Criminal Law II

Criminal Law branch of public law which

defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

Crime is the commission or omission by
a person having capacity, of any act,
which is either prohibited or compelled by
law and the commission and omission
of which is punishable by a proceeding
brought in the name of the government
whose law has been violated.

Book II Group by titles
Title I Crimes Against National Security
& Laws of the Nations.
Title II Crimes Against the Fundamental
Laws of the State.
Title III Crimes Against Public Order
Title IV-Crimes Against Public Interest
Title V- Crimes Relative To Opium and
Other Prohibited Drugs (under Special
laws)
Title VI Crimes Against Public Morals

Title VII Crimes Committed by Public
Officers
Title VIII Crimes Against Persons
Title IX Crimes Against Personal Liberty
and Security
Title X- Crimes Against Property
Title XI Crimes Against Chastity
Title XII Crimes Against The Civil Status
of Persons
Title XIII Crimes Against Honor
Title XIV Quasi Offenses
Title XV- Final Provisions

ARTICLE 114-TREASON

TREASON is a breach of allegiance,
which is an obligation of fidelity and
obedience one owes to the government or
sovereign under which he lives, in return
for the protection he receives (Laurel vs.
Misa- 77 Phil. 856).
Persons liable:
1) Filipino citizens owe permanent
allegiance.
2) Resident aliens owe temporary
allegiance.
Modes of committing Treason:
1) Levying war- means an actual
assemblage of persons for purposes of
executing a treasonable act. A formal
declaration of war is not necessary.
Actual hostilities determine the date of the
commencement of war (US vs. Lagnason
3 Phil. 495).
2) Adhering to the enemy giving them aid
or comfort.
Adherence to the enemies means that
a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors
the enemy and harbors sympathies or
convictions disloyal to his countrys policy
or interest (Cramer vs. US - 65 SCRA
918). Adherence alone without aid and
comfort does not constitute treason, altho
it may be inferred from the overt acts of
treason committed
(Pp. vs. Icaro- 89 Phil. 12; Pp. vs.
Bernardino- 93 Phil. 640).
Aid and comfort - means an act which
strengthens or tends to strengthen the
enemy of the government in the conduct of
war against the govt. or an act which
weakens or tends to weaken the power of
the govt. or the country to resist or attack
the enemies of the govt. or of the country.
An act of giving aid and comfort partakes
of a deed of physical activity as opposed
to mental operation and must be
intentional. The amount or degree of said
act or comfort given to the enemy as well
as the gravity of the separate and distinct
acts of treason committed rather than the
circumstances, aggravating or mitigating,
attending its commission, determine the
degree of the penalty to be imposed (Pp.
vs. Cana- 87 Phil. 577). Mere expression
of opinion does not constitute treason.

Evidence required for the conviction in
Treason: a) testimony of at least two
witnesses of the same overt act; and b)
confession of guilt in open court.

As to adherence to enemy does not
need at least two witnesses. Such may be
proved by the testimony of one witness or
from the nature of the act itself, or from the
circumstances surrounding the act.
Overt acts of giving aid and comfort must
be proved by the testimony of at least two
witnesses (Pp. vs. Adriano 44 O.G.
4300).
As to confession it must be done in open
court. This excludes extra- judicial
admission. (U.S. vs. Magtibay 2 Phil.
705).
Furnishing women to the enemy does not
constitute treason because such does not
directly and materially tend to improve the
war efforts of the enemy (Pp. vs. Perez-
64 O.G 4886) .
But joining the Japanese soldiers in
arresting and torturing suspected guerrillas
(Pp. vs. Santos- 87 Phil. 731); being an
informer (Pp. vs. Fernando 79 Phil 719);
or service in the Japanese Army (Pp. vs.
Munoz, et al.- 79 Phil. 102) constitute
the crime of Treason.
There is no such defense as suspended
allegiance.
Is there a complex crime of Treason with
Murder No, because such is the overt
act of aid and comfort and is therefore
inseparable from treason itself, nor can it
be considered a separate crime (Pp. vs.
Hernandez 52 O.G. 5506).
Is Treason a continuous crime? Yes it
may be committed by executing either
singly or several intentional overt acts. All
overt acts he had done or might have
been done for that purpose constitute a
single offense (Guinto vs. Veluz -
- 44 O.G. 909).
Treason is a war crime . It cannot be
committed in time of peace. Treasonable
acts may actually be committed during
peace time, but there are no traitors until
war has started ( Laurel vs. Misa- supra).
Treason may be committed in the
Philippines or elsewhere.
Penalty - Filipino offenders Reclusion
Perpetua to Death or a fine not to exceed
P100,000 pesos.
- Resident Aliens Reclusion
Temporal to Death and a fine not to
exceed P100,000 pesos. (As amended by
RA 7659).
ARTICLE 115- Conspiracy &
Proposal to Commit Treason

Article 8 Conspiracy to commit felony
when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decided to commit it.
Proposal to commit a felony when the
person who has decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some
other persons.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is not a
crime exceptions: a) Conspiracy to
commit Treason; b) Conspiracy to commit
Rebellion, insu., or coup detat and c)
Conspiracy to commit
Sedition.
Proposal to commit a felony is not also a
crime except:
1) Proposal to commit Treason
2) Proposal to commit Rebellion, Coup
detat or insu.
Conspiracy must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence.
Penalty:
Conspiracy to commit Treason Prision
Mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000;

Proposal to commit Treason Prision
Correccional and a fine not exceeding
P5,000.

ARTICLE 116- MISPRISION OF
TREASON

- It is the failure of the citizen to report as
soon as possible a conspiracy, which
comes to his knowledge, against the govt.
But there must be a war in which the Phil.
Govt. is a party.
Possible offender is a Filipino ( not a
foreigner).
Elements:
1) Offender owes allegiance to the Phil.
Govt.;
2) Filipino
3) Has knowledge of a conspiracy to
commit Treason against said govt.; &
4) Conceals or fails to disclose the
same to the authorities in which he
resides.
The offender is a principal of the crime of
Misprision of Treason, but he is punished
as an Accessory to the crime of Treason.
Under Art. 20 relatives who are
accessories are exempt from criminal
liability. Under this article, this exemption
does not apply because of three ( 3 )
reasons:
.
1) this Article is of special application,
while Art.20 is of a gen. application.
2) security of the state is more paramount
than mere relationship; and
3) the offender commits the distinct crime
of Misprision of Treason w/c is a separate
and distinct crime.
Article 117-ESPIONAGE

This crime is not conditioned by the
citizenship of the offender and is an
offense against national security ( Santos
vs. Misa 70 Phil. 415).
Elements of act no.1:
1) The offender without any authority
enters a warship, fort, naval or military
establishment or reservation; and
2) He obtains information, plans,
photographs, or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense
of the Philippines.
Elements of act no. 2:
1) The offender is a public officer ;
2) He has in his possession article,
data, or information which are confidential
relative to the defense of the Phil. Govt.;
3) He discloses their contents to a
representative of a foreign nation.
In the first act, it is not necessary that the
offender succeeds in obtaining the data.
This provision is amended under CA 616
(seven acts ).
Distinguish Treason from Espionage:
1) Treason is a war crime; Espionage
can be committed in time of peace or war;
2) Treason is committed by person
who owes allegiance to a country; while
Espionage can be committed by a
foreigner or Filipino.
3) Ways of committing the crime are
distinct.
Penalty - First act Prision Correccional
- Second act higher by next
degree bec. the offender is a pub.officer.

















Article 118 Inciting To War or
Giving Motives for Reprisals

Offenders: any person (private individual
or public officer)
Elements:
1) The offender commits unlawful or
unauthorized acts; and
2) Said acts provoke or give occasion for
a war involving or liable to involve the
Phils. or expose Filipinos to reprisals on
their persons or property.
This is committed in time of peace.
Penalty Prision Mayor if the offender
is a private individual; Reclusion
Temporal, if the offender is a public officer.
ARTICLE 119 Violation of
Neutrality
This is committed in time of war.
Offenders: any person
Elements:
1) There is a war in which the
Philippines is not involved;
2) Competent authorities have issued
regulations to enforce neutrality; and

3) The offender violates any of said
regulations.
Penalty Prision Correccional
Article 120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH
HOSTILE COUNTRY
Offenders: any person
Elements: 1) That there is a war in which
the Philippines is involved;
2) That the offender shall have
correspondence with an enemy country or
territory occupies by enemy troops; and
3) That said correspondence is: a)
prohibited by the govt. ( Prision
Correccional); b) carried on ciphers or
conventional signs (Prision Mayor); and
c) notice or information be given thereby
which might be useful to the enemy
(Reclusion Temporal) or intended by the
offender to aid the enemy (Reclusion
Temporal to Death).
If the act is intended to aid the enemy,
this is treasonable in nature, hence the
penalty is severe as in Treason, but in
proving it, the two-witness rule does not
apply.
Article 121-Flight To Enemys
Country

Offenders: any person
Elements: 1) Existence of war in which
the Philippines is involved;
2) Offender owes allegiance to the
Philippines.;
3) He attempts to flee to enemy
country which is prohibited.
Mere attempt to flee is punishable.
This can be committed by a foreigner
who owes temporary allegiance to the
government.
Penalty Arresto Mayor

Article 122 PIRACY & MUTINY
Piracy is robbery or forcible depre-
dation in the high seas, without lawful
authority and done w/ animo furandi and in
the spirit & intention of universal hostility
(People vs. Lol-lo- 43 Phil. 19). With the
amendatory provisions of PD 532 & RA
7659 Piracy & Mutiny now can be
committed in Philippine waters.
Offenders: Any person who is not a
passenger or crew of the vessel.
The offenders are strangers to the vessel.
The attack against the vessel comes from
the outside but the seizure of the cargo
takes place inside the vessel. Seizure may
be committed by persons who smuggled
themselves into the vessel for that
purpose. Since they are not members of
the crew nor passengers, they are
therefor strangers .
Pirates are in law hostis humani generis.
Piracy is a crime not against any particular
state but against all mankind.
Piracy knows no territorial limits, hence
the offender can be tried in the place
where he may be found or into which he
may be carried. (Pp. vs. Lol-lo supra).
Modes/manner of committing Piracy
1) By attacking or seizing a vessel on the
high seas or Philippine waters; and
2) By seizing the whole or part of the
cargo or equipment of the vessel while on
the high seas or Philippine waters or the
personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
High seas waters on the sea coast which
are without low water mark, beyond the 12
nautical miles (Archipelagic Doctrine on
the Laws of the Conference of the Sea).
Meaning of vessels Sec. 2 (b) of PD
532- any watercraft, such as banca or raft
or fishing boats.
In PD 532- piracy can be committed by a
passenger or member of the complement
of said vessel in Phil. waters. However,
under the amendatory provision of RA
7659, it is specifically provided that the
offender is a person who is not a member
of its complement nor a passenger of said
vessel Being the latest amendment
the latter should prevail.
Piracy is committed whether the vessel is
anchored or moving as long as it is
committed aboard the vessel, because it
can now be committed in Philippine
waters.
MUTINY is an unlawful resistance to a
superior officer as the raising of
commotions and disturbance on board
a ship against the authority of its
commander.
Distinction between Piracy & Mutiny:
1) P- attack from the vessel comes from
the outside;
M- attack are from the inside;
2) P- there is intent to gain;
M intent to gain is immaterial
Similarity both are crimes under the
Laws of the Nations.

ARTICLE 123- QUALIFIED PIRACY
Modes of committing it:
1) Whenever the offenders have seized
a vessel by boarding or firing upon the
same;
2) Whenever the pirates have abandoned
their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3) Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
Is there a Qualified Mutiny? Art. 123
provides any of the crimes referred to in
the preceding article. Hence, it embraces
not only piracy but also mutiny. So, there
is such crime as Qualified Mutiny.
However, as far as Qualified Mutiny is
concerned, only pars. 2 & 3 will apply,
because the offenders in par. 1 are
outsiders.
The Murder, Homicide, Physical Injuries or
Rape are special aggravating
& as these accompanied the crime of
Qualified Piracy/Mutiny- hence such
cannot make the crime complex.

ARTICLE 124- ARBITRARY DETENTION
It is the deprivation by a public officer of
the liberty of a person without any legal
ground.
Public Officers
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 Phil. Islands, or shall
perform in said Govt. or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate officials of any rank
of class (Article 203- RPC).
Offenders: Public Officer or employee. He
must be vested with the authority to detain
or order the detention of persons accused
of a crime. Exs. Policemen & other agents
of the law, judges or mayors.
(if committed by a private individual
Illegal Detention).
But if a private individual conspired with
public officers then they can be held liable
for Arbitrary Detention. (Pp. vs. Camerino).
Acts: 1) He detains a person
2) Without legal grounds.
Legal grounds to detain a person:
1) commission of a crime
2) violent insanity or other ailment
requiring confinement at the hospital.
In Arbitrary Detention, the detention at the
very inception is unlawful because there is
no warrant of arrest and there is no lawful
cause as provided under the Rules of
Court.
Rule 113, Sec. 5: Valid Warrantless
Arrest:
1)When in his presence, the person
has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
2) when an offense has just been
committed that he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and
3) when the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment.
Pp. vs. Burgos l44 SCRA 1
Pp. vs. Aminnudin- l63 SCRA 402
Pp.vs. Saycon 236 SCRA 325
Pp. vs. Mengote 210 SCRA 174
Pp vs. Tangliben 184 SCRA 220
Pp. vs. Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401

Pp.vs. Tonog- 205 SCRA -772
Rolito Go vs. CA Feb. l992
Pp. vs. Gerente- 219 SCRA 756

Warrant of Arrest is an order in writing
issued in the name of the People of the
Phils., signed by a judge and directed to a
peace officer, commanding him to take
into custody a person who may be bound
to answer for the commission of a crime.
Either: 1) actual restraint
2) by his submission
No violence or unnecessary force shall be
used.
Detention means deprivation or restraint
of liberty.
Article 125-Delay In The
Delivery of Detained Persons
To The Proper Judicial Authorities-

Offenders: Public Officer or employee

In this felony, the detention is legal but the
public officer failed to deliver the detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities
within the prescribed no. of hours: 12
hours for crimes punishable with light
penalties; 18 hours for crimes punishable
with correctional penalties and 36 hours
for crimes punishable with afflictive or
capital penalties (Executive Order 272).

This is a felony by omission.
If a private individual conspires with the
public official, then he can be held liable
under this law (applying the Camerino
doctrine by analogy).
Judicial Authority: - means the courts of
justice, or judges of the courts vested with
judicial power to order the temporary
detention or confinement of a person
charged with having committed an
offense.
Delivery of a detained person consists in
making a charge or filing a complaint
against the prisoner with the proper court.
It does not mean the physical delivery of
the prisoner.
A detained person upon arrest should be
informed of his rights under the Miranda
Doctrine ( RA 7438).
Procedure: Sec. 7: Rule 112- Rules of
Court:
When a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation
the complaint or information may be filed
by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been
conducted in accordance with existing
rules. X x x x
Before the complaint or information is
filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation, but he must
sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125
of the RPC, as amended, in the presence
of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver,
he may apply for bail and the investigation
must be terminated within 15 days from its
inception.
If the filing of the complaint or
information is done without preliminary
investigation, the accused may, within 5
days from the time he learns of the filing of
the information or complaint, may ask for a
preliminary investigation with the same
right to adduce evidence in his defense.

Preliminary Investigation- is an inquiry or
proceeding to determine whether there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held liable for
trial.
Purposes: 1) to determine if a crime has
been committed:
2) to protect the accused from the
inconvenience, expense and burden of
defending himself;
3) to secure the innocent against a
hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution;
4) to protect the state from having to
conduct useless and expensive trials.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438-
- custodial investigation involves
questioning initiated by law enforcement
after a person is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action. When the suspect is taken into
custody and the police carries out a
process of interrogations that tends to
elicit incriminating statements, the rule
begins to operate ( Pp. vs. Tan 91
SCAD).
Sanchez vs. Demetriou- 46 SCAD en
banc application of actual force, manual
touching of the body, physical restraint or
formal declaration of arrest is not required.
It is enough that there is intent. Custodial
investigation includes invitation.
Rationale of Article 125- is intended to
prevent any abuse resulting from confining
a person without informing him of his
offense and without permitting him to go
on bail. Furthermore, it penalizes a public
officer who shall detain a person for some
legal grounds and shall fail to deliver the
said person to the proper court within the
period prescribed by law.
In Art. 125, the detention becomes
arbitrary only when the time required for
the delivery of prisoner to the judicial
authority lapses.
The 12-18-36 hours do not run when the
courts are not open to receive the
complaint or information being filed.
ARTICLE 126- DELAYING RELEASE
This article contemplates petitions for the
release of a detained person, e.g. habeas
corpus proceeding. The same penalties
provided for in Article 124 shall be
imposed upon any public officer or
employee who delays for the period of
time specified therein:
1) The performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of a
prisoner or detention prisoner;
2) Unduly delays the service of the notice
of such order to said prisoner; or
3) Delays the proceedings upon the
petition for the liberation of such person.
(Possible offenders Warden, process
server or judge).
ARTICLE 127- EXPULSION
1) Offenders Public officer/employee
- not authorized by law;
2) Act: a) expel any person from the Phil.
Island; or
b) compel such person to change
his address.
This is a crime against constitutional
rights of abode and changing the same
under the Bill of Rights (Villavicencio vs.
Lukban- 39 Phil).
3) Penalty Prision Correccional
Only the President of the Philippines in the
exercise of his power of deportation and the
courts after final judgment sentencing the
accused to destierro or as a condition in his
probation are authorized by law to expel or
compel persons to change their abode. A
Filipino citizen is not subject to expulsion.
ARTICLE 128-VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE

1) Offenders: 1) Public officer
2) Employee- who are not
authorized by any judicial
order.
2) Acts: a) enters any dwelling against
the will of the owner;

b) searches papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of the
owner; and
c) having surreptitiously entered such
dwelling, and being required to leave the
premises, he refuses to do so.
The judicial order referred to is a
Search Warrant- which is an order
in writing issued in the name of the People
of the Philippines, signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the
court.
Against the will presupposes opposition
or prohibition, by the owner, whether
express or implied( when the door is
locked).
If the entry is committed by a private
person Qualified Trespass To Dwelling.
Special aggravating circumstances: a)
nighttime ; and b) if any papers or effects
not constituting a crime be not returned
immediately after the search.
When a person who admitted the public
officer is one with sufficient discretion, the
right to privacy is waived, hence,
prohibition thereafter made can no longer
constitute violation of domicile.
Permission once given cannot be recalled
anymore. When he is admitted and he
starts to search, the owner must stop him,
otherwise permission is given.

Reason behind the law: Section 2, Art. III-
Constitution The right of the people to be
secure against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature for any
purpose shall be inviolable.
Article 129- Search Warrant
Maliciously Obtained & Abuse In
THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED

1) Offenders: 1) Public officer
2) Employee
2) Acts: a) procuring a search warrant
without just cause; and
b) exceeding the authority or using
unnecessary severity in executing a
search warrant legally obtained.
Requisites for a Valid SW:
1) Application under oath;
2) Probable cause which must be
determined by the Judge himself, by
conducting searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath;
3) the probable cause must be in
connection with one specific offense;
4) must particularly described the place to
be searched and the persons and things to
be seized;
5) the sworn statements and affidavits of
the witnesses must be attached t the
records (Prudente vs. Dayrit- l989)
The commission of any of these acts is
independent of the liability for the
commission of any other offenses: 1)
Abuse in the service of SW; 2) Serious
Physical Injuries (not complex crime- 2
crimes 2 sep. penalties)
Penalty AM max to PC min. + a fine not
exceeding P1,000

Application will be filed :
1) any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime is committed;
2) for compelling reasons, any court
within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any
court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced; (But if a criminal
action has already been filed, then the
application shall be filed only in the court
where the criminal action is pending)- Sec.
2 Rule 126 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended under
Adm. Circular no. 13, Oct. 1, l985 and Adm.
Circular no. 19, August 4, l987.
Sec. 5- Ibid- The judge must personally examine
the applicant in the form of searching questions
and answer, in writing and under oath.
Under oath can be liable of Perjury.
Probable cause - such reasons supported by
facts and circs. w/c will warrant a cautious man
to believe that his actions and the means used
are just and proper (Manalili vs. CA- 280 SCRA)

Personal property to be seized:
1) subject of the offense
2) stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense;
3) used or intended to be used in the
commission of the crime.
Specific place no discretion for the
searching officers, to avoid unreasonable.
search and seizure
The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit
to warrant issuance of a search warrant is
whether it has been drawn in such manner
that perjury could be charged thereon and
affiant be held for damages (Alvarez vs.
CA 64 Phil. 33).
An exception to the necessity of a search
warrant Warrantless search and seizure:
1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
2) search of a moving vehicle
(Bagista -214 SCRA 63)
3) consented search (Pp. vs.Kagui
Malasugui- 63 Phil. 221)
4) search of evidence in plain view
(Manipon,Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan 143
SCRA 267)- come upon the object
inadvertently & open to the eye;
5) viol. of Tariff and Customs Code,
except in dwelling place ( Pp. vs. Lacerna-
86 SCAD 608)
6) search based on probable cause under
extraordinary/exigent circumstances-
Exigent circumstance- added by Justice
Puno- catch all category-Valmonte vs.
Villa 178 SCRA 211;Malmsted case;
Tangliben.
Search in check point- between the
inherent right of the State to protect its
existence & promote public welfare & on
indivs. right against warrantless search
former shall prevail.
7) Stop and frisk Posadas vs. CA- l88
SCRA 288 & Valmonte vs. Villa -178
SCRA 211- flagrante delicto.

ARTICLE 130- SEARCHING DOMICILE
WITHOUT WITNESSES
1)Offender : Public officer/employee
armed with search warrant
2) Act: Search a domicile in the absence
of : a) person to be searched
b) member of his family
c) in their default, in the presence of
two witnesses residing in the same locality
(sufficient age and discretion)- Sec. 8,
Rule 126 Rev. Rules on Crim. Proc.
Distinction between Warrant of Arrest and
Search Warrant:
1) WA a case is already filed
SW not necessarily
2) WA served anytime of the day or
night
SW only during daytime (if served
during nighttime- there must be a suppor-
ting affidavit of urgency;
3) WA persons
SW usually for things/items
4) WA no lifetime (exc. when already
served)
SW valid only for 10 days
ARTICLE 131 PROHIBITION,
INTERRUPTION & DISSOLUTION OF
PEACEFUL MEETINGS (PID)
l) Offenders:1) Public officers
2) employees
ll) Acts:
1) without legal grounds, shall
prohibit or interrupt the holding of a
peaceful meeting or dissolve the same;
Elems: 1) meeting is peaceful- if not-
official is duty bound to dissolve the same;
2) for legal purpose otherwise
Art. 146 is committed- (Illegal Assembly)
3) officer is not a member thereof
(stranger) Pp. vs. Calera- 45 O.G. 2573-
If not stranger Art. 287- Unjust Vexation
If the meeting is legislative - - Art. 144- Pp.
vs. Alipit 44 Phil. 910
4) disturbs the same.

The right of the govt. to require permit
for regulatory purposes has been upheld
by the Supreme Court. The regulatory
purpose covers the time and place where
the assembly is to be held to safeguard
the right of the public & protect them from
inconvenience- Reyes vs. Bagatsing 125
SCRA & Tanada vs. Bagatsing Aug.
1984.
Meetings held by religious sect not
religious ceremonies if dissolved Art.
131 is violated and not Art. 132- Pp. vs.
Reyes July 2, l955 & Pp. vs. Mandoriao-
51 OG 4619.
The requiring of a permit shall only be
regulatory not to prevent peaceful
assemblies. The Mayors possess
reasonable discretion to determine public
place Navarro vs. Villegas 31 SCRA
371.
(Ortega does not agree to the opinion
that if the mayor dictates the place it is a
violation of the law.
If in the beginning the assembly is
peaceful, then later the participants
became unruly commit the crimes-
Inciting to Sedition meeting now can be
dissolved . Permit is not a license to
commit a crime.
Two criteria:
1) Dangerous Tendency Rule
applicable during time of national unrest-
e.g. prevent coups;
2) Clear & Present Danger Rule
applicable in time of peace; stricter rule.
2) Shall hinder any person from joining
any lawful association or from attending

any of its meetings;
3) Shall prohibit or hinder any person
from addressing any petition to the
authorities for correction of abuses or
redress of grievance. (no subversion law
RA 7736 repealed RA 1700 l992)

ARTICLE 132 INTERRUPTION OF
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
I) Offenders: 1) Public officers
2) employees
II) Acts:
1) Prevent religious ceremonies
2) Disturbing the ceremonies
or manifestation of any religion
III) Penalty PC- min period
- w/ threats /violence PC
max.
Pp. vs. Mojica Dec. 29, l955 Priest
was prevented from saying the mass
Included in the religious services
activities in the house w/ 20 to 30 people
( prayer meetings Couples for Christ).
This refers to exercise of religious
manifestation not quasi-religious
ceremonies- house blessings.

ARTICLE 133- OFFENDING RELIGIOUS
FEELING
1) Offenders: 1) Public
officer/employee;
2) private individuals this is the
only crime against the Funda-
mental Laws of the State that can
be committed by a private indi-
vidual.
II) Acts:
1) Notoriously offensive to
feelings of the faithful- Pp. vs. Baes
68 Phil. 203- (ridicule rel. dogma)
2) performed in a place devoted to
religious worship or during the
celebration of a religious cere-
mony. Baes cs. causing a
funeral held in accordance with the rites
of a rel. sect to pass through the catholic
church.

Pp. vs. Migallos Aug. 5, l955- stoning a
minister while in the act of preaching.
Whether the act is offensive notoriously
is to be judged by the feelings of the
followers and not by the offenders.
Other acts may only consist: Unjust
Vexation Pp. vs. Tamarra July 1, l963-
accused played dance music when the
Catholics were about to pray the rosary.
Pp.vs. Nanoy- 69 OG. 8043 drunk
person entered w/ uplifted hands while the
congregation of the Assembly of God was
having its afternoon session and then
grabbed the song leader- Unjust Vexation.

ARTICLE 134- REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
I) Offenders: Any person: a) Leader
who promotes, maintains or
leads the rebellion.
If unknown, spokesman,
signatories of docs.- can be
punished as leaders.
Pen. Reclusion Perpetua

b) followers-
Pen.- Reclusion Temporal
II) Acts:
1) Remove from the allegiance of
the government or its laws, or
Phil. Territory or any part thereof;
2) Deprive the chief executive or
legislative, wholly or partially of any of
their powers.
III) Elements:
1)public uprising (rising publicly)
2) taking up arms
Purpose: to overthrow the duly constituted
authority in order to establish another form
of government.
- Crime of the masses/ multitude
- vast movement of men and a complex
net of intrigue and plots
This is a crime against Public Order Pp.
vs. Asuncion April l992.
If the acts of killing are not shown to be
with political end or political order- not
Rebellion:- Off. Of the Prov. Pros. vs. CA-
Dec. 2000; Pp. vs. Ompad- 233 SCRA
l994
Baylosis vs. Chavez- 202 SCRA l99- pub.
Prosecutor has the choice/ discretion to
choose what crime to file.
No complex crime of Rebellion with
Murder, Arson, Robbery or other serious
Crimes, committed as a means to or a
furtherance of the rebellion Enrile vs.
Salazar- 186 SCRA l990.
ARTICLE 134-A- COUP DTAT-
I) Elements:
a) swift attack accompanied w/
violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
b) directed against military
camp/installations, communications, public
utilities/ facilities;
II) Offenders: Any person or persons
belonging to the military, police or public
officer w/ or w/o civilian support.
III) Purpose seize or diminish state
powers.

Distinction between R & C:
1) Essence of the crime
R- rising publicly & taking up arms
against the govt.
C- swift attack against govt./ mil.
institutions, communication
facilities, pub. utilities essential
in the exercise of govt. powers;
2) No. of offenders:
R- involves multitude of people
C- committed singly or collectively
3) Offenders:
R- perpetrated by any person (doesnt
require to be mil., police, AFP or
public officer;
C- principal offenders are members of
AFP, PNP or public officers w/ or w/o
civilian support;
4) Purpose:
R- overthrow the govt.
C- destabilizing or immobilizing or
paralyze the existing govt. & taking
over some facilities which are needed
for the exercise of govt. powers;
5) How committed:
R- through force & violence
C- not only through force or violence
but also threats, intimidation,
Strategy or stealth;
Utility workers cannot commit coup dtat.
Article 135- Penalty for Reb., Ins. or Coup
dtat-
Article 136: Conspiracy and Proposal to
commit coup dtat, rebellion or insurrection
Art. 137: Disloyalty of Public Officers or
Employees (By failing to resist a rebellion
or continuing to discharge the functions of
their office)
ARTICLE 138:INCITING TO REBELLION
OR INSURRECTION-
Offender: Any person
Elements: 1) Offender must not take up
arms or is not in open hostility against the
govt.;
2) Incite other to commit rebellion or
insurrection;
3) means employed are speeches,
writings, emblems, or any similar means.
The purpose of the meeting is always
illegal as it is held to incite persons to
commit rebellion.
ARTICLE 139: SEDITION:
Offender: 1)Any person
2) Public Officers (Pp.vs.
Cabrera- 43 Phil. 64).
In this crime, there is public and
tumultuous uprising in order to attain by
force, intimidation, or any other means
outside of legal methods, the following
objectives:
1) To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of any
popular election;
2) To prevent the National Govt., or
any provincial or municipal govt., or any
public officer thereof from freely exercising
its or his functions, or prevent the
execution of any administrative order;
3) To inflict any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any public
officer or employee;
4) To commit, for any political or social
end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class;
5) To despoil, for any political or social
end, any person, municipality or province,
or the National Government of all its
property or any part thereof.
SEDITION- involves disturbance of public
order resulting from a tumultuous uprising.
The ultimate object of sedition is a
violation of the public peace or at least
such a course of a measure as evidently
engenders it (Pp. vs. Perez 45 Phil.
599).
Sedition is a crime of dissent or protest
by means outside of legal methods. It is
done in excess of the legal means
authorized under the freedom of
expression and of assembly under the
Constitution.

Murder is not an object of Sedition. So, if
the accused fired upon a truck killing
several persons, including two policemen,
it not being shown that the purpose was to
prevent the policemen from performing
their functions or to inflict an act of hate or
revenge upon their persons, Sedition is
not committed, but Multiple Murder (Pp.
vs. Mendoza L-1271-May 5, l950).
When disorderly conduct occurs during
a rally, will it bring about the crime of
Sedition? Such instances of disorderly
conduct by individual members of the
crowd should not be seized as an excuse
to characterize the assembly as a
seditious and tumultuous uprising against
the authorities and render illusory the right
to peaceably assembly. It is rather to be
expected that more or less disorder will
mark the public assembly of the people to
protest against grievances whether real or
imaginary, because on such occasion,
feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of
excitement, and the greater the grievance
and the more intense the feeling, the less
perfect, as a rule, will the disciplinary
control of the leaders over the
irresponsible followers. But if the
prosecution be permitted to seize upon
every instance of disorderly conduct by
individual members of a crowd as an
excuse to characterize the assembly as a
seditious and tumultuous uprising , then
the right to assembly and to petition for
redress of grievances would become a
delusion and snare the attempt to exercise
it on the most righteous occasion and in
the most peaceful manner would expose
all those who took part therein to the
severest and most unmerited punishment,
if the purposes which they have sought to
attain did not happen to be pleasing to the
prosecuting authorities (Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Teehankee, citing
U.S. vs. Apurado in Reyes vs. Bagatsing,
Nov. l983).
There is no complex crime of Sedition w/
Murder nor is Murder absorbed in
Sedition. Sedition & Murder are two
separate crimes (Pp. vs. Kamlon- 9 SCRA
252).
Distinctions between Rebellion & Sedition:
1) Purpose: R- overthrow the duly
constituted govt.;
S- maybe political or social for
carrying out protest or disobedience from
a govt. action and not for the purpose of
overthrowing the govt.
2) R-use of firearm is essential. It is an
ingredient.;
S- Use of firearm is not an essential
ingredient. (However in RA 8294, Sedition
is included among the crimes which
absorb the use of unlicensed firearm as an
element thereof);
3) The offender cannot be prosecuted
for Illegal Possession of Firearms because
this is absorbed in the crime of Rebellion;
S- Now offenders can no longer be
prosecuted for Illegal Possession of Firearms
bec. of RA 8294.
Exs.1) Shouting that the head of the governor
be cut off (Pp. vs. Perez-supra)
2) Inciting the constabulary to use their
weapons against their commanders (Pp vs.
Feleo 59 Phil. 451)
Dangerous Tendency Rule rather than the clear
and present danger rule is being adopted here.



ARTICLE 140- Pen. For Sedition
a) Leader Prision Mayor in its min. per.
& a Fine not exceeding P10,000.
b) Other participants Prision
Correccional in its max. per. & a Fine not
exceeding P5,000.
ARTICLE 141- Conspiracy To Commit
Sedition- Pen. Prision Correccional in its
medium per. & a Fine not exc. P2,000.
ARTICLE 142- Inciting To Sedition
Offender: - Any person
Acts: 1) Inciting others to commit sedition by
means of speeches, writings, cartoons, banners
or similar representations; and
2) by uttering seditious speeches or
writings or publishing scurrilous libels against
the govt. or any duly constituted authorities, a)
which tend to obstruct or disturb any public
officer in the performance of public functions;
b) which tend to instigate others to cabal
and meet together for unlawful purposes;
c) which incite rebellious conspiracies or
riots; d) which tend to stir public
disturbances; and)
3) knowingly concealing such evil
practices.

.ART.143- ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT
THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND
SIMILAR BODIES.
Elements:
1) Scheduled meeting of the Nat.
Assembly, or any of its committees or sub-
committees, constitutional commissions,
or committees or divisions thereof, or of
any provincial board, city council or
municipal council or board of sim. bodies;
2) the offenders prevent such meeting by
force or fraud;
Penalty- Prision Correccional or a fine
ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos or both;
ART. 144. DISTURBANCE OF
PROCEEDINGS
Elements:
1) An actual meeting of the National
Assembly or congress of the Phils., or any
of its committees, or sub-committees,
etc,provincial board, city or municipal
council & sim. bodies;
2) the offender commits any of the
following acts:
a) disturbing said meeting;
b) behaving in the presence of said
board in such a manner as to disrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
The accused may also be punished for
contempt (Lopez vs. De Los Reyes-55
Phil. 170).
ARTICLE 145: VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY:
Acts punished:
1) Using force, intimidation, threats or
fraud to prevent any member of Congress
from: a) attending any of its committees; b)
expressing his opinions; or c) casting his
votes;
2) Arresting or searching any member
thereof while Congress is in regular or
special session except in case such
member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty
higher than Prision Mayor.
Offender: Any person or public officer.
Parliamentary immunity does not mean
exemption from criminal liability except
from a crime that may arise from any
speech that the member of congress may
deliver on the floor during a regular or
special session.

ARTICLE 146- ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES-
Meeting- a gathering or group, whether
in a fixed place or moving.
Kinds of Illegal Assemblies:
1) A meeting attended by armed person
for the purpose of committing any of the
crimes punishable under this Code;
2) A meeting in which the audience is
incited to the commission of the crimes of
Treason, Rebellion or Insurrection,
Sedition or Assault upon a person in
authority or his agent.
Persons liable:
1) Organizers or leaders; and
2) Those merely attending.
Penalties: Organizers or Leaders PC in
its max. per. to PM in its med. per.
Those merely attending- Arresto
Mayor, except if they are armed - PC
When a person carries unlicensed firearm
in said meeting, it shall be presumed that:
a) he is the leader; b) purpose is to commit
acts punishable under this Code.
ARTICLE 147- ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS:
Kinds of Illegal Associations:
1) Those totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing any crimes
punishable under the Code;
2) Those totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.
Persons liable: a) Founders, Directors or
President; b) Members.
Public Morals refer to acts that affect
the interest of society and public
convenience. It is not confined to limited
concept of good customs and covers a
system of judicial precepts founded on
human nature that regulate public
convenience. It refers to acts that are in
accordance with natural and positive laws.
The gravamen of the offense is the
forming of an asso. for the purpose of
criminal activities prohibited by the Code
or special laws against public morals or
any act prejudicial to public welfare.

ARTICLE 148: DIRECT ASSAULT-
There are two kinds of DA:
1) Without public uprising, by employing force
or intimidation to attain any of the purposes
enumerated in the crimes of Rebellion or
Sedition; and
2) By attacking, employing force, seriously
intimidating or seriously resisting any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged
in the performance of official duties or on
the occasion of said performance.
Elems. of the first kind of DA:
a) That there be no public uprising;
b) Force or intimidation is employed; &
c) To attain any of the purposes of
Rebellion or Sedition (Pp. vs. Jingco- Dec.
31, l965). This kind of DA is in reality
Rebellion or Sedition short of public
uprising, and is therefore, very rare.
Elems. of the 2
nd
kind of DA:
a) No public uprising;
b) Offender attacks or employs force or
seriously intimidates or seriously resists
another;
c) Offended party is a person in authority
or his agents;
d) Offended party was assaulted while in
the performance of official duties or on the
occasion of such performance; and
e) Offender knows that the person
assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent.
The second kind of DA is committed in
four ways: a) by attacking; b) by employing
force; c) by seriously intimidating; or
d) by seriously resisting a person in
authority or his agent.
The felony becomes qualified if the
offender:
a) uses a weapon;
b) is a public officer or employee; and
c) he lays hand upon the person in
authority.
Attack is any offensive or antagonistic
movement or action of any kind. Ex.
Drawing of a pistol from the holster at the
hip and the aiming of that pistol at a
person (Pp. vs. Ladena- G.R. No. 6008-
R).
Intimidate to frighten or instill fear.
Resist to exert force in opposition, or
manifest intention to defy.
Person in Authority- ( Art. 152-par. 1-RPC) any
person directly vested with jurisdiction( which
means the power or authority to govern and
execute the laws). Ex. The authority vested upon
the judges to administer justice and render
judgment. (Pp. vs.Mendoza- 559 Phil. 163).
Agent of person in authority- (Art. 152-par. 2)
any person who by direct provision of law or by
election or by appointment by competent
authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order.
Ex. Police Officers
Other exs. of persons in authority: Barangay
Captains, Lupon Members & Brgy. Councilors
(Local Govt. Code)-(Pp. vs. Sion- August l997);
Teachers (Magna Carta for Teachers).
In the performance of official duties refers to
the legitimate exercise of the functions of the
person in authority. The duties must be
performed according to law.
On the occasion of such performance
means the impelling motive of the attack is
the performance of official duty. The words
on occasion signify because or by
reason of the past performance of official
duties even if at the very time of the
assault no official duty was being
discharged (Justo vs. CA).
To lay hands upon a person in authority is to
inflict upon him physical injury. Ex. Strike him
with the hands; choke or suffocate him.
DA is a crime brought about by the spirit of
lawlessness displayed in the commission of the
act. It will arise when the act committed is
indicative that the offender is utterly lawless or
against the rule of law. When an attack is made
to a person in authority while in the performance
of his duty, the crime is DA, whatever his
reason may be for attacking . If made
when the officer is off-duty, the offenders
reason for the attack should be examined.
If the attack is related to the past
performance of duty, then there is DA;
otherwise, none. Hence, motive becomes
material in the proper determination of the
offense committed.
Generally, the offender must be aware that
the offended party is possessed of
authority. Hence, if he does not know that
the offended party is a public officer, DA is
not committed. This is subject, however, to
the rule of ignorance of the law excuses
no one : whether the public officer is a
person in authority (PA) or an agent of a
person in authority (APA), within the
meaning of Art. 152 is a question of law,
ignorance of which is not excused. That
means, that the offender does not have to
know that he is included in Art. 152 as
long as he knows that he is a public
officer.
By virtue of Art. 152, any person
(civilian) who comes to the aid of a PA
becomes an APA. If the victim of the DA
is a PA and a civilian aids him, the latter
becomes an APA.
Pp. vs. Salvador Jingco- G.R. No.
05271-CR- Ricardo Gonzalodo, public
school teacher in the Matabang
Elementary School of Talisay, Negros
Occidental, sustained injuries in the hands
of Jingco and his wife in the afternoon of
Oct. 31, l963, just outside the classroom
where Gonzalodo was holding his class as
a result of the attempt of the appellant and
his wife to collect the debt of Gonzalodo.
The SC ruled that there was no DA.
Gonzalodo came out of the classroom
voluntarily; he went where, as a teacher
during class hour, he had no business to
be, although he was within the school
premises, and so he was not in the
performance of his duty. Thus Jingco
cannot be convicted of the crime of DA
upon a PA under Art. 148.
Force must be employed to defy the
authorities. The force must be serious and
must be of such a character as to show
contempt for authority. Casual force which
usually accompanies resistance or
disobedience to authorities is not
sufficient. It has reference to something
more dangerous to civil society.
DA may be complexed with common
crimes. So there can be DA w/ Murder, DA
w/ Frustrated Murder, DA w/ Att. Murder,
DA w/ Serious Physical Injuries, DA w/
Less Serious Physical Injuries. But if the
injury is only slight, then this is absorbed


in the crime of DA.
Penalty: PC in its minimum period & a
fine not exceeding P500 ordinary DA.
If qualified: PC in its medium & max.
periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000.
ARTICLE 149- INDIRECT ASSAULTS-
Elems: 1) DA is committed against an
agent of a person in authority;
2) the offended party comes to the aid of
said agent of a person in authority; and
3) offender uses force or intimidation
upon said offended party.
Under RA 1978, a private person who
comes to the aid of a person in authority
becomes an agent of a person in authority.
If such private person is himself assaulted,
while coming to the aid of a person in
authority, DA is committed. However, if a
private person who comes to the aid of an
agent of a person in authority on the
occasion of a direct assault being
committed against the latter, is assaulted,
Indirect Assault is committed.
Pen. PC in its min. & med. periods & a
fine not exceeding P500.
ARTICLE 150 DISOBEDIENCE TO
SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY, ITS COMMITTEES OR
SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, ITS
COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES OR
DIVISIONS-
Acts punished: 1) Disobedience w/o
legal excuse to summons issued by the
National Assembly (now Congress) or any
of its committees or subcommittees;
2) refusal of any person present before a
legislative or constitutional or official to:
a) be sworn or placed under
affirmation;
b) to answer any legal inquiry;
c) to produce any books, papers,
documents, or records in his possession
when required to do so by said bodies in
the exercise of their functions.
Persons liable:
a) Any person who commits any of the
above acts;
b) any person who: i) restrains another
from attending as a witness; ii) induces
him to disobey a summon; iii) who induces
him to refuse to be sworn in by such body.
Any of these acts may also constitute
contempt of Congress and could be
punished as such independent of the
criminal prosecution (Lopez vs. de Los
Reyes- 55 Phil. 170). Such power must be
considered implied or incidental to the
exercise of legislative power or necessary
to effectuate said power ( Arnault vs.
Balagtas 31 O.G. 4017).
ARTICLE 151- RESISTANCE AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY OR AGENTS OF SUCH
PERSON-
Elems: 1) There is no direct assault,
indirect assault, or disobedience to
summons issued by Congress;

b) the offender resists or seriously
disobeys a person in authority or his
agent; and
C) at the time of said resistance or
disobedience, the person in authority or
his agent is in the performance of his
duties.
Simple disobedience- if the resistance to
the person in authority or agent is not
of a serious nature.
Ex. Where the accused during a strike
laid down on the road as human
roadblocks and thereafter disobeyed and
resisted an order of an agent of a person
in authority to clear the road, this crime is
committed ( Pp. vs. Macapuno- 58 O.G.
4985).
Striking a policeman in the breast who
was arresting the offender constitutes
simple resistance ( U.S. vs. Tabiana- 37
Phil. 515).
Distinction bt. DA & Resistance:
1) DA- offended party is assaulted while
in the performance of his duties or by
reason thereof;
R or D- the officer must be in the
discharge of his duties;
2) DA- resistance must be serious;
R or D resistance is not serious, i.e.
w/o manifest intention to defy authority of
the law.
ARTICLE 152 PA & APA
ARTICLE 153- TUMULTS & OTHER
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDERS:
Kinds: 1) Causing serious disturbance
in a public place, office or establishment;
2) interrupting or disturbing public
performances, functions, gatherings or
peaceful meetings, provided the act is not
included in Arts. 131 & 132;
3) making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or place;
4) displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order;
5) burying w/ pomp the body of a person
who has been legally executed.
Qualifying circumstance in nos. 1 & 2
when committed by more then 3 armed
persons (at least 4 or provided w/ means
of violence such as stones, sticks, etc. in
which case, the crime is denominated
tumultuous disturbance.
Public Disturbance- is a serious distur-
bance in a place where performance of
public function is being held, if the
disturbance is not covered by Arts. 131 &
132 (if the disturbance is not serious-
Alarms and Scandals under Art. 155).
Art. 153 is distinguished from Inciting to
Rebellion or Sedition in the former, the
outburst which by nature may tend to
incite rebellion or sedition are sponta-
neous and the meeting at the outset was
legal and became a public disorder only
because of such outcry; while in the latter,
the meeting from the beginning was
unlawful and what was uttered was
deliberately calculated with malice
aforethought to incite others to rebellion or
sedition.
Pen- Pars. 1 & 2- AMa in its med per. To
PC in its min. per. & a fine not exceeding
P1,000;
Pars. 3 & 4 AMa
Par. 5- AMa & fine not exceeding P200.
ARTICLE 154- UNLAWFUL USE OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
UTTERANCES- 1) Publishing or causing
to be published by means of writing,
litography, or any other means of
publication as news, any false news which
may endanger the public order, or cause
damage to the interest of credit of the
state;
2) encouraging disobedience to the law or
the duly constituted authorities, or by
praising, justifying, or extolling any act
punished by law, by the same means or
by words, utterances or speeches;
3) maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official resolution or
documents w/o proper authority, or before
they have been published officially; or
4) printing, publishing or distributing
books, pamphlets, periodicals, w/c do not
bear the real printers name/ anonymous.
ARTICLE 155- ALARMS & SCANDALS
Acts penalized as Alarms & Scandals:
1) Discharge of firearms, firecrackers,
and other explosives in public places;
2) Charivari;
3) Engaging in nocturnal amusement
disturbing the public place; or
4) Any disturbance or scandal in public
places not amounting to tumults.
Other crimes which can arise from
discharge of firearms:
1) Alarms & Scandals- offender
discharges a firearm in a public place but
the firearm is not pointed to a particular
person when discharged;
2) Discharge of Firearm- if the firearm
was directed to a particular person
who was not hit if intent to kill is not
proved.
3). Attempted Murder or Homicide- if the
person was hit, automatically, and there
was intent to kill.
4) Physical Injuries- if the person was hit
and injured but there was no intent to kill.
5) Threat- if the weapon is not discharged
but merely pointed to another.
6). Grave Coercion if the threat was
direct, immediate and serious and the
person is compelled or prevented to do
something against his will.
Charivari- is a mock serenade where the
offender actually disturbs the peace by
using cans, pans, utensil, etc. (breach of
peace/tranquility).
Alarms & Scandals- disturbance or noise
is done in a public place; Unjust Vexation-
if the noise is directed to a particular
person or family to cause annoyance.
Pen.- AMe or a fine not exceeding P200
ARTICLE 156-DELIVERY OF PRISONER
FROM JAIL-
Elems: 1) Offender is a private individual;
2) He removes a person confined in jail or
a penal institution or helps in the escape of
such person; and
3) The means employed are violence,
intimidation, bribery or any other means.
Offender- is an outsider to the jail,
because if he is a public officer or a private
person who has the custody of the
prisoner and who helps a prisoner under
his custody to escape, Arts. 223 & 225 will
apply, respectively.
Prisoner detention prisoner or one
sentenced by virtue of a final judgment.
If the person who escapes is serving
sentence by virtue of final judgment, he
commits Evasion of Service of Sentence
(Art. 157).
A detention prisoner is not liable for
evasion.
If the said prisoner cooperates in his
removal or escapes by acts without which
the removal or escape would not be
realized, he is liable as a co-principal
under Art. 156.
A prisoner confined in the hospital this
crime is committed, if he escapes because
the hospital may be considered as an
extension of the jail.
Removing a prisoner- to take away a
person from his place of confinement w/ or
w/o the active participation of the person
released.
To help- is to furnish him w/ material
means such as ladder, rope, etc. w/c
facilitates his escape.
That the accused received bribe is not an
element. What constitutes the qualifying
circumstance is the offenders act of
employing bribery as a means of removing
or delivering the prisoner from jail.
This can be committed through negligence
or imprudence.
Pen- AMa in its max. per. to PC in its min,
per.
AMa- if other means are used.
If the escape is done by taking the guards
by surprise- AMa- min. per.
Three (3) kinds of Evasion of Service of
Sentence: Arts. 157, 158 and 159.
ARTICLE 157- EVASION OF SERVICE
OF SENTENCE-
Elems: 1) Offender is a prisoner serving
sentence involving deprivation of liberty by
reason of final judgment;

2) He evades the service of his sentence
during his term of imprisonment.
This is simply known as Jail-breaking.
Pen- PC in its med. & max. periods.
The felony is qualified: when the evasion
takes place by: a) breaking doors,
windows, gates, floors, walls or roofs; b)
using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence, intimidation, or
c) connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
Imprisonment includes destierro- so if the
prisoner enters the prohibited place, he
commits evasion (Pp. vs. Abilong- 82 Phil.
172).
Evasion of Service of Sentence- is a
continuing offense which may be
prosecuted in any place where the
offender may be found (Parulan vs. Director of
Prisons- L- 28519).
If an alien is deported after having been found
guilty of committing an offense and who returns
to the Phils. in violation of the term of sentence,
evasion of sentence is not committed because in
deportation one is not sentenced to an
imprisonment term and breaks jail (Pp. vs. Lo
Hee-36 Phil 867).
ARTICLE 158- EVASION OF SERVICE
OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF
DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS,
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER
CALAMITIES.
Elems: 1) Offender is a prisoner serving
sentence and is confined in a penal
institution;
2) He evades his sentence by leaving the
penal institution;
3) He escapes on the occasion of a
disorder due to conflagration, earthquake,
explosion, or similar catastrophe or mutiny
of which he has not participated;
4) He fails to give himself up to the
authorities w/n 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation by the chief
Executive regarding the passing away of
the calamity.
Under the principle of ejusdem
generis only circumstance of similar
nature will apply.
Mutiny/riots are not included.
Evasion lies in the failure to return, not
in leaving the penal institution. The
prisoner therefore must leave the jail
and thereafter return after the disorder
ceases. Thus:
1) Leaving without returning within the
time period prescribed 1/5 addition to the
remaining sentence which should not be
more than 6 mos., that is: 1/5 of the
balance of the sentence or 6 mos.
whichever is lesser;
2) not leaving- no deduction; pen. as is.
3) leaving and thereafter returning within
the time period prescribed- 1/5 deduction
from his sentence as provided under Art.
98. (original sentence favorable to the
accused).
ARTICLE 159- OTHER CASES OF
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE-
The penalty of PC in its min. per. shall be
imposed upon the convict who, having
been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive, shall violate any of the
conditions of such pardon. However, if the
penalty remitted by the granting of such
pardon be higher than 6 yrs., the convict
shall then suffer the unexpired portion of
his original sentence.
Remedies of the state if conditions of
pardon are violated: 1) Judicial remedy
by prosecution of offender under Art. 159;
2) Administrative remedy by ordering
arrest and reincarceration of the offender
under 64(i) of the Revised Administrative
Code.
Violation of conditional pardon is an
evasion of service of sentence because
when the prisoner accepted the condition,
no matter how onerous, he must respect
the condition. Otherwise, he is deemed to
have accepted the conditional pardon only
to get out of prison or otherwise be
relieved of the penalty.
Conditional pardon is a contract between
the Chief Executive and the convict. It is
not perfected unless accepted.
Violation of conditional pardon is not a
public offense in the strict sense of the
word, for it does not cause harm or injury
to the right of other persons nor it disturb
the public order. While evasion of service
of sentence is a public offense (Alvarez vs.
Dir. of Prisons- 80 Phil. 43).
Art. 159 defines a distinct and substantive
felony. The convict who is regarded as
having violated the provision thereof must
be charged, prosecuted and convicted by
final judgment before he can be made to
suffer the penalty prescribed in said article
(Torres vs. Gonzales- July 23, l987).
ARTICLE 160- QUASI-RECIDIVISM-
Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another
offense.
Elems.:
1) Offender is convicted by final judgment of a
felony or an offense; and
2) He commits another felony before beginning
to serve such sentence or while serving the
sentence.
Art. 160 applies although the next offense is
different in character from the first offense for
which the defendant is serving sentence (Pp. vs.
Yabut-58 Phil. 499), and it makes no difference
whether the crime for which an accused is
serving the sentence at the time of the com-

mission of the offense charged falls under the
RPC or under SPL. The second offense,
however, must be a felony punished under the
RPC.
The severe penalty imposed on quasi-
recidivism is justified because of his perversity
and incorrigibility (Pp. vs. Peralta, et al.-Oct. 29,
l968). If a person is convicted of a crime
committed while serving sentence of a previous
crime, he shall be sentenced to the maximum
of the penalty prescribed b law without regard to
the presence or absence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances or the complete
absence thereof (Pp. vs. Bautista- July 25, l976).
When the quasi-recidivist reaches the age of
70, he may be pardoned unless he is a habitual
delinquent.
Quasi-recidivism- is a special aggravating
circumstance and cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance (Pp. vs. Aling- 96 SCRA
472 & Pp. vs. Tampas- 96 SCRA 624).
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
INTEREST
Article 161- Counterfeiting the great seal of the
govt. of the Phils., forging the signature or stamp
of the Chief Executive (Not Falsification ).
Article 162 - Using forged signature or
counterfeit seal or stamp.
Article 163 Making, importing and uttering false
coins( pen. depends upon whether the coin is
gold, silver or 10-centavo denomination or minor
coinage or of the foreign country).
Art. 163 does not require that the coins
counterfeited be of legal tender or even if
the coins are withdrawn from circulation.
Reason: It is not alone the harm caused to
the public by the fact that it may go into
circulation but the danger that the
counterfeiter produces by his act or if
foreigner, by his stay in our country, and
the possibility that he may counterfeit
coins of legal tender.
Counterfeiting- to imitate a coin that is genuine.
The criterion is that the imitation must be such
as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it
to be genuine. If the imitation is so imperfect that
no one may be deceived, the felony cannot be
consummated.
Importing- to bring into the port even before the
coins are entered in the Customs Office.
Uttering of coins- to circulate, to pass on.
Article 164- Mutilation of Coins-
Mutilation is to diminish by ingenious
means the metal in the coins. The coins in
this case must be of legal tender. The
offender takes advantage of the metal he
abstracted.
Article 165- Selling of false or mutilated
coins, without connivance- This penalizes
possession of false coins w/ intent to utter.
RA 427- which punishes possession of silver or
nickel coins in excess of P50.00 (Mala
Prohibita). It is a measure of national policy to
protect the people in general and particularly the
poorer class, from the conspiracy of those
hoarding silver or nickel coins and to preserve
and maintain stability.
Article 166- Forging Treasury or Bank Notes,
Obligations and Securities; Importing & Uttering
False or Forged Notes, Obligations and
Securities.
Acts punished- forging treasury notes,
bank notes and certificates or other
obligations and securities ( certificates of
deposits, bills, checks, sweepstakes ticket
and lotto).
Forging bank check now Falsification of
Commercial Document.
Article 167- Counterfeiting, Importing, &
Uttering Instruments Payable to Bearer.
Article 168- Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments
of Credit-
Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone
without intent to use it is not a criminal offense.
Inebriation- circ. which may indicate lack of
awareness of the false character of a bill or note,
for he is hardly to be expected to have the
presence of mind to scrutinize every bill that is
passed to him.
ARTICLE 169- How forgery is
committed-
1) By giving a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and
genuine document.
2) By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters, words,
or signs contained therein.
The subject of the forgery should be treasury or
bank notes. If the subject of a forgery were a
document other than these, the crime would be
falsification.
ARTICLE 170- FALSIFICATION OF
LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS- committed by any
person who, without proper authority therefor
alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted
or approved or pending approval by either
House of the Legislature or any provincial board
or municipal council.
Offender any person. Must not be a public
official entrusted with the custody of the
documents, otherwise Art. 171 will apply. The
alteration must have the effect of changing the
meaning of the document.
PD 247- punishes any person who willfully
defaces, mutilates, tears, burns or destroys, in
any manner whatsoever, currency notes or
coins. Penalty- Fine of not more than P20T &/or
imprisonment of not more than 5 years.
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
Document- any written instrument by
which a right is established or an
obligation is extinguished (Pp. vs. Moreno
38 O.G. 119), or every deed or
instrument executed by a person by which
some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth (Pp. vs. Nillosquin-
48 O.G. 4453). The writing must be
complete, otherwise, there is no
falsification ( Pp. vs. Dava-Sept. l991).
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS
1) Public document any instrument
notarized by a notary public or competent
public official with the solemnities required
by law ( Cancio vs. Baens- 5 Phil. 742); or
one that has become part of public record.
Examples: Deed of Sale; Deed of
Mortgage; Official Receipt, Cash book,
Residence Certificates, Resolutions and
Decisions of DOJ, Ombudsman & Judges.
2) Official document any instrument
issued by the government or its agents or
its officers having the authority to do so
and the offices, which in accordance with
their creation, they are authorized to issue.
The officers must issue the document in
the performance of their duties.
Examples: Resolutions, decisions of
DOJ, Omb. and Judges, Register of Attys.
3) Private document every deed or instrument
executed by a private person without the
intervention of a notary public or of any other
person legally authorized, by which document
some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth. Exs. Promissory notes.
4) Commercial document- any instrument
executed in accordance with the Code of
Commerce or any mercantile law containing
disposition of commercial rights or obligations.
Exs.- Bill of Exchange, Letters of Credit, Checks,
Quedans, Airway Bills.
Writings which do not constitute documents:
1) Draft of a municipal payroll, which is not yet
approved Pp. vs. Camacho-44 Phil. 888.
2) Mere blank forms of official documents (Pp.
vs. Santiago- 48 O.G. 455580).
3) Pamphlets or books (Pp. vs. Agnis-47 Phil.
945).
4) Invoices or cash disbursement vouchers.
When may a private document
become a public or official doc.?

When it becomes a part of the public or
official records, it partakes of the nature of
a public or official document. So, if the
falsification is committed on such
document, that is, when it is already part
of the public record, the crime is
Falsification of Public of Official Document.
But if the falsification is committed before
such document became part of the public
or official record, the crime is Falsification
of a Private Document (U.S. vs. Nieto- 6
Phil. 582).However, if such private
document is intended to become a part of
the public record, even though falsified
prior thereto, Falsification of a Public
Document is committed. Ex. The civil
service examination paper before it
becomes a part of the files of the Civil
Service is a private document. If falsified
then, the crime is Falsification of a Public
Document.
Is falsification committed if the document is
simulated? Yes, falsification may be committed
even if the public document is simulated or is not
in the official form.
Falsification by Omission The accused, a
bookkeeper at an army post exchange, who
deliberately falsified the ledger by not recording
in his own personal account the chits for articles
Bought by him from the store of Post Exchange
commits falsification by omission (Pp. vs. Dizon-
47 Phil. 350).
FALSIFICATION THROUGH RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE- The failure of the accused, a
notary public, to ascertain the identities of the
supposed applicants, in relation to the
applications presented to him for ratification, and
to verify whether they were really owners of
the Residence Certificates exhibited to
him, and relying completely upon the
assurances of his co-accused, constitute
reckless imprudence, pure and simple (Pp.
vs. Compra- G.R. No. L-20683). But there
can be no falsification of a private
document through reckless imprudence as
that will be inconsistent with the element of
intent to cause damage in said crime.
What is penalized in Falsification of Public
Document? violation of the faith and
trust of the public and the destruction of
the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
The revocation of a falsified document is
immaterial to the guilt of the one charged
with Falsification.

Elements:
1) Offender is a public official, employee,
notary public or ecclesiastical minister;
2) He takes advantage of his official
position; and
3) He falsifies document by any of the 8
ways enumerated in Article 171.
Public Officer (Article 203- RPC)- is any
public servant from the highest to the
lowest who is performing service to the
government or any of its branches or
instrumentality. He is holding his public
office by virtue of the provision of law, by
election or by appointment by a competent
authority and performs public duties as a
subordinate official, employee or agent of
any rank or class.
Eight acts:
1) COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING
HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC-
Counterfeiting- imitation of the original
handwriting or signature. It is not necessary that
the imitation be perfect. It is enough that there
be an attempt to imitate, and that the two
signatures, the genuine and the forged, bear
some resemblance to each other.
The document need not be an authentic official
paper (Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan-151 SCRA
425).
2) CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT
PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN
ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING WHEN
THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO
PARTICIPATE.;
3) ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO
HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR
PROCEEDING STATEMENTS OTHER
THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY THEM;
4) MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A
NARRATION OF FACTS;
5) ALTERING TRUE DATES;
6) MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR
INTERCALATION IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT
WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING;
7) ISSUING IN AN AUTHENTICATED FORM A
DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COPY
OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WHEN NO
SUCH ORIGINAL EXISTS, OR
INCLUDING IN SUCH COPY A
STATEMENT CONTRARY TO, OR
DIFFERENT FROM, THAT OF THE
GENUINE ORIGINAL; OR
8) INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT
OR NOTE RELATIVE TO THE
ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A PROTOCOL,
REGISTRY, OR OFFICIAL BOOK.
Examples:
1)Payroll of a Clean and Green-Mayor Maamo
cs.
Names Amt. Signature
Juan Cruz 1,000 - (sgd)
Pedro Buta- 1,000- (sgd)
Signatures appearing therein are not that of
Juan and Pedro as both are already dead.
Acts- Counterfeiting/feigning the signatures &
causing it appear that these persons participated
in an act, when in fact they did not.
Crimes committed-
-If the money was already with the mayor and
the act of falsification was used to hide the
misappropriation of the public funds two
crimes: Malversation of Public of Public Funds
and Falsification of Public/Official Document.
If the falsification of the payroll was a means to
be able to get the money, then this is a complex
crime of Malversation Public Funds Thru
Falsification of Public/Official Document.
2) Land Bank of the Phils. Check (LBP)-
Jacqueline Lim cs.:
Original entries of the check is for
P 2,000, then changed this to P 22,000.
3,000, to P 33,000 Total loss P6M.
Acts-no. 3,4 & 6
Crime: Malversation of Public Funds Thru
Falsification of a Commercial Document.
3) Decision in a Special Proceeding- Prosecutor
made alterations, by changing the number of the
case, title and names of parties and date, and
counterfeited the signature of the judge (Antique
cs.).
Acts- nos. 1,3,4,5 & 6.
Crime- Falsification of Public Document.
4) Falsification of the duplicate and triplicate
copies of an OR (Cebu City Hall cs.):
Acts- nos.3,4,6
Crimes- if the falsification was used to hide
the act of malversation two crimes of
Malversation of Public Funds &
Falsification of Public Document.
If used as a means to obtain the money-
complex crime of Malv. of Public Funds
Thru Falsification of Public/Official Doc.
4) Falsification of Promissory Note-
Falsification of a Private Document.
5) Local Civil Registrar- issued a certified
true copy of a birth certificate, marriage
certificate or death certificate
Act- no. 7.
6) Changing the date of arrest by the
police officers to avoid possible viol. of
Art. 125 RPC.
Act no. 5
7) Employee of the LGU was teaching in
a Catholic school. His schedule was from
7:30 to 9:00 am. (shown in his school
DTR). At the same time, his DTR at the
LGU showed that he was at his office at
8:00 to 9:00 am. In the afternoon, his DTR
showed that he was at his office at the
LGU up to 5:00pm. But his school DTR
showed he was at the school at 4:30 to
6:00pm (Antique cs):
Act: No. 1.
8) Govt. employee placed in his l999 SAL-
N that he had only P30,000 cash on
hand/bank. 3 banks issued Certifications
that he had P5.8 Million time deposit.
Act no. 4.
Crime- Falsification of a Public Document.
9) Special Power of Attorney- BIR
employee case). The Res. Certificates
were not issued by the Cebu City Hall. The
notary public was not among those listed
at the SC records as a duly commissioned
Notary Public. The affiants disowned their
signatures.
Acts: 1, 2 and 4.
Crime: Falsification of a Public Document.
Intent to gain or damage is immaterial in
Falsification of Public Document (Alcantara vs.
Sandiganbayan- July 3, l992).
Pp. vs. Manansala- (105 Phil. 1253)- It is an
established rule that when a person has in his
possession a falsified document and makes use
of it, the presumption or inference is that such
person falsified it (Pp. vs. Caubang- June l992).
Falsification by omission- where it appears
that the accused in filing an application for
patrolmans exam. stated under oath that
he was never convicted for any violation of
the law, which was false (Pp. vs. Cruz-
May 25, l960).
Any alteration done to correct a wrong
entry is not falsification- changing the age
from 24 to 34.
Punzalan vs. COMELEC- 289 SCRA, April l998-
handwriting expert not binding upon the cts.
While handwriting experts are usually helpful in
the examination of forged documents because
of the technical procedure, resort to them is not
mandatory nor indispensable (Heirs of Severa
P.Gregorio vs. CA- 300 SCRA, Dec. l998). The
Judge must conduct its own independent
examination to determine its authenticity.

Falsification/forgery cannot be presumed. It must
be proven by clear, positive and convincing
evidence. The burden of proof lies in the party
alleging forgery (Joven vs. Carungin- June
2002).
There is such thing as Estafa thru Falsification of
Public Document if the money involved is
privately owned (but no such crime if the
document is private). Because there is no
complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of a
Private Document, because these two
crimes ( Falsification and Estafa) have an
element in common, which is intent to
cause damage or the damage itself.There
is no Estafa, through deceit or fiduciary
position abused, unless another has been
damaged or there has been an intent to
damage one. Similarly, there is no
Falsification of a Private Document in the
in the Penal Code sense, unless in
addition to the forgery, there is damage or
intent to cause damage to another through
forgery. Just as deceit by itself is not
Estafa, so Falsification of a Private
Document by itself, is not the crime of
Falsification of a Private Document,
without damage (Pp. vs. Paguitalan- 38
O.G. 410).
In this situation, it must be duly considered
whether the offender can misappropriate
the private funds without tampering with
the private document. If he can, then the
crime is pure and simple Estafa, but if he
cannot misappropriate the fund without
tampering with the private document, then
the crime is Falsification of a Private
Document (Art. 172).
Is good faith a defense in the crime of
Falsification? Yes. There is no falsification if the
acts of the accused are consistent with good
faith. Ex. Misstatements or erroneous assertions
in a public document.
Layug vs. Sandiganbayan- l32 SCAD August
2000- Acc. filled up his DTR despite the fact that
he has no work because he was detailed in
another office of which he is contesting.
ART. 172-Falsification by Private
Individual & Use of Falsified Doc.
Acts punished:
1) Falsification of any public or official or
commercial document by a private
individual;
2) Falsification of a private document; and
3) Use of such falsified document.
A) Falsification of a public or official or
commercial document by a private
individual. Refers only to Acts 1 to 6.
Falsification of a Deed of Sale by a
private individual, by inserting in the
genuine deed two other parcels of land.
What was sold was only one parcel, but
the vendee inserted the two other parcels
(Riveral case).
Article 172- Acts no. 3,4 and 6.
Crime- Falsif. of a Public Doc. by a
Private Individual.
A lawyer made it appear that the judge issued a
Decision, when it is not true.
Acts- no. 1, 2, 4
Crime- Falsification of an Official Document by a
Private Individual.
Alta Vista case- Leader of the group of
squatters made it appear that the members of
his group received the money paid to them by
Alta Vista by signing the private payroll, when
in fact this is not true.
Acts: no. 1, 2, 4
Crime -Falsification of a Private Document
by a Private Individual because the
leader falsified the payroll by making it
appear that the members affixed their
signatures therein and then presented this
to Alta Vista as his basis to claim the
money.
Use of falsified document The crime
punished in the last par. of Art. 172
(introducing in evidence in any judicial
proceedings or to the damage of another
who uses such fake documents (is not
necessarily included in the crime of
falsification of a public document by a
public officer or employee or by a private
person (Pp. vs. Mendoza).
Distinction between Falsification of Public
Document and Falsification of Private
Document:
1) In Falsification of Public Document-
mere falsification is enough; whereas in
Falsification of a Private Document, aside
from falsification, prejudice to a third
person or intent to cause damage is
essential;
2) Falsification of a Public Document- committed
in 8 ways; whereas in Falsification of a Private
Document-cannot be committed in any of the
ways specified in pars. 7 & 8. (Acts are only from
1 to 6).
Use of Falsified Document- if used in any other
proceeding, damage or intent to cause damage
is material, but if it is a judicial proceedings, then
damage is not an element.
Penalty Prision Correccional- med & max. per.
& a Fine not exceeding P5,000.
Art. 173-Falsif. of wireless cable
telegraph, & telephone messages,
& use of said falsified messages
Offenders: Any officer or employee
of the govt. or of any private corp.
Elem.: engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless cable,
telephone messages;
utters fictitious wireless, telegraph
or telephone message of any
system.
-Any person who shall use such falsified
dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or
with intent to cause such prejudice.
Penalty- Prision Correccional in its
medium and maximum period.
ARTICLE 174- FALSIFICATION OF
MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE
1) First group:
Offenders: Physicians/surgeons
in connection with the
practice of his profession
Acts: Issue false medical certificate
2) Second group:
Offenders: Public Officers
Acts: issue false Certificates of Service,
good conduct or similar circumstances
(intent of gain is immaterial).
Penalty for nos. 1 & 2- Arresto Mayor max.
to Prision Correccional in its minimum
period and a Fine not to exceed P1,000.
3) Third group:
Offenders: private persons
Acts: issue false certificates.
Penalty Arresto Mayor

Article 175-Using False Certificates
1) Offender- any person
2) Acts a) Uses the medical certificates,
cert. of service, etc.
b) knowing it to be false.
Penalty Arresto Menor
False certificates must not be confused
with falsified documents under Arts. 171
and 172. There are distinctions, to wit:
1) Use of false documents under Arts. 171
& 172- will make the offender liable under
par. 3 of Art. 172;
2) Use of false certificates in Art. 174,
whether in a judicial or any proceeding
with knowledge of their falsity, will subject
the offender for prosecution under Art.
175.

Art. 176-Manufacturing/Possessing
of Instruments for Falsification.
1) Offender: a) Maker/ introducer in our
country stamps, dies, marks,
or other instruments or impl.
intended to be used in the
commission of the offenses
of counterfeiting or falsif.
(Arts. 171 to 174);
b) Possessor w/ intention to use.
2) Pen- Prision Correccional in its min & med
periods. .
Article 177- Usurpation of Authority
or Official Functions
1) Offender: Any person
a) public officer ( ex. Pp. vs.
Hilvano- 52 O.G. 5491 a Mun.
Councilor continued exercising the
functions/duties of a Mayor despite
the opinion given by the Exec. Sec.
& Provl. Pros. that the Vice-Mayor
has the right to exercise said duties).
Another ex. A DA official who signed the
Deed of Donation of a parcel of land for the use
by the Dept. of Agriculture and later on also
signed the Deed of Revocation, is also liable
under this prov. because only the Secretary of
Agriculture has the authority to do so or the
Regional Director, if given such authority by the
Sec.
b) private person (person who pretended
to be a BIR Examiner).
2) Acts:
a) Knowingly & falsely representing himself to
be an officer, agent or rep. of any dept. or
agency of the Phil. Govt. or any foreign govt.;
b) Performing any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Phil.
Govt. or foreign govt. under pretense of official
position and without being lawfully entitled to do
so.
There must be false pretense as without it there
is no such offense Gargantoni vs. Pp- June 16,
l988- motorist who directed the traffic to unwind
the same.
3) Penalty Prision Correccional in its minimum
to medium periods.
If the functions usurped is that of a diplomatic,
consular or other official of a foreign govt.
Republic Act 75, which carries a penalty of
imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine
not exceeding P5,000.



Republic Act no. 10 punishes any person, who
with or without pretense of official position, shall
perform any act pertaining to the govt. or any
person in authority or public officer, without
being lawfully entitled to do so. This carries the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than 2 years
nor more than 10 years.
This law however, refers only to seditious
organization.
Article 178- Using Fictitious
Names & Concealing True Names
There are two acts punished in this article:
A) Using Fictitious Names
B) Concealing True Names
A) USING FICTITIOUS NAMES:
1) Offender: any person
2) Acts: a) using a name other than his real
name;
b) fictitious name was used publicly;
c) the purpose is to: i) conceal a crime
ii) evade judgment
iii) cause damage to
public interest.
Exs. Gen. Tumulak & Potot cs.
Pp. vs. Ho Tee Piu- signing fictitious name in
his passport.
True name one which appears in the Birth
Certificate.
Pen- AMayor & a fine not exceeding P500
B) CONCEALING TRUE NAME-
Elements: i) offender conceals his true
name & other personal
circumstances; and
ii) the purpose is to conceal
his identity.
In our jurisdiction, concealment is not only for
his true name but also the other personal
circumstances.
Pen- AMenor or a fine not exceeding P200
Commonwealth Act No. 142- Regulate the
use of Aliases: except as pseudonym for
literary, cinema, television, radio or other
entertainment purposes and in athletic
events where the use of a pseudonym is a
normally accepted practice, no person
shall use any name different from the one
which was registered in the office of the
local civil registrar.
Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court- 132 SCRA
478- a common-law wife does not incur criminal liability
under CA 142 if she uses the family name of the man
she has been living with for almost 20 years, introduced
by him to the public as his wife and she assumed that
role and his name without any sinister motive or personal
material gain in mind. She applied for the benefits upon
his death not for herself but for their son of tender age
who was under her guardianship.
Pen- Imprisonment from 1 to 5 yrs. & a fine from P5,000
to P10,000
Article 179- Illegal Use of Uniforms
or Insignia
1) Offender- any person
2) Elements: i) offender publicly makes
use of insignia, uniform or
dress; and
ii) the insignia, uniform or
dress pertains to an office
not held by the offender or

pertains to a class of persons of which the
offender is not a member.
Exact imitation is not necessary. Colorable
resemblance is enough- calculated to deceive,
especially those who are not familiar.
Use publicly or improperly- has no right to use
it.
Insignia- badge.
FALSE TESTIMONY
FALSE TESTIMONY- is a declaration under
oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which
is contrary to what is true, or to deny the same,
or to alter essentially the truth.
False Testimony requires a criminal intent and
cannot be committed through negligence. So, if
it is due to error or good faith, it is not felonious.
It could not be frustrated or attempted.
Reasons why false testimony is punished-
Falsehood is ever reprehensible; but it is
particularly odious when committed in a
judicial proceeding, as it constitutes an
imposition upon the court and seriously
exposes it to miscarriage of justice.
Forms of False Testimony:
a) False Testimony in criminal cases
(Arts. 180 & 181);
2) False Testimony in civil cases (Article
182); and
3) False Testimony in other cases (Article
183).
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT IN CRIMINAL CASES:
ARTICLE 180- FALSE TESTIMONY
AGAINST A DEFENDANT:
Against the defendant- means a false
testimony that tends to establish or aggravate
the guilt of the accused and not the result that
the testimony may produce.
Under this article, false testimony may still be
committed even if the same is not considered or
is not given any weight or even if the accused is
acquitted.
The penalty depends upon the sentence
imposed upon the accused in the criminal case
where the false testimony was given except in
the case of a judgment of acquittal.
Penalties:
1) Reclusion Temporal if the defendant in
said case shall have been sentenced to Death;
2) Prision Mayor - if the defendant shall have
been sentenced to Reclusion Temporal or
Reclusion Perpetua;
3) Prision Correccional plus a fine not
exceeding P1,000 - if the defendant shall have
been sentenced to any other afflictive pen.
4) Arresto Mayor plus a Fine not exceeding
P1,000 - if the defendant shall have been
sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or
shall have been acquitted.
Art. 180 does not prescribe a penalty where
the defendant in a criminal case is sentenced to
a light penalty. False Testimony in this instance
cannot be punished considering that a penal law
is to be strictly construed.
Article 181- False Testimony
Favorable To The Defendant
Intent to favor the accused is essential in this
kind of false testimony. It is not also necessary
that the false testimony given should directly
influence the decision of acquittal.
The penalty provided under this article is less
than that which is provided under Art. 180
because there is no danger to the life or liberty
of the defendant. Independent evidence of falsity
is not required for conviction.
Penalty- Arresto Mayor in its maximum
period to Prision Correccional in its
minimum period and a Fine not to exceed
P1,000 if the prosecution is for a felony
punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the
penalty of Arresto Mayor in any other
case.
Testimony in favor of the def. right after he
testified falsely, the prescriptive period
commences to run because the basis of the
penalty on the false witness is the felony
charged; while in testimony against the def., the
prescriptive period will not begin to run as long
as the case has not been decided with finality
because the basis of the penalty on the false
witness is the sentence on the accused testified
against.
Article 182- False Testimony in
Civil Cases
A) Elements:
1) the testimony must be given in a civil case;
2) the testimony must relate to the issues
presented in said case;
3) the testimony must be false;
4) the false testimony must be given by the
defendant knowing the same to be false;
5) such testimony must be malicious and
given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.
Pen- depends upon the amount involved.
Article 183- False Testimony in
Other Cases & Perjury under
Solemn Affirmation

This is committed by any person who,
knowingly makes untruthful statements
and not being included in the preceding
articles, shall testify under oath, or make
an affidavit, upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the
law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn
affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
commit any of the falsehoods mentioned
in this and the three preceding articles of
this section.
Pen- Arresto Mayor in its max. period to
Prision Correccional in its min. period.
Perjury
Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of
falsehood under oath or affirmation administered
by an authority of law on a material matter.
Elements:
1) Statement or affidavit upon material matter
made under oath;
2) Before a competent officer authorized to
receive and administer such oath;
3) Willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
by the offender;
4) The sworn statement containing the falsity is
required by law (Pp. vs. Bautista- 40 O.G. 2491).
Material matter- means the main fact which is
the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance
which tends to prove the fact, or any fact or
circumstance which tends to corroborate or
strengthen the testimony relative to the subject
of the inquiry, or which legitimately affects the
credit of any witness who testified (U.S. vs.
Estrana- 16 Phil. 520).
The word material is not limited to
testimony bearing directly on the issue but
includes collateral matter.
Collateral testimony which although
not direct proof upon the issues, yet has
substantial bearing on the testimony
relating to the issues.
The test is not whether the evidence
was properly to be admitted but whether if
admitted it could properly influence the result of
the trial.
Pp. vs. Banzil- Feb. 12, l960 in an
administrative proceeding for immorality wherein
the accused testified that he was single although
he was married, the falsity is not material
because whether he is married or not, has
nothing to do with the charge of immorality. (This
is no longer applicable today. As under the civil
service rules, if the parties are both single- there
could be no immorality).
When the law so requires does not mean that
the sworn statement or affidavit must be
required by law. The word requires is merely
permissive, not mandatory. Reasonably
interpreted, it means in cases in which the law
so authorizes. (Pp. vs. Angangco- G.R. No.
47693).
In a verified answer to a complaint filed in an
ordinary civil case if false is not Perjury as the
verification of the answer is not required by law.
Moreover, any statement in an appropriate
pleading filed in court relevant to the issues in
the case is absolutely privileged and may not be
made the subject of a criminal prosecution.
Where the defendant executed an affidavit
stating that he lost his drivers license by virtue
of which he was able to secure a new one, when
in truth and in fact his drivers license was
confiscated by the authorities, it was held that
Perjury was committed (Pp. vs. Bautista- supra).
Unjustified statements in the Personal Data
Sheet (PDS), a requirement under Civil Service
Rules and Regulations in connection with
employment in the government constitutes
Perjury ( Inting vs. Sandiganbayan L- 524166).
Two contradictory sworn statements are not
sufficient to convict for Perjury because the
prosecution must prove which of the two
statements is false, and must show that
statement to be false by other evidence other
than the contradictory statement (U.S. vs.
Capistrano- 40 Phil. 902).
Distinction between False Testimony and
Perjury:
1) False Testimony is given in the course of a
judicial proceeding; whereas Perjury is any
willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on a
material matter under oath and not given in
judicial proceeding;
2) False Testimony contemplates an
actual trial where judgment of conviction or
acquittal is rendered and not merely a
preliminary investigation; whereas Perjury
may be committed even during a
preliminary investigation as well as in the
making of a false affidavit under oath on a
material matter when required by law.
Distinction between Perjury and Falsification of
Documents:
1) Falsification- the documents may or may
not be under oath; whereas in Perjury, the
document must be under oath and required by
law to be under oath;
2) Falsification the contents of the document
may be true but the signature is false; in Perjury,
the contents of the document in its material
aspect must be deliberately false.
Article 184- Offering False
Testimony in Evidence
1) Offender: any person
2) Acts:
a) Offer in evidence of a false witness or
testimony;
b) Offender knows such falsity; and
c) Offer was made in a judicial or official
proceeding.
The felony is consummated the moment a
false witness is offered in any judicial or official
proceeding.
The penalty shall be that of False Testimony if
the offer was made in a judicial proceeding; and
that of Perjury, if made in an official proceeding.
Is Subornation of Perjury punished in the
Code? Subornation of Perjury no longer exists
in our Revised Penal Code but the act is
punished as plain Perjury under Article 183 in
relation to Art. 17. The inducer becomes a
Principal by Inducement and the one induced, is
Principal by Direct Participation (Pp. vs. Padol-
66 Phil. 365).
Article 185 Machinations, monopolies & combination
(public auction & restraint of trade).
Arts. 190-194- Drugs- RA 9165 (SPL)
Arts. 195-199- Gambling & Betting ( Repealed and
modified under PD 449, 483, 1602 & LOI 816)- (SPL)

ARTICLE 200- GRAVE SCANDAL- is any highly
scandalous act offensive to morals and good customs
and committed publicly or within the knowledge and view
of the public (U.S. vs. Samaniego- 16 Phil.).
The act is deemed committed in public view because
of the possibility of being witnessed by a third persons.

In conduct involving lasciviousness, it is
grave scandal only when there is mutual
consent. Because if done without her
consent, then this is Acts of
Lasciviousness.
The act should not be punishable under
any other provisions of the Revised Penal
Code.
Elems:
1) act is highly scandalous.
2) publicly committed or w/n public view &
knowledge of the public
3) offends good decency & good customs
4) not expressly falling under any other
article.
Pen- Arresto Mayor & Public Censure

Article 201- Immoral Doctrine,
Obscene Pub.& Exh. & Indecent
Shows
- amended by PD 960 & 969
1) Acts: publicly expound or proclaim doctrine
openly contrary to public moral.
2) Offenders: a) authors of obscene literature,
editors publishing the same;
b) those who in theatres, fairs, stage play
exhibit indecent or immoral plays or shows;
i)) glorify criminals or condone crimes;
ii) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the
market of violence;
iii) offend race or religion;
iv) prohibited drugs;
v) contrary to law, public order, good
customs.
3) Those who shall sell, give away or
exhibit films, prints, engravings,
sculptures, literature which are offensive to
morals.
Disposition of the prohibited articles forfeited in
favor of the government to be destroyed, after
conviction. If acquitted, still to be forfeited in
favor of the govt., to be destroyed after forfeiture
proceedings will be conducted.
Pen- PM or a fine ranging from P6,000 to
P12,000 or both.
If the offender is a govt. official penalty shall be
imposed in the maximum and in addition
corresponding accessory penalties shall be
imposed.
Comparison bt. RA 3060 and Art. 201-
RA 3060- provides that it shall be unlawful for any
person or entity to exhibit or cause to be exhibited in a
motion picture theatre or public place, any picture not
duly passed by the MTRCB.
It is evident that the elements of the two offenses are
different. The gravamen of the offense defined in RA
3060 is the public exhibition of any motion picture which
has not been previously passed by the Board of Censors
for Motion Pictures. The motion picture may not be
indecent or immoral, but if its showing is not previously
approved by the Board, then this constitutes a criminal
offense. On the other hand, the offense punished in Art.

201 of the RPC is the public showing of
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or
shows.
RA 3060 Malum Prohibitum, while Art.
201 is Malum in Se (Pp. vs. City Court of
Manila- September, l987).
Article 202- Vagrants & Prostitutes
A) Vagrants 1) W/o any apparent means of
subsistence, who has physical ability to work but
neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling.
2) Loiter in public or semi-public bldg.-
wandering without visible means of support.
3) Idle or dissolute persons, ill-repute or
pimps.
4) Loiter in inhab. or uninhab. places w/o
justifiable purpose.
Vagrants are persons, having no apparent
means of subsistence, who has the physical
ability to work, neglects to apply himself or
herself to some lawful calling.
Prostitutes- women, who for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
Penalty- AMe or a fine not exceeding P200
Recidivist- AMa in its medium period to PC in its
min. per. or a fine ranging from P200 to P2,000
or both, at the discretion of the court.
Some sectors believe that bold actresses
who, for money or profit, appear in the
movie habitually playing the role of one
who engages in sexual acts satisfy all the
elements of the said provision. Worse,
they do it in public view and in public
places, whereas prostitutes do it in a
private place. The male partner cannot be
liable as a prostitute under this law.
Pres. Decree no. 1563- Mendicancy Law:
Mendicant- any person who has no visible and legal
means of support or lawful employment & who is
physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to
some lawful calling and instead are begging as a means
of living.
Habitual mendicants can be convicted two or more
times.
Exploited infant/minor- child 8 years & below who is
used in begging or who accompanies a habitual beggar.
Pen- not exc. P500 or impris. not exc. 2 yrs. or both.
Person who gives alms- fine not exc. P20.00
Title 7- Crimes committed by Public
Officers-
1) Malfeasance & Non-feasance in Office-
(Articles 204-209)
2) Bribery (Articles 210-212)
3) Frauds & Illegal Exactions & Trans.
(Articles 213 216)
4) Malversation of Public Funds/Property-
(Articles 217 -222)
5) Infidelity In the Custody of Prisoners-
(Articles 223-225)
6) Infidelity In the Custody of Public Documents
(Articles 226-228)
7) Revelation of Secrets (Articles 229-230)
8) Other offenses or Irregularities (Articles 231-
245)
ARTICLE 203- Public Officers- Any person, who
by direct provision of law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority shall take
part of the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in the Govt., or any of its branches
public duties as employee, agent, or subordinate
official of any rank or class.
Said article obliterates the standard distinction
in the law of public officers between officer &
employee.
Officers- from highest to the lowest rank
(Maniego vs. People- April 20, l951).
Pp. vs. Cruz- Employees of UP- from
janitors to the Members of the Board of
Regents- Public Officers.
Malfeasance- performance of some act
which ought not to be done.
Misfeasance- improper performance of
some act which might lawfully be done.
Non-feasance- omission of some act
which ought to be performed.
A) Dereliction of Duty- Judges-
ARTICLE 204- KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
JUDGMENT-
Elements:
1) Offender is a judge;
2) Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
decision;
3) Said judgment is unjust; &
4) Knows that said judgment is unjust ( Louis Vuitton
S.A. vs. Judge Villanueva- Nov. l992).
Unjust judgment- contrary to law or not supported with
evidence, or contrary to the standards of conduct
prescribed by law.
A judge cannot be subjected to liability- civil,
criminal or administrative- for any of his official
acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he
acts in good faith.
It is a general principle of the highest
importance to the proper administration of
justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the
authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon
his own convictions, without apprehension of
personal consequence to himself. This concept
of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of
public policy. It purpose being to preserve the
integrity and independence of the judiciary (Dela
Cruz vs. Concepcion- 54 SCAD).
In Mendoza vs. Villaluz- 106 SCRA- the court
has held that it is a fundamental rule of long
standing that a judicial officer when required to
exercise his judgment or discretion is not
criminally liable for any error he commits,
provided he acts in good faith. That in the
absence of malice or wrongful conduct, the
Judge cannot be held administratively
responsible for no one called upon to try
the facts of interpret the law in the process
of administering justice can be infallible in
his judgment. To hold a judge
administratively accountable for every
erroneous ruling or decision he renders
assuming that he has erred, would be
nothing short of harassment or would
make his position unbearable.
In re: Joaquin Borromeo- 241 SCRA 405- The
court has repeatedly and uniformly held that a
judge may not be held administratively
accountable for every erroneous order or
decision he renders.
The administrative or criminal remedies are
neither alternative or cumulative to judicial
review where such review is available, and must
wait on the result thereof.
Rendering knowingly unjust judgment
refers to an individual judge who does so
in any case submitted to him for decision
and even then, it is not for the prosecutor
to pass judgment on the unjustness of the
decision but the proper appellate court,
who has the authority to review the same.
Until and unless there is such a final
authoritative judicial declaration that the
decision or order in question is unjust no, civil,
criminal or administrative action against a judge
concerned is legally possible or should be
entertained for want of indispensable requisites.
Bonifacio Sanz Maceda cs. the Ombudsman
cannot act first on a criminal case filed against a
judge in relation to his function, without first
referring the case to the Supreme Court.
Article 204 has no application to the
members of a collegiate court such as the
Supreme Court or its Divisions,
Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and
Court of Tax Appeals, who reach their
conclusion in consultation and accordingly
render their collective judgment after due
deliberation ( In Re: Disciplinary action
against Atty. Wenceslao Laureta- G.R. No.
63635- March 12, l987).
Art. 205- Judgment Rendered Thro
Negligence
Elements:
1) Offender is a judge;
2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
3) Said judgment is manifestly unjust; &
4) It was committed through inexcusable
negligence.
Manifestly Unjust Judgment- is a judgment
which cannot be explained with a reasonable
interpretation or is a clear incontrovertible and

and notorious violation of a legal precept.
It must be patently contrary to law if
rendered due to ignorance or inexcusable
negligence.
Penalty Arresto Mayor & Temporary
Special Disqualification.
Art. 206-Unjust Interlocutory Order
- The offense may be committed by a
judge in two ways:
1) By knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order-
Penalty Arresto Mayor in its min. per.
and suspension.
2) By rendering a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order by inexcusable
negligence or ignorance-Pen- Suspension.
Article 207- Malicious Delay in the
Administration of Justice
- The judge to be guilty of this article
maliciously delays the administration of
justice.
The act must be committed maliciously
with deliberate intent to prejudice a party
in the case ( Magdamo vs. Pahimulin- 73
SCRA 110).
Pen.- PC in its minimum period.
Speedy Trial Act of l998
RA 8493
Sec. 1- Time to prepare for trial After the
plea of not guilty, the accused shall have
at least 15 days to prepare for trial. The
trial shall commenced within 30 days from
receipt of the pre-trial order (Sec. 6-Cir.
38-98).
Sec. 2- Continuous trial until terminated;
postponements- Trial once commenced
shall continue from day to day as far as
practicable until terminated. It may be
postponed for a reasonable period of time
for good cause.
The court shall, after consultation with
the prosecutor and defense counsel, set
the case for continuous trial on a weekly or
other short term trial calendar at the
earliest possible time so as to ensure
speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial
period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial,
except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme
Court (Sec. 8, Cir. 38-98).
The time limitations shall not apply where
special laws or circulars of the SC provide for a
shorter period.
(Exs. RA 4908- When the offended party is
about to depart from the Phils. with no definite
date of return trial shall commence w/n 3 days
from the date of arraignment;
Child Abuse cases trial shall
commence within 3 days from
arraignment;
Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law-
trial is for 90 days, but decision making is
only for 15 days.
Art. 208- Prosecution of offenses;
Negligence & Tolerance
1) Offenders: a) Any public officer; or
b) Officer of the Law.
Officers referred to here- those whose function
relate to instituting prosecution of offenders-
Police officers, Prosecutors & Brgy. Captains.
2) Acts punished:
a) Maliciously refraining from institution of
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the
law; and
b) Tolerating the commission of offenses.
- Malice is an integral part. Lack of zeal or
any delay in the performance of duties
does not constitute the crime. There must
be bad faith or criminal intent to favor the
offender.
Pp. vs. Malabanan- 62 Phil. 786- Malice
connotes that the action complained of
must be the result of a deliberate intent
and does not cover a mere voluntary act.
Art. 209- Betrayal of Trust by an
Atty.; Revelation of Secrets-
A) Acts punished:
1) Malicious breach of professional duty;
2) Inexcusable negligence or ignorance;
3) Revelation of secrets learned in his
professional capacity;
4) Undertaking the defense of the opposite
party in a case without the consent of the first
client whose defense has already been
undertaken.
In acts 1 & 2- prejudice to the client is essential.
It is not essential in the case of revelation of
secrets or in the representation of conflicting
interests.
To prejudice is equivalent to causing material or
moral damage to the client.
Revelation of secrets signifies a communication
of the same to another. The secrets which
should not be revealed are not limited to those
learned by the lawyer in connection with a case
in which he is intervening but includes all other
secrets learned from a client in the course of
professional relationship.
Are all informations received by the counsel from
client classified as privileged?- No, a distinction
must be made between confidential
communications relating to past crimes already
committed, and future crimes intended to be
committed, by the client. Corrollarily, it is
admitted that the announced intention of a
client to commit a crime is not included within
the confidences which his attorney is bound to
respect (Pp. vs. Sandiganbayan- July 1997- 84
SCAD).
For the application of the attorney-client
privilege, however, the period to be considered
is the date when the privileged communication
was made by the client to the atty. in relation to
either a crime committed in the past or w/
respect to a crime intended to be committed.
In other words, if the client seek his
lawyers advice with respect to a crime
that the former has therefore committed,
he is given the protection, of a virtual
confessional seal, which is the attorney-
client privilege declares cannot be broken
by the attorney without the clients
consent. The same privileged
confidentiality does not attach with regard
to a crime which a client intends to commit
thereafter or in the future, and for purposes of
which he seeks the lawyers advice.
In order that a communication between a
lawyer and his client may be privileged, it must
be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of
lawful end. Every communication made to an
atty. by a client for criminal purpose is a
conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is
not unlawful to divulge, but w/c the atty. under
certain circumstances may be bound to disclose
in the interest of justice.
BRIBERY
Article 210
Bribery- is the crime of the public officer
who receives gift, present, offer or promise
by reason or in connection with the
performance of his official duties. It is the
crime of the receiver. The crime of the
giver is Corruption of Public Officers.
Bribery requires concurrence of the will of
the two parties, otherwise the crime
cannot be consummated.
Kinds of Bribery:
A) Direct Bribery:
i) Offenders public officers,
(assessors, arbitrators, appraisal & claim
commissioners, experts, or any other
persons performing public duties.
ii) Acts: a) Agreeing to perform or
performing an act pertaining to the duties
of the office which constitutes a crime;
b) Accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime;
c) Abstaining from the performance of official
duties.
Elements: 1) Offender is a public officer (Art.
203);
2) He receives personally or through
another, gifts, or presents or accepted offers or
promises;
3) For the purpose of committing any of the acts
mentioned in par. 3;
4) Such act relates to the exercise of official duties.
Ex. of act no. 1) Stenographic Reporter agreed to
tamper the TSN in consideration of the amount of
P30,000 given to her. Crimes- Direct Bribery &
Falsification. In this ex. It could also be that she already
tampered the TSN (agreeing or performing).
The act need not be actually committed. Mere
agreement to execute the act is sufficient. This is so, as
the act to be performed constitutes a crime.
Ex. of act no. 2) In the placement of the
vendors in a newly constructed market,
has to be done through raffle. But for
those who gave P10,000 to the one in-
charge of the raffling, they were
immediately given the good placement.
The act of placing those who paid at the
front portions of the market, is not a crime,
but definitely it is unjust.
In this instance, the money must be accepted
already because the act does not constitute a
crime. Mere agreement will not suffice.
Ex. of no. 3-employee of OBO bec. of the amt.
given didnt conduct ocular insp. of the bldg.&
issued Bldg. Permit.
Is there Attempted or Frustrated Bribery?
1) U.S. vs. Tan Gee -7 Phil. 738- Offer of a
Chinaman to allow his companion to land
without investigation was refused- Att. Bribery.
2) Pp. vs. Diego Quinn- G.R. No. 42653- the
money handed by the offeror was returned by
the public official Frustrated Bribery.
It will be noted that in these cases, the
accused were both private individuals (so this
would have been Corruption of Public Official).
3) Pp. vs. Elago CA- upon a careful review of
our jurisprudence we are unable to find a single
case of frustrated bribery, taking into
consideration the nature of the offense. We are
bound to deduce that this crime is not subject
to frustration.
Penalty- no. 1 act- PM in its min and med pers.
and a fine of not less than 3x the value of the
gift;
no. 2 act- PC- in its medium period & a fine
of not less than twice the value of such gift.
no. 3 act- PC in its max. per. to PM in its
min. per. & a fine not less than 3x the value of
the gift.
In addition to such imprisonment term-
Special Temporary Disqualification.
Article 211- Indirect Bribery
Indirect Bribery- is committed upon acceptance
by the public officer of gifts offered to him by
reason of his office. It is not necessary that the
public officer should do any particular act or
even promise to do an act as it is enough that he
accepts the gifts offered to him by reason of his
office (Victoriano vs. Alvior- March l978).
The gift is made to anticipate a favor from the
public officer in connection w/ his official duties.
Distinction between DB & IB-
1) DB- the public officer must do
something in consideration of the gift;
IB- there is no such requirement;
2) DB- Mere agreement consummates
the crime of DB if the act agreed upon
amounts to a crime; IB- the public officer
must accept the gift to consummate the
crime.
Article 211-A-Qualified Bribery
1) Offender public officers entrusted with law
enforcement.
2) Acts: a) public officer refrains from arresting
or prosecuting an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by RP &/or Death in
consideration of any offer, gift or present;
b) the public officer asks or demands such
gifts or present.
3) Pen- a) the pub. officer shall suffer the pen. of
the offense which was not prosecuted; b) Death.
Article 212- Corruption of Public
Officials
- the person giving the gift or making the
offer or promise in direct or indirect bribery
commits this felony.
Pen- same as that of the public officer
corrupted.
PD 749 Granting Immunity To Givers of
Bribes.
- voluntarily gives information about
any corrupt transactions of an officer in
violation of the RPC or the Anti- Graft Law
and testifies in the case subsequently
filed.
Elements:
1) info.(or testimony) refers to the
consummated violation;
2) info. is necessary for conviction;
3) info. is not yet in the possession
of the Prosecutor/ State;
4) info. can be corroborated in other
material points; and
5) informant has not been convicted of
crimes involving moral turpitude.
The immunity shall refer only to the
transaction the IT (info. & testimony)
relates. If he lies liable for Perjury.
Frauds & Illegal Exactions &
Transactions
Article 213- FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES-
1)FRAUDS: Acts: a) Public Officers entering into
a contract or agreement with any interested
party and defrauded the govt. (dealing with
supplies- Supply Officers; signatories of
contracts Heads of Office, Administrative
Officer, Regional Director, Cashier or Treasurer;
entrusted w/ adjustment or settlement of
accounts- Accountants).
2) ILLEGAL EXACTIONS-
Illegal exaction can only be committed
by a collecting officer or a public officer
whose official duty is to collect payments
due to the government. The crime is not in
respect to misappropriation of funds
(malversation) but the violation of the rules
of collection.

1) Offenders: - public officers in charge of
the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and
other imposts.
2) Acts: a) Demanding an amount different
or larger than due. This crime is committed
even if the debtor refuses to give.
What is the status of the excess
amount private or public funds?
U.S. vs. Lopez- Municipal Treasurer
collected greater fees for the branding of
cattle, by means of deceit and
misappropriates the difference between
the legal amount and the excess- Estafa,
because the fund is private.
Pp. vs. Policher- 60 Phil. 771- If the
excessive fees which were accounted for
were misappropriated, the public officer is
liable for Illegal Exaction for demanding
and collecting excessive fees and for
Malversation, for the excess. The
difference between the fees collected and
the legal fees forms a part already of the
public funds as those accounted for,
hence, it cannot be Estafa. The whole
amount becomes public fund because
issuing receipt is the operative act making
the whole fund public fund.
This provision is not applicable in the case of
the BIR and BOC Officials because they are
guided by other laws. For the BIR officials, they
are guided by the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC), while the BOC officials, they are
guided by the Tariff and Customs Code. Under
these laws, these public officials are allowed to
collect amounts different from the fixed rates
since interests and surcharges are imposed.
Moreover, they are authorized to compromise
penalties.
- Frauds- the crime committed is the mere
agreement as long as the purpose is to defraud.
- Illegal Exaction- no. 1- committed by mere
demand, even if he did not receive the amount
demanded. But if the sum was received without
demanding, the felony is not committed, but if
given as a sort of a gift because of his office, he
can be held liable for Indirect Bribery.
Pen- PC in its med. per. to PM-min. per. or a fine
ranging from P200 to P10,000.
Articles 214, 215, 216- read ( Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).

ARTICLE 217- MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY-
Elements:
1) Offender is a public officer;
2) He has custody or control of the funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
3) The funds or property involved are public
funds or property for which he is accountable;
and
4) He has appropriated, taken or
misappropriated, or has consented to, or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted
the taking by another person of such funds or
property (Villanueva vs. Sandiganbayan- G.R.
No. 95627- Aug. 16, l991 & Quinon vs.
Sandiganbayan- April l997- 82 SCAD).
Acts punished:
1) Appropriate public funds or property-
(uses it for her/his own personal purpose);
2) Misappropriate public funds or
property ( use it for a purpose other than
for which it is intended); or take the public
funds or property ( get it without the
consent of the govt.)
This is Intentional Malversation.
3) Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any person to take the
same. This is Culpable Malversation.
A) Offenders- public officers, who by virtue of
their position/duties are accountable for the
public funds or property:
Exs.of public officers accountable by reason of
their positions: Cashiers, Treasurer, Collection
Officers.
By reason of duties: Heads of Offices- RD,
ARD, Administrative Officers.
An accountable officer under Article 217 is
a public officer, who, in the discharge of
his office, receives money or property of
the government which he is bound to later
account for. It is the nature of, not the
nomenclature used for, or the relative
significance of the title, the position which
controls the determination (Tanggote vs.
Sandiganbayan- 55 SCAD).

The nature of the duties of the public
officer and not the importance of his
position is the controlling factor. He may
be a clerk but if he receives money or
property belonging to the government for
which he is bound to account, then he is
an accountable officer .
-Can private persons be held liable for
Malversation: Yes- in two instances:
1) Article 222- If such private person in
any capacity whatever is in charge of
insular, provincial or municipal funds,
revenues or property ex. Where a
private person is constituted a custodian of
the fund or property subject of seizure or
attachment, as such seizure or
attachment brings about the property in custodia
legis.
Malversation is committed when the property
attached to secure a debt is placed in the
possession of the defendant to which it belongs
with the consent of the plaintiff and who sells the
same without delivering the proceeds to the
plaintiff since the property is not the subject of a
mere private bailment but of a judicial deposit.
This gives the depository a character equivalent
to that of a public official and breach of his
obligation is similar to violation of the obligations
imposed upon public officers (U.S. vs. Rastrono-
1 Phil. 22).
2) If such private person takes a direct
participation in the commission of the crime of
Malversation by a public officer or cooperates in
the commission of the same (conspiracy).
3) If such private person acts as accomplice or
accessory.

2) Public funds money
Public properties vehicles, firearms, tables,
chairs, computers, checks, letters of credit,
negotiable notes, or any personal property
whether fungible or non-fungible.
Private funds or property may also be the
subject of Malversation- Article 222 provides that
malversation may be committed upon property
placed in the custody of public officers by reason
of their office even if such property belongs to
a private individual. Even if the funds
belong to a private individual they are
impressed with the characteristics of
public funds or partakes of the
characteristics of public funds when they
are entrusted to an accountable public
officer for his official custody- exs. Funds
of Red Cross, Anti TB, Girl Scout and Boy
Scout. (Pp.vs. Velasquez- 72 Phil. 98).
- Also private funds sent to the addressee
through the telecom office (Pp. vs. Castro- 61
Phil. 861)
- Pp. vs. Carpio- Jan. 31, l963- where a
municipal treasurer cashed a private check with
public funds and the check was dishonored,
Malversation was committed.
Malversation through negligence- not all
abandonment or negligence constitutes
malversation, but only such that approximates
intent and malice.
- Thus, a defendant who, as Municipal
Treasurer, had a large stock of rice under his
charge, and who, in good faith, sold them on
credit as he needed swift disposal, cannot be
held liable for Malversation through Negligence.
To render such element a basis for conviction,
the negligence must be positively and clearly
shown to be inexcusable, approximating malice
of fraud (Pp. vs. Bernas & Pp. vs. Pili).
Enriquez vs. Pp. 331 SCRA- Evidence of
shortage is necessary before there could be any
taking, appropriation, conversion, or loss of
public funds that would amount to Malversation.
In cases of Malversation of Public Funds, the
mere 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, is prima facie evidence
that he has put such funds to personal use.
To justify conviction for Malversation, the
prosecution has only to prove that the accused
received public funds or property and that he
could not account for them or did not have them
in his possession and could not give a
reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the
same.
Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan- July, l992-en
banc & Pondevida vs.Sandiganbayan-467
SCRA 219- an accountable officer may be
convicted of Malversation even if there is no
direct evidence of misappropriation and the only
evidence is that there is a shortage in his
accounts which he has not been able to explain.
Felicilda vs. Grospe- July, 1992- In
Malversation, payment or indemnification or
reimbursement of, or compromise as to, the
amounts or funds malversed, affects only the
civil liability of the offender but does not
extinguish his criminal liability;
Penanuevo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan 224
SCRA 92; Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan- 232
SCRA 62 and Gano vs. Leonen- 232 SCRA 102.

Doldol vs. People 470 SCRA 373 (2005)
Partial restitution of the cash shortage is an
implied admission of misappropriation of the
missing funds.
Arturo Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan- 149 SCRA
108-(April 6, l987)- Restitution w/n 7 days is
considered reasonable.
Is demand an element of Malversation?- No.
Demand merely raises a prima facie
presumption that missing funds have been put
to personal use. The demand itself is not an
element of, and not indispensable to constitute,
Malversation. Even without a demand,
Malversation can still be committed when
enough facts are extant to prove it.
Pp. vs. Pepito- Feb. l997- 78 SCAD- Even on
the putative assumption that the evidence
against petitioner yielded a case of malversation
by negligence but the information was for
intentional malversation, under the
circumstances of this case his conviction under
the first mode of misappropriation would still be
in order. Malversation is committed either
intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or culpa
present in the offense is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony (Cabello vs.
Sandiganbayan- May 14, l991).
The defense of good faith is a valid defense in
a prosecution for Malversation for it would
negate criminal intent on the part of the accused.
To constitute a crime, there must be criminal
intent (Pp. vs. Pepito- Feb. l997- 78 SCAD).
Pen: 1) PC in its med. & max. per. if the
amount involved does not exceed P200;
2) PM in its min. & med. Periods- if the
amount involved is more than P200 but
does not exceed P6,000;
3) PM in its max. per. To RT in its min.
per. if the amount involved is more than
P6,000 but is less than P12,000;
4) RT in its med. & max. per. if the
amount involved is more than P12,000 but
is less than P22,000;
5) RT in its max. per. To RP if the
amount exceeds P22,000
6) Perpetual Special Disqualification & a
fine equal to the amount of the funds
malversed or equal to the total value of the
property embezzled.
Article 218- Failure of Accountable
Officer To Render Accounts
Elements:
1) Offender is a public officer whether in
the service or separated therefrom;
2) He is accountable for public funds or
property;
3) He is required by law or regulation to
render account to the Auditor; and
4) He failed to do it for a period of two
months after demand is rendered.
This is a felony by omission and
misappropriation is not necessary. The reason
for this is that the law does not so much
contemplate the possibility of malversation as
the need of enforcing by a penal sanction the
performance of the duty incumbent upon every
public employee who handles govt. funds. The
design of the law is to impart stability to the good
order and discipline which should prevail in the
organization and workings of the public service
by punishing the employee who should disobey
a law or regulation, lawfully made by a
competent officer for the rendition of accounts (
U.S. vs. Saberon 19 Phil. 391).
Pen- PC in its min. period or a fine ranging
from P200 to P6,000 or both.
Said act can be a basis for filing of a criminal
case for Failure To Liquidate under PD 1445.
Article 219 Failure of a Public
Officer To Render Accts. Before
Leaving the Country
Elements:
1) Offender is a public officer, whether in
active service or not;
2) He is accountable for public funds and
property;
3) He leaves or attempts to leave the
country w/o requisite clearance from the
Auditor that his accounts have been
settled.
Article 220- Illegal Use of Public
Funds or Property
Elements:
1) Offender is an accountable public officer;
2) He applies public funds or property under his
administration to some public use; and
3) The public use for which the public funds or property
were applied is different from the purpose for which they
were originally appropriated.
- This felony is known as Technical Malversation and
is a penal sanction to the constitutional provision that no
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in
pursuance to an appropriation made by law (Art. VIII,
Sec. 18, Par. 1, 1987 Constitution).
-Damage is not an essential element and
the offender derives no benefit. However,
if no damage or embarrassment to the
public service resulted, the penalty is a
fine only from 5 up to 50% of the sum
misapplied.
Similarity w/ Malversation under Art. 217:
- In both felonies, the offenders are
accountable public officers.
Distinction:
1) In Art. 217- the offender derives personal benefit
from the proceeds of the crime; whereas in Art 220- the
offender derives no personal gain or benefit from the
commission of the act;
2) In Art. 217- the conversion of the public funds or
property is for the personal interest of the offender;
whereas in Art. 220- the object to which the fund or
property is applied is also public but only different from
that provided by the law.
To constitute this crime, there must be a law or
ordinance appropriating public funds or property for a
specific purpose which the accused has violated
(Pp. vs. Montemayor, et al.- L-17449- August 30,
l962)
Palma Gil vs. Pp. l77 SCRA In this case, it is
shown that the CRBI fund is a general fund, and
the utilization of this fund specifically for the
concreting of the Barangay Jalung Rd. was
merely an internal arrangement between the
DPWH and the Barangay Captain and was not
particularly provided for by law or ordinance.
There is no dispute that the money was spent for
a public purpose- payment of the wages of
laborers working on various projects in the
in the municipality. It is pertinent to note
the high priority which laborers wages
enjoy as claims against the employers
funds and resources. In the absence of a
law or ordinance appropriating the CRBI
fund for the concreting of the Barangay
Jalung Road, the petitioner cannot be
declared guilty of the crime of Illegal Use
of Public Funds ( Parungao vs.
Sandiganbayan- May l991).
Article 221- Failure to Make
Delivery of Public Funds or
Property
1) Offender: Public Officers under obligation to make
payments.
2) Acts punished:
a) Failed to make payments despite his obligation;
b) Despite being ordered to do so.
If the failure is caused by his using the public funds
Malversation.
If due to his using the funds for another purpose-
Technical Malversation.
Rationale- gives rise to the presumption of illegal use of
public funds/property.
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Kinds of Infidelity:
1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoner
2) Infidelity in the custody of documents
3) Revelation of secrets.
A) INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF
PRISONERS: This crime may be
committed through Dolo (Article 223) or
Culpa (Article 224).
A) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners:
ARTICLE 223- CONNIVING WITH OR
CONSENTING TO EVASION-
1) Offender Public Officer who has the
custody of the prisoner.
2) Acts: connives/consents to the escape of the
prisoner (i) detention PC min. & TSD
ii) by final judgment- PC med to max
& TSD to PSD
ARTICLE 224- EVASION
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
1) Offender Public officer charged with the
custody of the prisoner.
2) Act- Through negligence, the prisoner
escaped
Pp. vs. Quisel guard allowed the prisoners to
run after the carabao & the prisoners escaped
deliberate-non-performance.
Mere leniency/ laxity- not infidelity- adm.
Liability.
Laxity non-performance- criminal offense.
When the offender allowed a prisoner to
go to the bathroom to relieve himself it
was deemed as mere laxity in the handling
of prisoners which did not give rise to
infidelity through negligence. Negligence is
one which approximates malice or
deliberate non-performance of duty. He
may be charged administratively but not
criminally (Pp. vs. Nava- 36 O.G. 316)
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan May l988- As a police
officer who was charged with the duty to return the
prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was
clearly a violation of the regulations. In the first place. It
was improper for the petitioner to take lunch with the
prisoner and her family when he was supposed to bring
him to jail. He even allowed the prisoner and her
husband to talk to each other at the request of a co-
officer. It is the duty of any police officer having custody
of a prisoner to take necessary precautions to assure the
absence of any means of escape. A failure to undertake
these precautions will make his act one of definite laxity
or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance
of duty.
B) Infidelity in the custody of documents.
ARTICLE 226- REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR DESTRUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS-
1) Offender a) Public officer
b) custody/in- charge of the
records/ documents
c) by reason of his office.
2) Acts: i) Abstracts (remove)- appropriation of document for illicit
purpose;
ii) Destroys- to make the document useless/obliteration (ex.
Clerk of Court spent the marked money used as evidence- not
misappropriation. Even if he restitutes the amount he is still liable
bec. the document itself cannot be restituted);
iii) Conceals not forwarding to its destination (not
necessary that it be secreted).
The damage or prejudice is not limited to pecuniary
damage. When there is delay in rendering public service
because the document is not located, there is damage.
There is also the loss of trust in government service.
Kataniag cs. even if the officer is still in the building,
but already out of his office- removal is consummated.
A private person who conspires with a public official is
liable for this crime but if he acts by himself, this is
Estafa.
Documents have the same meaning as in Article 171.
It is not necessary that the act of removal be
coupled with proof of intention to conceal. The
felony is committed in three ways namely:
removal, concealment or destruction. The word
or is disjunctive signifying disassociation and
independence of one thing from each other.
Penalty : a) If there is serious damage PM &
Fine not exceeding P1,000.
b) If the damage is not serious PC-
min-med period & a Fine not exceeding P1,000.
ARTICLE 227- OFFICER
BREAKING SEAL
1) Offender- Public officer, who has
custody of papers or property, which are
sealed by proper authorities.
2) Acts- He breaks the seals or permits
them to be broken without any authority.
Damage is not an element. The crime may
be committed through negligence.
ARTICLE 228- OPENING CLOSED
DOCUMENTS
1) Offender- Public Officer, who is entrusted with
the custody of closed papers, documents or
objects.
2) Acts- He opens or permits the same to be
opened without proper authority.
If the closed document is sealed- and in opening
it the seal is broken, then the act is punished
under Art. 227.
The closed document must be entrusted to the
public officer because if not, then he could not
be held liable under this article ( Pp. vs.
Lineses).
ARTICLE 229- REVELATION OF
SECRETS BY AN OFFICER
1) Offender Public officer, who knows the secret by
reason of his office or he has in his charge papers or
copies of papers which should not be published.
2) Acts- He reveals said secret without authority or
wrongfully delivers said papers.
The secrets referred to in this article are those which
have an official or public character, the revelations of
which may prejudice public interest. They refer to secrets
relative to the administration of government. This does
not include military secrets or those which may affect
the security of the State, as this constitutes Espionage.
Damage is not an essential element, altho a higher
penalty is imposed where the act has caused serious
damage to public interest.
ARTICLE 230- REVEALING
SECRETS OF PRIVATE
PERSONS

1) Offender Public office, who by reason
of his office, came to know of the secrets
of private persons.

2) Acts- he reveals such secrets without
authority or wrongfully delivers said
papers.
ARTICLE 231- OPEN
DISOBEDIENCE
1) Offenders Judicial or executive
officers
2) Acts- refuses openly to execute
judgment, decision or order of superior
authority.
3) Penalty AMa med. per. to PC min.
per.& TSD & a Fine not exceeding P1,000
Art. 232- Disobedience to Order of
Superior Officer when said Order
was suspended
1) Offender any public officer
2) Elements: a) Order from a superior
officer;
b) he orders the suspension
of the execution of the
order of his superior officer
c) superior disapproved the
suspension
d) disobeys the suspension &
refuses to execute the order.
3) Penalty- PC- min to med per. & PSD
ARTICLE 233- REFUSAL OF
ASSISTANCE
1) Offender Public Officer
2) Acts- he refuses to lend cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service, despite
demands.
Damage is not an essential element, but serious damage
will cause the imposition of higher penalty.
If there is serious damage- AMa-min to PC min. per. &
PSD & Fine not exceeding P1,000;
If no serious damage- AMa-med to max. per. & Fine of
P500.
Ex. Investigator of the NBI refuses to testify in court
resulting to the dismissal of the case; or a Medico-Legal
Officer who also failed to testify in court purposely.

Article 234-Refusal to Discharge
Elective Office
The penalty of Arresto Mayor or a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any person who, having
been elected by popular election to a
public office, shall refuse without legal
motive to be sworn in or to discharge the
duties of said office.
ARTICLE 235-MALTREATMENT
OF PRISONERS
1) Offenders Public officers/employees, in-charge of
the prisoners.
2) Acts: a) Overdo the correction and handling of a
prisoner, by the imposition of a punishment not
enshrined by law;
b) inflict such punishment in a cruel & humiliating
manner.
Pen.. PC-med to PM min.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort confession
or obtain information PM-min. & TAD & Fine of P6,000
plus another liability for Physical Injuries (Third
Degree).
These will constitute two crimes, not complex.
Prisoner a) convict by final judgment
b) detention prisoner.
Maltreatment refers to physical, moral,
psychological and other kinds (cruel & inhuman).
Prisoners here are equated to chattels- note-
that they are in the section of Infidelity in the
custody of documents & not in crimes against
persons.
Rationale- we are government of laws and not of
men.

Violation of civil liberties necessarily
undermines confidence in the government
and resort to torture indicates lack of
mental alertness and activity on the part of
the investigators (Pp. vs. Saluday).
If the person is not a convict or a
detention prisoner crime could either be
Coercion or Physical Injuries.
ARTICLE 236-ANTICIPATION OF
PUBLIC DUTIES
1) Offender Public official by appointment or
election, who is entitled to hold office.
2) Act- Assumed office without oath or bond.
3) Pen Fine P200 to P500.
ARTICLE 237- PROLONGING PERFORMANCE
OF PUBLIC OFFICE
1) Offender Public officer
2) Act- Continues to hold office beyond the
period allowed of him by law.
ARTICLE 238- ABANDONMENT
OF OFFICE/POSITION
1) Offender Public Officer
2) Act- Tendered his resignation
- not yet accepted
- left/abandons his office
- detriment of public service.
Crime becomes qualified if the public
official abandoned the office to evade the
discharge of his duties of preventing or
prosecuting or punishing crimes.
Distinction between Dereliction (Art. 208) and Art. 238:-
Art. 208- official does not abandon his office; he merely
fails to prosecute; while in Art. 238- he abandons his
office so as not to perform his duties.
ARTICLE 239- USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS-
1) Offender Public officer
2) Acts- Encroaches the powers of the legislative
branch;
- makes rules or regulations beyond the
scope of his authority or by repealing a law.
3) Pen- PC min. per.TSD & a Fine not exceeding
P1,000.
ARTICLE 240- USURPATION OF
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
1) Offender- Judge
2) Acts- assumes the powers pertaining to the
executive branch;
- obstructs the latter in the exercise of his
functions.
3) Pen- AMa med. To PC min. per.
ARTICLE 241- USURPATION OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS.
1) Offender Officers of the executive branch.
2) Acts- assumes judicial powers/ functions
- obstructs the execution of orders or
decisions.
Difference between these 3 arts. and that of Art.
177 (Usurpation of Official Functions/Authority)-
Art. 177- usurpation of official functions by any
public officer; while in here- this refers to
interference among the three branches of
government (Executive, Legislative & Judiciary).
ARTICLE 242- DISOBEYING
REQUEST FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
1) Offender public officer
- there is a proceeding before
him
- he is requested to refrain
from taking cognizance
- he continues such pro-
ceeding.
2) Pen- AMa & Fine P500
ARTICLE 243- ORDERS OR
REQUEST BY EXEC. OFFICER
TO ANY JUDL OFF.
1) Offender Executive Officer
2) Acts- address or orders or suggests to any
judicial authority relative to a case or business
coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
court.
3) Pen- AMa- and a Fine not exceeding P500.
ARTICLE 244- UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS-
committed by a public officer who knowingly
nominates or appoints a person w/ lacking legal
qualification.
Pen AMa & Fine of P500
ARTICLE 245- ABUSES AGAINST
CHASTITY
A) Elems. of par. 1- 1) Offender is a public
officer
2) There is a matter
pending before him
in which a woman is
interested, or w/ res-
pect thereto, he is
required to submit a
report or consult with
the superior.
3) He solicits or makes an indecent
or immoral advances upon said
woman.
Par. 2- a) Offender warden or any public
officer in charge with the custody of a prisoner or
persons under arrest;
b) Acts- He solicits or makes immoral or
indecent advances to a woman under his
custody.
If the person solicited is the wife, daughter or
sister in law or relatives within the same degree
by affinity, the act punished under par. 2
becomes qualified. The mother is not included.
Crime is committed by mere solicitation.