duties of the public officer, not the name of the office, is controlling.
how is malversation committed?
Acts punished:
1. By appropriating public funds or property.
- By taking or misappropriating the same.
- By [CAN] consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property.
- By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
appropriate - use for one’s benefit
What is the condition precedent before there could be any taking, appropriation, conversation or loss of public funds that would amount to malversation?
Funds or property must be received in official capacity. Hence, if the public officer had no authority to receive the money and he misappropriated the same, the crime is estafa, not malversation.
official capacity = malversation
not official = estafa
