Crimes Committed By Public Officers | Public Trust To Office

Title seven of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is entitled Crimes Committed by Public Officers. The crimes defined under this title are grouped into five. The first group found under the chapter two are the “malfeasance and misfeasance in office” of public officers.

Second group under the chapter three are the “frauds and illegal exactions and transactions” of public officers. The third group under chapter four are the “malversation of public funds or property” of public officer.

The fourth group under chapter five are the “infidelity of the public officers”. Lastly, the fifth group under chapter six are the crimes of “other offenses or irregularities by public officers.

Chapter two of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes under malfeasance and misfeasance in office. As the legal authority Justice Luis B. Reyes defined in his book, misfeasance is the improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done, and malfeasance is the performance of some act which ought not to be done.

Another relevant concept to this group is the nonfeasance which Reyes defined as omission of some act which ought to be performed. These crimes tackle the culpable performance or nonperformance of a public office of the function of his or her office.

Chapter three of the title seven of the RPC defines crime under frauds and illegal exactions and transactions. These crimes relate to dealings of financial transaction of the government relevant to his or function or office.

Chapter four of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes of malversation of public funds or property. These crimes tackle the improper handling of the funds and property of the government to which the public officer is accountable in relation to his or her office or function.

Chapter five of the title seven of the RPC defines the crimes of infidelity of the public officers. These crimes tackle the disloyalty of public officers in exercising their public function.

Who is a Public Officer?

An element common to the crimes punished under the title seven of the RPC, with the exception of the crime of corruption public official, that these are perpetrated by a public officer. The definition of a public officer for the purpose of the crimes under title seven of the RPC is in the Article 203 of the RPC.

Article 203. Who are public officers. – For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.¹

It provides that for one to be a public officer he must be (a) taking part in the performance of public functions in the Government or in any of its branch public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official; and (b) his authority must be by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority.

The term public officer is variously defined in the Philippine laws. In Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, a public officer is defined as “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.”

While in Republic Act No. 7080 or the Plunder Law, public officer “means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract.”

And in Republic Act No. 3019 or The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the term public officer mean to include “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government.”

Comparing the various definitions of the term public officer under cited laws with that of under the RPC, when can see that the RPC is more specific. The various laws only require the lawful occupation of a person of a public office.

While RPC does not only require occupation of a person of a public office but also performance of the public function to be a public officer within the contemplation of its provision.

How is the crime of Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment committed?

The crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgement is committed when a judge deliberately and maliciously rendered an unjust judgement, motivated by ill-will or revenge, or a result of bribery, to a case submitted to him for decision.

The elements of the crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgment are as follows, to wit:

(a) offender is a judge;

(b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;

(c) the judgment is unjust; and

(d) he knew that said judgment is unjust.

The very essence of this crime is the deliberate malicious rending of an unjust judgement to the case submitted for decision before a judge.

The Supreme Court held, in the case of Diego vs. Judge Castillo,² that for the judge to be a guilty of this crime, it must be proved that the judgment is unjust as it constitutes contrary to law or is not supported by evidence and that the judge made it with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.³

Still from the same case, the Supreme Court clarified that crucial for this crime is the bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on the part of the judge. Absent the bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose the judge cannot be charged of this crime.³

How is the felony of Judgment Rendered Through Negligence Committed?

The crime of judgment rendered through negligence is committed when a judge maliciously rendered an unjust judgement to a case submitted to him for decision due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

The elements of the crime of judgment rendered through negligence are  as follows, to wit:

(a) offender is a judge;

(b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;

(c) the judgment is manifestly unjust; and

(d) it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Unlike with the crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgement, judgment rendered through negligence is not attended by bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose.

How is the offense of issuing Unjust Interlocutory Order committed? What does an Interlocutory Order mean?

The crime of issuing unjust interlocutory order is committed when a judge maliciously rendered an unjust interlocutory order deliberately and maliciously, or due to inexcusable negligence.

The elements of the crime of issuing unjust interlocutory order are as follows, to wit:

(a) offender is a judge; and

(b) he knowingly renders or through inexcusable negligence or ignorance manifestly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree.

Noticeably, this crime does not distinguish between the deliberate and the inexcusable negligent issuance of unjust interlocutory order. The essence is of this crime is the issuance of unjust interlocutory order in bad faith.

In the case of heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao vs. Atty. Abdullah Alug et.al.,⁴ an interlocutory order is defined as “an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court”.⁵

Further, the case of Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Company vs Yard Crew Union et. al,⁶ provided a test to determine whether an order is an interlocutory that is “Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory”.⁷

How is the crime of Malicious Delay in the Administration of Justice perpetrated?

The crime of malicious delay in the administration of justice is committed when a judge maliciously delayed the proceedings in administration of justice. The elements of the crime of malicious delay in the administration of justice are as follows, to wit:

(a) offender is a judge;

(b) there is a proceeding in his court;

(c) he delays the administration of justice; and

(d) 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. Malice is an essential element of this crime.

What is Dereliction of Duty under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code?

The crime of dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the RPC is committed either through maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law or through maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses. The elements of the crime of dereliction of duty under Article 208 are as follows, to wit:

(a) the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of or to prosecute the offender;

(b) there is dereliction of the duties of his office either by knowing the commission of the crime yet he does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or by knowing that a crime is about to be committed he tolerates its commission; and

(c) he acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.

Worthy to note that this crime could only be committed by public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of or to prosecute the offender. Who are these people?

Under the law, those who can cause the prosecution of the offenders are the Judges, barangay chairman and persons in authority. While charged with the prosecution of the offenders are fiscals and state prosecutors.

Following the ruling in the case of US vs. Mendoza,⁸ for the person charged with dereliction of duty under Article 208 of the RPC to be convicted, the crime of the offender, that the public office or the officer of the law maliciously failed to prosecute or maliciously tolerated, must be proved first.

What is betrayal of trust under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code?

As provided in Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code, betrayal of trust by an attorney shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.

How is the crime of revelation of secrets under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code committed?

As provided in Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of revelation secrets is committed by an attorney or a solicitor by revealing any of the secrets of his clients learned by him in his professional capacity.

Republic Act No. 10951 amended the provision of Article 209 of RPC. It now reads, as follows, to wit:

Section 36. Article 209 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:⁹

“Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor.— Revelation of Secrets. – In addition to the proper administrative action, the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) to Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000), or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.¹⁰

“The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.”¹⁰

What are the three modes of commission of the felony of direct bribery?

Pursuant to Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, a public officer commits direct bribery:

1.  If the public officer shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through, the mediation of another;
2. If the public officer accepted a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act;
3. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do.

How is the crime of indirect bribery committed? 

As provided in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code, indirect bribery is committed by any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. The essential elements of this offense is that:

(a) there is a public officer

(b) someone gave him gifts or something of value by reason of his office

(c) the public officer accepts the same

It must be noted that the thing of value has been given to the public officer not for any favor solicited but merely by reason of his office. The provision seeks to prevent the situation that said public officer may subsequently be at the influence, if not mercy, of the one giving the gifts.

Is the provision on indirect bribery a “dead” law?

Legally, there is no dead law if the same is still in the statute books and has not been repealed, whether express or implied, or amended. However, is the law being utilized to punish the violators. It must be noted that Filipinos like to give gifts, even to public officers. Wittingly or unwittingly, they have been giving such, whether or not the motive is by reason of the public official’s office.

What is qualified bribery?

Under Article 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, qualified bribery is committed if any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.

Further, if it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. Thus:

Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. – If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.¹¹

If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. (As added by Sec. 4, RA No. 7659).¹²

Differentiate direct bribery, indirect bribery, and qualified bribery?

Pursuant to Articles 210, 211 and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, in a direct bribery, there is already a consummation of the crime by mere acceptance of an offer or promise or gifts; in indirect bribery, the gift must be accepted by the public officer for the act to be consummated. In qualified bribery, the mere acceptance of any offer, promise, gift or present consummates the crime.

Moreover, in a direct bribery, the reason for the promise, gifts or offer is in consideration of the agreement of the public officer to perform or refrain from the commission of the crime or performance of an act; in indirect bribery, it was not because of a performance of an act but of his office; and in a qualified bribery, in consideration to not arrest or prosecute an offender who has committed a crime.

Lastly, in a qualified bribery, it focuses on public officers entrusted with law enforcement whereas in direct and indirect bribery, it pertains to all public officers.

Can you complex Direct Bribery with other felonies? 

The felony of Direct Bribery cannot be complexed with other felonies. From the provision itself, the phrase “in addition to the penalty . . . ” shall bar the applicability of the doctrine on complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that:

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.¹³

Under Anti-Graft Law [RA 3019]

Sec. 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states provides that “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.”¹⁴

The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. As provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the test is whether one offense is identical to the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other.¹⁵

Direct bribery cannot be complexed with other felonies if there is an identity and necessity between the two offenses. Thus, in the case of Merencillo vs. People,¹⁶ the Supreme Court ruled that:

“One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code. Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attached since there was a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy proceeds from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.”¹⁷

How is the felony of Corruption of Public Official committed?

What if a man who was caught for a traffic violation gave money to the traffic police? What crime will he be liable for? Most of us would have answered, it is bribery. But, as we learned in the previous discussion, bribery is committed only by a public officer, who accepts. Does this mean that the one who bribes is scot-free? No, he will be liable for the crime of corruption of public officials.

Corruption of Public officials is committed when any person has made an offer, promise, or give gifts or money to a public official in order to gain favor. This is the crime committed by the bribe giver, promissory, or offeror.

It is a crime defined and penalized under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. It states that the same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles, except the penalty of disqualification and suspension.¹⁸

The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are:

1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and¹⁹
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.²⁰

Corruption of public officials has only two stages: attempted if the gift, offer or promise was rejected and consummated if the same was accepted. Simply put, any person who merely makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer and the latter rejected the same, he or she committed the crime of corruption of public official.

In the case of Disini vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan,²¹ the Court ruled that the second element of corruption of public officers simply required the public officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make him liable for direct or indirect bribery.²²

Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini’s offers, promises, and gifts – an essential element in direct bribery – the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him under circumstances of being liable for direct bribery.²²

What is the relation of this crime to bribery?

The words “as described in the preceding articles” mentioned in Article 212 of the RPC refers to direct bribery (Article 21o) and indirect bribery (Article 211).

Art. 212 punishes the bribe giver or the person who made the offer or promise of giving the gift, even if the gift was not made voluntarily prior to the said demand by the public officer. While it is the bribe-taker or the public officer who is punished under Articles 210 and 211.

Under Article 212 of the RPC, it provides that:

Article 212. Corruption of public officials. – The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.²³

Hence, it bears emphasizing that Article 212 carries the same penalties imposed upon the violators of Articles 210, 211, and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code.

What is the crime of Illegal Exaction?

Illegal Exaction is the unlawful exaction of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts committed by a public officer. The essence of the crime is not misappropriation of any of the amounts but the improper making of the collection which would prejudice the accounting of collected amounts by the government.

How is the crime of Illegal Exaction perpetrated?

Illegal Exaction under paragraph 2 of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code may be committed by a public officer who is entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts in three ways.

What are the modes of its commission?

First is by demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law.

The second is by failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially.

Third is 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.²⁴

Demanding sums different from or larger than those authorized by law

On the first form of illegal exaction, mere demand will consummate the crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across the amount being demanded. In the demand, the amount being demanded doesn’t need to be bigger than what is payable to the government.

The amount being demanded may be less than the amount due to the government. However, one must be aware that when a public officer is demanding greater fees than those prescribed by law, there is deceit, the crime committed is estafa and not illegal exaction.

Failure to issue Official Receipt

On the second form of illegal exaction, the act of receiving payment due to the government without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal exaction even though a provisional receipt has been issued.

What the law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law, which means official receipt. Practically, it is for that reason that if the payment was given but the public official failed to issue receipts, one may put a different amount in the receipt.

Collecting or receiving

On the third form of illegal exaction, under the rules and regulations of the government, payment of checks not belonging to the taxpayer but of checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle the obligation of that person. Moreover, in this form one may think of barter as prohibited by law because in barter the amount is unknown, thus, the government will lose its funds.

Who are liable?

Furthermore, in Illegal Exaction as a general rule, only specific public officers are liable and this can only be committed principally by a public officer whose official duty is to collect taxes, license fees, import duties, and other dues payable to the government.

But, as an exception to the general rule, the last paragraph of Article 213 of the RPC states that “When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.”²⁵

In other words, BIR and Customs employees are not covered by article 213. The NIRC or the Revised Administrative Code is the applicable law. These officers are authorized to make impositions and to enter into compromises.

Consequently, any public officer who committed the crime of Illegal Exaction is punished by the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 40,000 to 2,000,000 pesos, or both.²⁶

What is Malversation?

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code defined and penalized the crime of malversation. It provides that:

Section 40. Article 217 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 1060, is hereby further amended to read as follows:²⁷

Any public officer who, because of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:¹⁰

The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed P40, 000 pesos.¹⁰

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than P40,000 pesos but does not exceed P1,200,000 pesos.¹⁰

The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than P1,200,00 pesos but does not exceed P2,400,00 pesos.¹⁰

The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than P2,400,000 but does not exceed P4,400,000 pesos.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if the amount involved is more than P4,400,000 but does not exceed P8,800,000. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.¹⁰

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.¹⁰

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use.¹⁰

How is the crime of Malversation committed?

There are four modes or ways of committing the crime of malversation. The first is by Appropriating public funds or property. The second is by taking or misappropriating the same. Third is by consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property. Fourth is by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.²⁸

The following elements are common to all modes, to wit:

1. The offender is a public officer;²⁹
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office;²⁰
3. He was accountable for public funds or property;²⁰
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.²⁰

Furthermore, in malversation the penalty imposed depends upon the value of money misappropriated, as provided in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

How is Malversation through Negligence perpetrated?

Malversation of public funds in the Philippines may be committed either with malice or through negligence. As a general rule, when a crime is committed through negligence, the penalty is lesser by 2 degrees.

However, the law specifically provides that in malversation, there is no distinction. This is one crime in the Revised Penal Code where the penalty is the same whether committed with dolo or through culpa.

Negligence, by definition, is the omission of reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation.

The measure of negligence is the standard of care commensurate with the occasion, as provided in the Civil Code. On the other hand, for malversation not committed through negligence, good faith is a defense as it negates criminal intent.

Who is an “accountable officer” in the crime of Malversation?

Section 101 of Presidential Decree [PD] No. 1445 defines an accountable officer as one who has custody or control of public property by reason of the duties of his office.³⁰

Malversation bears a relation between the offender and the funds or property involved. Hence, the offender, to commit malversation, must be accountable for the funds or property misappropriated.

If the fund or property, though public in character is the responsibility of another officer, malversation is not committed unless there is a conspiracy. If the public officer is not accountable for the funds or property but someone else is, the crime committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an abuse of confidence..

In this crime, it is not necessary that the offender profited because somebody else may have misappropriated the funds in question for as long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty of safekeeping public funds or property. He is liable for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise misappropriated by another.

An accountable officer does not refer only to the cashier, disbursing officers or property custodian. Any public officer having custody of public funds or property for which he is accountable can commit the crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or property or allow others to do so.

The Supreme Court ruled in Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan,³¹ that “an accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct evidence of personal misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved.”³²

Under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, there is prima facie evidence of malversation where the accountable public officer fails to have duly forthcoming any public funds with which he is chargeable upon demand by a duly authorized officer. This presumption juris tantum is founded upon human experience.³²

Moreover, in the case of Perez vs. People,³³ the Supreme Court stated that there is malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is an unexplainable shortage.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, they said that if the petitioner, being a public officer, embezzled public funds for which he is accountable, his crime would be malversation through falsification. But since he misappropriated public funds for which he is not accountable, his crime is estafa through falsification.³⁴

Time and again, under the law, public officers are the ones primarily be held liable for the crime of malversation. However, a private person may also commit malversation under the following situations, to wit:

1. Conspiracy with a public officer in committing malversation;
2. When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who commits malversation;
3. When the private person is made the custodian in whatever capacity of public funds or property, whether belonging to national or local government, and he misappropriates the same ³⁵;
4. When he is constituted as the depositary or administrator of funds or property seized or attached by public authority even though said funds or property belonging to a private individual ³⁵.

What is Technical Malversation?

Technical Malversation is enshrined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

In short, Technical Malversation is the application of public funds, earmarked by law or ordinance, other than their intended public use.

Thus, in Parungao v. Sandiganbayan,³⁶ the Supreme Court held that,

“in malversation of public funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter’s personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another’s personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance.”³⁷

How is the felony of Technical Malversation committed?

Technical Malversation is committed when the public officers used or applied public fund or property appropriated by law different from that which it is intended.

The essential elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:

(a) the offender is an accountable public officer;

(b) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and

(c) the public funds or property were used differently from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law ordinance.

Is Technical Malversation a mala prohibita offense? Why?

The crime of technical malversation, punished under Art. 220 of the RPC, was held to be a crime that is mala prohibita. It is not inherently wrong per se but because of the law that prohibits the commission of an act which make it a criminal offense.

Thus, the Court ruled that:

“But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.”³⁸

How are the felonies under Articles 223 to 225 of the Revised Penal Code committed?

The felonies under Articles 223, 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal Code are committed by public officers to whom the prisoner was entrusted and he connived with the prisoner (Art. 223), through his negligence (Art. 224) the prisoner was allowed to escape, or by private person to whom the prisoner is confided to him and he consents to the escape or allowed the escape of the prisoner through his negligence (Art. 225).

The essential elements of these crimes are summarized as follows:

Article 223

(a) The offender is a public officer; (b) that he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; (c) that such prisoner escaped from his custody; and (d) that he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape. ³⁹

Article 224

(a) The offender is a public officer; (b) that he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and (c) that such prisoner escapes through his negligence. ³⁹

Note that when the public officer recaptured the prisoner who escaped from his custody does not afford him complete exculpation.

Article 225

(a) The offender is a private person; (b) that the conveyance or custody of prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him; (c) that the prisoner or person under arrest escapes; and (d) that the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape takes place through his negligence. ³⁹

Distinguish the crimes under Infidelity of the Custody of Prisoners from Delivery of Prisoners from Jail and Evasion of Service of Sentence

In the crimes under infidelity of the custody of prisoners, the offender has the custody of the prisoner at the time of the escape or removal of the latter while in delivery of prisoners from jail, the offender does not have custody of the prisoner at the time of the escape or removal.

In the evasion of service of sentence, the prisoner is already convicted by a final judgment while in the infidelity of the custody of prisoners, the prisoner is either convicted by a final judgment or a detention prisoner.

Discuss the crimes under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents

The crimes under infidelity in the custody of documents are as follows, to wit:

(a) Removal, concealment or destruction of documents (Art. 226);

(b) Officer breaking seal (Art. 227); and

(c) Opening of closed documents (Art. 228)

Remove, destroy or conceal documents

The first crime under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that, “any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:

(a) the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest or

(b) the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious.”

The essential elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:

(a) The offender is a public officer;

(b) that he abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers;

(c) that the said documents or papers should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office; and

(d) that damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public.

Therefore, this crime is committed through:

(a) Removal which presupposes appropriation of the official documents. However, It is not necessary that the record be brought out of the place where it is kept. It is enough that the record be removed from the place where it should be transferred;

(b) Destruction that is equivalent to rendering useless or the obliteration of said documents; the complete destruction thereof is not necessary, and

(c) Concealment which means that the documents are not forwarded to their destination and it is not necessary that they are secreted away in a place where they could not be found.

It is important to note, however, that under this article, the persons liable are only public officers who have been officially entrusted with the documents or papers.

Break the seals or permit them to be broken

Another crime under Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is enshrined in Article 227 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

The elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:

(a) the offender is a public officer;

(b) he is charged with the custody of papers or property;

(c) that these papers or property are sealed by proper authority; and

(d) he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.

Under this article, the mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the document would already constitute infidelity even though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large because this act violates the confidence or trust reposed on him.

Open or permit to be opened closed papers, documents, or objects

The last crime of Infidelity of the Custody of Documents is found in Article 228 which states that any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Under Art. 228, the closed documents must be entrusted to the custody of the accused by reason of his office. Thus, this crime is committed by a public officer to whom any closed papers, documents or objects are entrusted to his custody and he opens or permits to be opened said closed papers, documents or objects without proper authority. Also, this crime does not require that there be damage or intent to cause damage (Reyes, 2008).

Discuss the offenses under Revelation of Secrets under Articles 229 to 230 of the Revised Penal Code

The revelation of secrets are committed by public officers who know the secrets by reason of his public position. The secrets include those secrets of a private person. The revelation of secrets was enshrined in Articles 229 and 230 of the Revised Penal Code.

Under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code:

“Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. – Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000) if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand (₱100,000) pesos shall be imposed.”⁴⁰

Violation of Article 229 is committed either by:

(a) revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity, or

(b) wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published.

In revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity, the offender is a public officer who knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity, and that he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons to caused damage to the public interest.

On the other hand, in wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, the offender is also a public officer to whom the papers which should not be published were charge and that he wrongfully delivers those papers to a third person that resulted to damage to public interest.

Note that if the public officer is merely entrusted with the papers but not with the custody of the papers, he is not liable under this provision. In addition, military secrets or those affecting national interest are not covered by the crime of revelation of secrets.

In Article 230, any public officer to whom the secrets of any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000).⁴¹

The elements of this crime are as follows, to wit:

(a) the offender is a public officer;

(b) he knows of the secrets of private individuals by reason of his office; and

(c) he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.

Note that if the secrets are contrary to public interest or to the administration of justice, the revelation will not amount to a crime under this article. Public revelation is not required. It is sufficient and necessary that the revelation was made to any one person (Reyes, 2008).

Disobedience, Refusal of Assistance, and Maltreatment of Prisoners

The Chapter Six of Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code penalizes Disobedience, Refusal, and Maltreatment of Prisoners.  It is detailed in the Articles 231 to 235 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disobedience

Disobedience, even in the setting of our own homes, is despicable one might say.  It creates disharmony and trouble which leads to failure in doing what is to be intended. However, disobedience may be justified with some lawful reason why such disobedience is manifested.

In the herein subject chapter, it penalizes two acts of disobedience, Open Disobedience (Art. 231) and Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer (Art. 232).

Open Disobedience refers to:

“Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities”

Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer pertains to:

“Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension”.

The key difference between the two are the offenders in the said acts, Art. 231 is only for Judicial or Executive Officers only.

Black’s Law dictionary defines judicial officer as:

“The term [judicial officer], in the popular sense, applies generally to an officer of a court, but in the strictly legal sense applies only to an officer who determines causes between parties or renders decision in a judicial capacity” and executive officer as “An officer of the executive department of government; one in whom resides the power to execute the laws; one whose duties are to cause the laws to be executed and obeyed.” 

On the other hand, Art. 232 is for Public Officers which refers to

“Any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.” ⁴²

Art. 231 is for judicial or executive officers who refuses to execute a judgement, decision, or order that is within his jurisdiction and was ordered lawfully by any superior authority without legal justification.

On the other hand, Art. 232 refers to the act of any public officer suspending the execution of the orders of his superior and continue to do so even after the disapproval of such suspension.

Refusal

Likewise with disobedience, refusal to act on a mandated job, duty, or order is also penalized under the Revised Penal Code. There are two acts of refusal penalized under Chapter VI of Title 7 of the RPC namely: Refusal of Assistance (Art. 233) and Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234).

Refusal of Assistance refers to:

The act of any public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service.” 

The penalty of shall be imposed therefrom are penalties arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000).⁴³

When the qualifying circumstance of the refusal and “such failure shall result in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000) shall be imposed.”

Refusal to discharge elective office refers to an act of an elected official’s failure to sworn in or discharge the duties of his office.  Imposed upon this act is the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000), or both.⁴⁴

Maltreatment of Prisoners

It is not old news that violence towards prisoners happens, more often it was portrayed in the television, cinema, and stories perpetrated by jail guards and wardens without care or consideration.  Such an act is inhumane and therefore punishable under the Revised Penal Code.  Article 235 mentions the crime of Maltreatment of Prisoners which is as follows:

Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.⁴⁵

If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000), in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.¹⁰

This article mentions that the offender shall be a public officer or employee and that he overdoes himself in the correction of a prisoner or detention prisoner by imposition of unauthorized punishments or by inflicting punishment that is cruel and humiliating in nature.

Said article also mentions a qualifying circumstance wherein if such maltreatment is done to extort a confession or obtain information a higher penalty is to be imposed. Art. 235 mentions prisoners, this includes both detention prisoners and those that are convicted by final judgement.

Maltreatment of Prisoners, can it be complexed with another felony?

Maltreatment of prisoners cannot be complexed under Art. 48 of the RPC. It must be noted, again, that, under Article 235 of RPC, in the imposition of the prescribed penalty, the provision still states “in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.” This phrase divests this felony of a situation where Article 48 of the RPC may seem applicable.

Anticipation, Prolongation, and Abandonment of the Duties and Powers of Public Office

Often mentioned in numerous written instruments and speeches that Public Office is a Public Trust, which mandates the public officers to maintain and uphold the trust the public has for the office in which they are elected, appointed, employed, or commissioned into.

Under the Revised Penal Code, numerous penal clauses are in effect, which criminalize and penalize acts or omission done by public officers  that are disadvantageous and detrimental to the office which they have held. The action of Anticipation, Prolongation, and Abandonment of the Duties and Powers of Public Office are not exceptions to such.

Anticipation of Duties of Public Office (Art. 236) is the act in which a soon to be public officer assumes office ahead, without first complying to what is required by law. On the contrary, Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers (Art. 237) is a criminal act where a public officer shall continue to exercise the duties and powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulation, or special provisions applicable to the case is the act in which a public officer.

Abandonment of Office or Position (Art. 238) is different from the assumption and prolongation of duties and power. It pertains to the act of any public officer who abandons his office to the damage of the public interest or when the act of abandonment is done to evade the discharge of duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any other crime.

However, when the act of abandonment is done to evade the discharge of duties of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any crimes falling under Crimes Against National Security and The Law Of Nations and Crimes Against Public Order, such is considered to be qualified felony.

Usurpation of Powers and Unlawful Appointments

The Constitution vests separate power to the three (3) branches of the government namely the Legislative, Executive, and the Judiciary.  As such, they are co-equal branches with different and distinct functions, which shall not encroach the power of another as mandated and delineated by the Constitution. This is the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers.  Consequently, usurping the power of one another is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

Usurpation, which is categorized as penal in nature, mentioned in the RPC, are as follows:

1] Usurpation of Legislative Powers (Art. 239),

2] Usurpation of Executive Functions (Art. 240), and

3] Usurpation of Judicial Functions (Art. 241).

They are specifically defined and referred to as follows:

(1) Usurpation of legislative power punishes any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof,⁴⁶

(2) Usurpation of executive functions punishes any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, and lastly⁴⁷

(3) Usurpation of judicial functions punishes any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.⁴⁸

Disobedience from disqualifications

Similarly to usurpation, the disobedience of a public officer from disqualification is also meted with appropriate penalties too. No one is above the law, as anyone, not even public officers, is not spared, when penal provision is violated, unless otherwise legally excepted.

Any public officer who continues any proceeding after a question of jurisdiction is raised and it being not yet decided, therefore was lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000).  This is mentioned in the Art. 242 of the RPC.⁴⁹

Consequently, if any executive officer who address any order or suggest to any judicial authority on how to handle certain business or case in their jurisdiction, said officer shall be punished under Art. 243 of the RPC.⁵⁰

Appointments should also be upheld on a certain degree of care as any public officer who nominates or appoints a person to any public office without being legally qualified may be punished under Art. 244 of the RPC.⁵¹

Abuse of Chastity

In the famous story of Spiderman, Uncle Ben said that, “With great power comes great responsibility”, as such, public officers bearing both the trust of the people and a great responsibility to be of good moral character.   Among the common immoral acts much more despised by the people are abuses against chastity.

We are in the modern times and among the rights that has been fought hard are women’s rights. Persons in power may, in return for their favor, induce a woman to do his bidding to meet her interest even if it is against her will.  Corollary to such, one of the criminal acts penalized under RPC are abuses against chastity which is detailed to wit:

Article 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. – The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:⁵²

1. 1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer;¹²

1. 2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.¹²

If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and temporary special disqualification.¹²

Art. 245 punishes any public officer who proposes earnestly and tenaciously anything unchaste, immoral, and indecent to a woman interested in matters such a public officer has control or influence over.  The mere proposal of such unchaste, immoral, and indecent act consummates the crime of abuse against chastity.  Shall there be an intercourse, the proof of solicitation in no longer needed.

Modes of Commission of the Crime of Abuses Against Chastity

1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody; and
3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the custody of such warden or officer.

Relevant Jurisprudence on Crimes Committed by Public Officers

The following are excerpts of some jurisprudence which may aid in understanding Crimes Committed by Public Officers:

Borrowing money to replace missing funds – when not malversation.⁵³

• The fact that the amount in cash which a municipal treasurer should have in his café was fully covered by an amount borrowed from one of his clerks does not relieve the said treasurer from criminal responsibility. As he did not explain satisfactorily why the amount which should be in his hands was in his clerk’s possession, the presumption is that he misappropriated the missing amount.⁵⁴
• But when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his office and borrow the sum alleged to be the shortage and later the missing amount is found in some unaccustomed place in his office, he is not liable for malversation.⁵⁵

Leniency or laxity is not infidelity⁵⁶

• During his detention, the prisoner was allowed to eat in a restaurant near the municipal building. During the town fiesta, the municipal president acceded to the prisoner’s request for permission to eat better means in his house.  On all these occasions, the prisoner was duly guarded.  It is held that it is only leniency or laxity in the performance of duty, and not in excess of his duties.⁵⁷

Maltreatment of Prisoners⁵⁸

• Thus, if the jailer inflicted physical injuries on the prisoner because of personal grudge against the prisoner, the jailer is liable for physical injuries only.⁵⁹

Final Thoughts

Public officers possess great power in their position, which, if used unlawfully, may harm a person or the interest of the public as a whole.  A prominent presidentiable once said, “It is not enough that the public official (in this case, public officer as a whole) to be good, but there has to be a system which will force him to be good.”

Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines belongs to the system which forces public officers to do good and be good. Public office is a public trust.

The provisions of the RPC are not enough nor is it the only basis of penalizing public officers. There are also special penal laws which punish more detailed acts or omissions unlawfully done by public officers. These laws are essential towards attaining a quality public service and will hold public officials accountable in the exercise of their duties.

A well-informed public is essential in the execution of the above-mentioned provisions of the laws. Moreover, with the keen eyes of the public looking for irregularities and unlawful acts, the enforcement of these provisions is far from being impossible, let alone doable.

1. Article 203, RPC[↩]
2. Eduardo P. Diego vs. Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Branch 43; A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1673; August 11, 2004[↩]
3. Ibid.[↩][↩]
4. G. R. No. 198223, February 18, 2015[↩]
5. Ibid.[↩]
6. G. R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 and L-16317-18; October 31, 1960[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩]
8. The United States vs. Vicente Mendoza, G. R. No. 7540; September 23, 1912[↩]
9. Section 36, RA 10951[↩]
10. Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
11. Article 211-A, RPC[↩]
12. Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
13. Article 48, RPC[↩]
14. Sec. 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution[↩]
15. Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court[↩]
16. G. R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007[↩]
17. Ibid.[↩]
18. Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
19. LB Reyes (2021), The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, p. 396[↩]
20. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
21. G. R. Nos. 169823-24, September 11, 2013[↩]
22. Ibid.[↩][↩]
23. Article 212, RPC[↩]
24. Paragraph 2 of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
25. Last paragraph of Article 213 of the RPC[↩]
26. As amended by RA 10951, Section 37[↩]
27. Article 217, RPC, as amended by RA 10951[↩]
28. LB Reyes (2021), The Revised Penal Code. Book Two, pp. 425-426[↩]
29. LB Reyes (2021), The Revised Penal Code. Book Two, p. 426[↩]
30. Section 101, PD 1445, The State Audit Code of the Philippines[↩]
31. G. R. No. L-59670 February 15, 1990[↩]
32. Ibid.[↩][↩]
33. G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008[↩]
34. Ilumin v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 85667. February 23, 1995, 241 SCRA 586[↩]
35. Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code[↩][↩]
36. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991[↩]
37. Ibid.[↩]
38. Ysidoro vs. People, G. R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012[↩]
39. Reyes[↩][↩][↩]
40. Article 229, RPC, as amended by Section 47, RA 10591[↩]
41. As amended by RA 10951, Section 48[↩]
42. Supra., Article 203, RPC[↩]
43. Article 233, RPC, as amended by RA 10951[↩]
44. Article 234, RPC, as amended by RA 10951[↩]
45. Article 235, RPC, as amended by RA 10951, Section 52[↩]
46. Article 239, RPC[↩]
47. Article 240, RPC[↩]
48. Article 241, RPC[↩]
49. Article 242, RPC, as amended by RA 10951, Section 56[↩]
50. Article 243, RPC, as amended by RA 10951, Section 57[↩]
51. Article 244, RPC, as amended by RA 10951, Section 58[↩]
52. Article 245, RPC[↩]
53. Reyes, L.B. (2021). The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, p. 217[↩]
54. People vs. Divino, CA-G. R. No. 428, Oct. 13, 1938[↩]
55. U.S. vs. Pascual, 26 Pill. 234, G.R. No. L-8686, July 30, 1915[↩]
56. Reyes, L.B. (2021). The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, p. 223[↩]
57. People vs. Evangelista, C.A., 38 O.G. 158[↩]
58. Reyes, L.B. (2021). The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book Two, p. 236[↩]
59. People vs. Javier, 54 O.G. 6622[↩]