Title 7 - [1/2] (203-230) Crimes Committed by Public Officers Flashcards
(147 cards)
1
Q
Title VII?
A
Crimes Committed by Public Officers
2
Q
Article 203
A
Who Are Public Officers
3
Q
Requisites of Being Public Officer
[NOT]
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
- 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
4
Q
CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212)
A
CHAPTER TWO: MALFEASANCE AND
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE (ARTS. 204-212)
5
Q
Define malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance.
A
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
6
Q
What is dereliction of duty?
A
They are those defined from Article 204 - 209
7
Q
Article 204
A
Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment
8
Q
What are the elements of the crime of knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment?
A
- 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.
9
Q
judgment v. unjust judgment
A
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
10
Q
What is the nature of the action of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment?
A
- error
- ill-will or revenge
- bribery
11
Q
What is the defense against a charge for rendering unjust judgment?
A
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.
12
Q
Art. 205.
A
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence.
13
Q
elements
[NOT]
A
- 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
14
Q
“Manifestly Unjust Judgment” meaning
A
It is so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager knowledge of the law CANNOT DOUBT the injustice
15
Q
is abuse of discretion or error of judgment punishable under this article?
A
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.
16
Q
Article 206
A
Unjust interlocutory order
17
Q
Elements
[not]
A
- 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.
18
Q
What is an interlocutory order?
A
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.
19
Q
Art 207
A
Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
20
Q
elements of malicious delay in the administration of justice
A
- 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).
21
Q
Art. 208.
A
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; NEGLIGENCE & TOLERANCE
22
Q
what are the acts punished in prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance?
A
- By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law;
- By maliciously tolerating the commission of a crime.
23
Q
Elements of prosecution of offenses;
A
- 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.
24
Q
Who can be offenders art 208?
A
- 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.
25
ARTICLE 209
ARTICLE 209
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR (*procurador judicial*) —
REVELATION OF SECRETS
26
Acts punished as betrayal of trust by atty.
1. **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.*]
2. Revealing ANY of the secrets of his client learned by him **in his professional capacity**
- Damage is NOT necessary.
3. **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)
27
SECTION 2: BRIBERY
SECTION 2: BRIBERY
28
art 210
direct bribery
29
acts punished in direct bribery / forms of Direct Bribery
1. 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*.
2. 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.
3. 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*.
30
elements of direct bribery
1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That the offender **accepts** an offer or a promise OR receives a gift or present by **himself** or **through another**;
3. 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;
4. 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
31
ART 211
INDIRECT BRIBERY
32
Elements of indirect bribery
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he **accepts** gifts;
3. 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
33
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
34
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
35
Art 211
Qualified Bribery
36
elements of 211
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with **law enforcement**;
2. 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.
3. 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*
37
ART 212
Corruption of Public Officials
38
Elements
1. That the offender makes, offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. 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**
39
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] case**s**
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**.
40
CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
(ARTS. 213-216)
CHAPTER THREE: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
(ARTS. 213-216)
41
Art 213
Frauds Against Treasury & Similar Offenses
42
what are the acts punished
1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
43
Elements of frauds against public treasury
(Par. 1)
1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That he should have **taken advantage of his office**, that is, he *intervened in the transaction in his* **official** capacity;
3. 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
4. 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.
44
Elements of illegal exactions (Pars. 2-4):
1. The offender is a public officer **entrusted** *with the collection of tlfi* taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
2. 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.
45
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.
46
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.
47
214
Other Frauds
48
Elements
1. That the offender is a **public officer**
2. That he **takes advantage of his official position**;
3. 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
49
Art 215
Prohibited Transactions
50
Elements
1. That the offender is an **appointive** public officer; (examples: justices, judges, fiscals, OR employees **engaged in the collection and administration of public funds**)
.
2. That he **becomes interested**, directly or indirectly, in ANY transaction of **exchange or speculation**;
.
3. That the transaction takes place W/IN THE TERRITORY SUBJECT TO HIS JD;
.
4. 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.
51
ART 216
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFCER
52
who are liable for possession of prohibited interest?
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, *became interested* in ANY **contract or business** in which it was his *official duty to intervene*.
2. **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.
3. **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
## Footnote
became interested/took part
53
CHAPTER FOUR: MALVERSATION OF
PUBLICFUNDS OR PROPERTY
(ARTS. 217-222)
CHAPTER FOUR: MALVERSATION OF
PUBLICFUNDS OR PROPERTY
(ARTS. 217-222)
54
Art 217
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY — PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
55
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
56
what are the elements of malversation?
1. That the offender be a public officer.
2. That he had *custody or control of funds or property* *by reason of the duties of his office*
3. That those funds or property were **public funds or property** for which he was accountable
4. 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.
57
how is malversation committed?
Acts punished:
1. By **appropriating** public funds or property.
2. By **taking or misappropriating** the same.
3. By [*CAN*] consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property.
4. By *being otherwise guilty* of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
appropriate - use for one's benefit
58
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
59
who could be liable for malversation?
GEN - public official
EXC - private
1. Those **in conspiracy with** public officers guilty of malversation
2. Those who are **accessory or accomplice** to a public officer
3. **Custodian** of public funds or property in whatever capacity
4. **Depositary or administrator** of public funds or property
custodian - guarding or keeping safe;care
60
Is demand an element for malversation?
- Demand is NOT necessary in malversation.
- Damage to the government is also not necessary.
61
What is the effect on the penalty when the malversation is committed through NEGLIGENCE?
The penalty for malversation is THE SAME whether committed with **malice** or through NEGLIGENCE or IMPRUDENCE.
62
If the charge is for intentional malversation but what was proved was culpable malversation, can the offender be convicted under that information?
The penalty for malversation is THE SAME whether committed with **malice** or through NEGLIGENCE or IMPRUDENCE.
63
What is the effect of the restitution of the amount malversed?
- The return of the funds malversed is only **mitigating**, not exempting circumstance.
64
When will the presumption of malversation arise?
When **demand** is made to the accountable officer to account for the funds and property and the same is not forthcoming (executed), this shall be a *prima facie* evidence that **he has put such missing funds or property to personal use.**
65
Is direct evidence required in malversation?
*prima facie* evidence is requierd
66
Is good faith a valid defense in malversation?
When the shortage is paid by the public officer from his pocket *at once*, he is not liable for malversation (U.S. v. Feliciano)
67
What are the ways of committing the crime of malvesation?
May a public officer be convicted of Malversation even without direct evidence?
Compare malversation (art. 217) with technical malversation (art. 220).
May a charge under one result to conviction for the other?
What is essential for conviction for technical malversation?
Who is an accountable officer under art. 217
68
art 218
failure of accountable officer to render accounts
69
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or **separated therefrom**.
2. That he must be an **accountable officer** for public funds or property.
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the (*COA*) Commission on Audit, or to a *provincial auditor*.
4. That he fails to do so for a period of two (2) months after such accounts should be rendered.
70
Is demand for accounting necessary in order for one to be liable under this article?
Demand for accounting is NOT necessary.
(check fourth element)
71
Is misappropriation necessary?
It is NOT necessary that there be misappropriation.
If there is misappropriation, he would be liable also for malversation under Art. 217.
72
art 219
FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY
73
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he must be an **accountable officer** for public funds or property;
3. That he must have **unlawfully left** (or be on the point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a **certificate** showing that his accounts have been finally settled
74
220 article
Illegal use of public funds or property
(technical malversation)
75
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That there is a **public** fund or property **under his administration**;
3. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by **law or ordinance**;
4. That he applies the same to a PUBLIC USE other than that for which such funds or property **has been appropriated by law or ordinance**.
76
Distinguish malversation (art. 217) from technical malversation (art. 220)
[T.M. / Illegal use of public funds or property]
- no personal gain/profit
- public fund or property is applied to another pubic use
[Malversation]
- personal gain
77
Art 221
Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
78
acts punished
1. By **failing to make PAYMENT** by a public officer who is under **obligation** to make such payment FROM Government funds in his possession.
2. By **refusing to make DELIVERY** by a public officer who has been ordered by **competent authority** to deliver ANY property in his *custody or under his administration*
79
Elements
a. Public officer has government funds in his possession.
b. He is under **obligation** to make payment from such funds.
c. He fails to make the payment, **[maliciously]**
80
Art 222
Officers included in the preceding (occurring immediately before) provisions
81
how is malversation committed by a private person?
Private individuals who may be liable under Art. 217-221:
1. **Private individuals** who, *in any capacity whatsoever*, have charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue or property
2. **Administrator**
depository of funds or property (*asd*) attached, seized, or deposited by **public authority** EVEN IF such **property** belongs to a private individual
(example: sheriffs and receivers)
82
CHAPTER FIVE: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS (ARTS. 223-230)
CHAPTER FIVE: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS (ARTS. 223-230)
83
SECTION ONE: DISOBEDIENCE,
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE, AND
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
SECTION ONE: DISOBEDIENCE,
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE, AND
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
84
ARTICLE 223
Conniving with Or Consenting to Evasion
85
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either *detention prisoner* or *prisoner by final judgment*;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. That he **was in connivance** (collaboration) with the prisoner in the latter’s escape
86
Art 224
Evasion Through Negligence
87
Elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escapes through his **negligence.**
- Not every negligence or distraction of a guard is penalized. It is only that positive carelessness that is short of deliberate non-performance of his duties as guard that is the gravamen of the crime of infidelity under Art. 224.
- The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not afford complete exculpation.
88
art 225
Escape of a prisoner under the custody of a person NOT a public officer
89
Will mere laxity amount to negligence within the contemplation of art. 224
Leniency, laxity and release of detention prisoner who could not be delivered to the judicial authority within the time fixed by law, are not considered infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
90
What is the liability of the escaping prisoner?
1. If the fugitive is serving sentence by
reason of final judgment, he is liable for
*evasion of the service of sentence* under
Art. 157.
2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner,
he does NOT incur criminal liability.
91
elements
1. That the offender is a **private** person;
2. That the **conveyance or custody** of a prisoner or person under arrest **is confided to him**;
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
4. That the **offender consents to the escape of the prisoner** OR person under arrest, or that the **escape takes place through his negligence**.
*note*:
Art. 225 is NOT applicable if a private person was the one who made the arrest and he consented to the escape of the person he arrested.
92
art 226
removal, concealment, or destruction of documents
93
elements
1. That the offender be a public officer;
*note*: If the offender is a **private individual = estafa** is committed [IF] there is damage caused.
If there is NO damage, the crime is **malicious mischief.**
2. That he removes, conceals or destroys documents or papers; “Papers” include checks, promissory notes, and paper money.
3. That the said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office;
4. That damage,*whether serious or not*, to a third party or to the public interest should have been caused.
94
When is removal deemed to be for illicit (unlawful) purpose?
when the intention of the offender is -
(a) to tamper with it, or
(b) to profit by it, or
(c) to commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.
95
When is removal of public document deemed consummated?
consummated upon **its removal** or **secreting away from its usual place** in the office and after the offender had gone out and locked the door, *it being immaterial whether he has or has not actually accomplished the illicit purpose* for which he removed said document.
96
Art 227
Officer breaking seal
97
Is damage or intent to cause damage necessary in order for liability to attach?
Damage or intent to damage is NOT NECESSARY
98
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property;
3. That these papers or property are sealed by proper authority;
4. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
99
ART 228
Opening of Closed Documents
100
elements
1. public officer
2. ANY *closed* papers, documents, objects are entrusted to his custody
3. he *opens* or *permits* to be opened the said thing
4. he does NOT have proper authority
101
If in opening closed papers or objects (crime 1), the public officer broke the seal (crime 2), the offense would be?
Breaking the Seal under Art 227
102
What are the acts punished?
1. By **revealing any secret** known to the offending public officer **by reason of his official capacity**.
2. By **delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers** of which he may have charge and which should not be published
103
Elements of no. 1
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he knows of the secret by reason of his official capacity;
3. That he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons;
4. That damage, great or small, be caused to public interest.
*note*
Secrets must affect public interests, if not, the revelation would constitute no crime at all
104
What are the infidelity in the custody of documents?
What are the ways of committing infidelity in the custody of documents?
Distinguish infidelity from qualified theft
105
Art 229
Revelation of secrets by an officer
106
Elements of No. 2
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has charge of papers;
3. That those papers should NOT be published;
4. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person;
5. That the delivery is wrongful; and
6. That damage be caused to public interest
*note*
“Charge” here means control or custody. [IF] the public officer is merely **entrusted** with the papers but not with the custody, he is NOT liable under this provision.
107
Distinguish espionage from art 229
108
Revelation of Secrets by an Officer
VS
Infidelity in the Custody of Document/Papers by Removing the Same
*Revelation*
The papers contain secrets and therefore should not be published, and the public officer having charge thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a third person.
*Infidelity*
The papers do not contain secrets but their removal is for an illicit purpose.
109
art 230
publicofficer revealing secrets of **private individual**
110
elements
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office;
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.
111
When the offender is ___, is art. 230 applicable?
[a]an attorney at law or a solicitor
[b] private individual
[c] what type of revelation constitutes this crime?
[d] is it necessary that there be damage suffered by the private?
[a] article 209 is committed
[b] article 290/291
[c] one person is sufficient, not required public revelation
[d] NOT necessary damage is suffered because the reason is to uphold faith and trust in public service
112
LECTURE FEB 6
LECTURE FEB 6
113
can doctors be considered public official those who have been contracted that won't last more than 6 months.
can they be counted in the context of title 7
Yes, for the simple fact that they are performing public function and duties
114
a govt' laborer
is he a public officer?
NO. however if they are **temporary** working as one, like working with DPWH, since that is an essential work, they can be considered a public officer
115
example of interlocutory order
temporary protection order
file petition for support
116
clerk of court can issue orderk how can a clerk of court vioolate 214 (other frauds)
CoC says he can file a TRO quickly simply by talking to the judge for 100k,. even fi the TRO is issued or not
what is the crime?
he is liable for 204 ON TOP OF DIRECT BRIBERY
117
on 'prohibited transactions 215 - by thru *court order* a person can become a public officer like in an court-appointed administrator.
that administrator
there are properties
118
FEB 13 - LECTURE
FEB 13 - LECTURE
119
On Art 217, in malversation committed through negligence, he need not to be **benefitted** by it to be criminally liable
120
is demand not necessary for prosecution to prove?
it is still necessary.
it is at the moment of the demand you will now will be unable to give the property or funds in his possession.
while demand is NOT an element, for purposes for evidence/procedure, it is necessary for the prosecution that the offender was called into account. (being demanded)
121
is Fiscal an **accounting officer**
ex. she was issued a laptop and chair in the DOJ, upon receipt, she is made to signed a memorandum of receipt.
Let's say she lent the same laptop for their own personal use and thereafter was lost.
is this a crime?
does it apply to every other item an accounting officer receives (paperclips, etc.) and was used personally
Yes, a crime of malversation.
No, not held liable for malversation but that's **qualified theft**
122
private invididuals may be entrusted with public funds or public property
where there are no banks in rural areas, the gov't would entrust it to somebody. During the time of them holding it, they are accountable
123
private funds can be subject to malversation?
Yes
When you lease a property for a period of time, on the third year of the 5 year contract, the landlord wants to remove you.
so to not be in default, you cosign it to the court. furnish the contract to the court
then ff., the clerk of court is the custodian and the landlord didn't claim the money and used it.
CoC will now be liable. The fact that private funds was deposited was now clothed with public character
124
good faith what does it mean
not tenable if it was committed through abandonment or negligence
125
in crim law I, negligence offenses' imposition of penalty is *lower* (ex. homicide is RT, then reckless imprudence resulting to homicide is two degrees lower, PC)
Malversation is an exception. Negligence, Malice, Imprudence is the same.
126
3 kinds of principals;
- direct participation
- inducement
- indispensable cooperation
what kind of principle
indispensable cooperation
if he weren't careless, funds/property wouldn't have been taken
127
on 222,
"Administrator, depository of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority even if such property belongs to a private individual (example: sheriffs and receivers)"
administrator = sheriffs, receivers
how about *judicial administrator*?
JA is under obligation to the estate. he is NOT included in the 217-222
128
in estafa w/ abuse of confidence, estafa x
the funds are always
private (?)
129
on 219, same situation of fiscal with the laptop, when they leave or resign from office. they are to render an account and the body demanding is COA
fiscal fails to render account in a period of 2 months
130
on 219, the manner by which is committed a public officer leaves for a EVERY trip abroad.
if unable to get the clearance, they are liable for 219
how come some pub officers can leave Phil for x amount of time?
in the occupation, they put *lawyer* who does not need to show a permit to travel
131
on 220, or technical malversation. a municipal has been given certain funds set aside to fix a road which is 47 million.
if there is absence of damage to the government, that can be taken up as a
mitigating circumstance
132
how is delivering prisoners from jail different from article 223?
offender in delivering prisoners are **private individuals**
if he bribed PO and PO connive w/ the prisoner, he is liable of 223
133
on 221, police officer A impounds motor or took custody of it. He then used it.
The owner went to CTTO paid the fine and showed proof of ownership (registration papers) CCT then directs A to turnover
but A refuses. He can be held liable for this article
penalty is equivalent to the property
134
on 223, not just required to have charge, he MUST BE ON DUTY at the time of the evasion
conveyance - PO is supposed to take care of the prisoners while being transferred to another place
PO allowed prisoner to escape and thereby in *connivance* with the prisoner
135
BRAD - private
PETER - convicted serving sentence
PAUL - public (jailer)
Brad and Peter are best friends and the former want the latter to be free so Brad bribed Paul to let Peter free.
During Paul's duty, he told Peter that he will pee and leave at 12 midnight. He escaped
What is Brad's liability?
[Brad]
- Delivering of Prisoners
- Corrupting with Public Officials
[Paul]
- Bribery
- Conniving with or consenting to evasion
[Peter]
Evasion of Service of Sentence (157)
136
on 226,
remove - remove where it belongs
conceal -
destruction - suffice that you render it useless
an old lawyer accidentally spilled the ink of his fountain pen on the falsified document. if it wouldn't be readable, it would be considered destroyed. that old lawyer would be liable for this
137
on 224, negligence, there should be definitive *laxity*
lax in such a way that it seems intentional
ex. Quezon city, police station is only as big as a restroom in USC. They don't have a cell for inflagrante prisoners.
So used a container van and the recent persons inside the van. It has no window or door. So, they left the van slightly opened and locked but it was so small.
The one in charge was in an operation a night before (very sleepy) was in charged and the prisoner
what kind of laxity?
mere laxity will not hold anyone liable for 224
**definitive laxity** is what holds someone liable
circumstantial evidence
138
on 225, private individual, this one has charge and custody.
in arresto menor (especially in its minimum &especially in provinces), they are placed on house arrest. In that case, some liberties must be deprived of him to feel the gravity of his crime.
The court will put that convict in another's house and entrust it to a private individual.
Juan doesn't like Pedro snoring so he told him to go home at night and come back early morning.
139
227, 228
differentiate breaking and opening closed documents
if a knife is in a sando bag, signed, and selaed with a masking tape, that is considered a sealed document
227 (breaking seal)
- presupposes that the dox is sealed AND the sealed distinguishese it from any other dox for that matter
228 (opening closed dox)
-
140
evidence custodian, their evidence cannot be opened until the court orders so, if it is opened anytime, it
evidence is sealed with moeney but when opened, the serial number is different but the amount is the same.
who is liable?
evidence custodian confessed that she opened (thus breaking) it to buy medicine and she returned
141
on 228,
postmaster has custody of sealed documents (registered mail) if he opens, he would be liable for this provision.
it's sealed but not in the sense it would be used for evidence or public matters (national defense)
142
on 229, 1st
secret must affect public interest (items gov't intends to auction,
ex. customs officer, they disclose to interested parties what are the items in auction
secret regarding national defense is it under here?
damage is essential
no it is espionage
143
how about books, periodicals, literature,
are they considered as documents in a legal sense?
No, simply because they do not extinguish obligation, confer rights, __ evidence (check old discussion)
144
if document was opened pertaining ot national defense, what is the crime?
officer breaking seal
145
on 229, (revelation of secrets by an officer)
if papers do not contain secret, it is called
indfiedility in the custody of documents
146
Clerk of Court in charged with the juvenile cases which according to law has
147
on 230,
revealtion of secret to one person he is liable, but if PO reveals it to the atty. the crime is
209 (betrayal of trust of an atty
