CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

August 26, 2014 (Complete)

Transcribed by: Ela Velarde
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Actually, dalawaanglamannyan: crimes against national security and crimes against the law of nations.
You remember article 2, the exception to the principle of territoriality. Extraterritoriality.
The first here is treason.
Art. 114. Treason. Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the
Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death
and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same
overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph
1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000
pesos. (As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31, 1945).
Breach of allegiance, meaning that the offender here owes allegiance to the sovereign or to the country. If
you do not owe allegiance eh walakangnabreach because you commit acts against the government of the
sovereign. Thats why the offenders here are Filipino citizens. Not only Filipino citizens but also resident
aliens or likewise an alien residing in the Philippines.
Why is a resident alien included? Kasidiba the offender should owe allegiance to the government? When in
fact ang alien kay unsa man iyangi-allegiance ngadili man sya citizen sacountry? There is such a thing as
temporary allegiance by which (while we owe permanent allegiance) the resident alien owe temporary
allegiance. Thats why they may also be offenders under this article.
Very important is that treason cannot be committed during peace time. It is a war crime. It can only be
committed during war. While there may be treasonous acts or acts which may rightfully be treated as
treason, as long as it is peace time, it cannot be considered as treason. It will become treason if war is
declared. Thats why, angmga cases natinsa treason happened during world war 2. Kasi this is a war crime.
Where do you commit this? Within the Philippines or elsewhere. Ito yungsinasabikona extraterritoriality.
The treasonous act or the crime may be committed here or may be committed outside the Philippines.
Pero dba sabinatinnaang characteristic ng criminal law is territoriality but how come? But this is the
exception. Even if the act is committed outside. It can be punished here.
Mode of committing treason:
1. Levying war against the Philippines
What do you mean by levying war? It means an actual assembling of persons or men for the
purpose of executing a treasonable design by force. A formal declaration of war is not
necessary.
2. Adhering to the enemy
It means favoring the enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Please take note that they must
go together: adherence + giving of aid or comfort.
Basic principle in criminal law is intent is not punishable. Because adherence is merely in
your head. When you adhere to the enemy, you can adhere all you want. There is no treason
there. But if adherence and then you act or give them actual aid and comfort eh
ibangestoryanayan. Because with what is in your mind eh may overt act kana.

Page 1 of 125

Kapag reverse eh hindi din pwd. Giving aid or comfort without adhering. Mere giving of aid
or comfort is not enough. For example, nagbaligyakaugpapelkanang used newspaper
taposkasalipala dun is mga documents ng country motaposnapuntasa enemy. Can you be
liable for treason there? No, you cannot be liable for treason. Especially, since treason
cannot be committed through culpa. Reckless imprudence kasinabigaymona? No, there must
be intent to betray. Thats the case of People vs. Icaro (89 Phil 12) and People vs. Bernardino
(93 Phil 640). Where it says adhering to the enemy and giving aid or comfort it means that a
citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or conviction,
disloyalties against his counties policies or interest. Adherence alone without aid or comfort
does not constitute treason although it may be inferred from the over act of treason.
So what is aid and comfort? It is an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy
in the conduct of war against the traitors country and an act which weakens or tends to
weaken the power of the traitors country to resist or attack the enemy. It must be a deed or
physical activity and not merely a mental operation.
Paanokungnagbigayka ng perakasibuotanka. That could be considered as giving aid or
comfort. But dependeyansya dun sa adhering and also knowledge.

One unique thing about treason is that this is the only crime (in the whole of the RPC) which has this Twowitness Rule. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to
the same overt act x xx. All other crimes, no matter how grave or evil eh pwdkamaconvict based only on
1 witness. But here in treason, there should be at least 2 witnesses to the same over act.
Suppose your overt act is nagpatrolyasya. So you must have 2 witnesses to that 1 particular act of
patrolling the neighborhood for the enemy. So that if the allegation is (for example) you were patrolling on
the night of the 26thmeron ding 27tapos the prosecution has 2 witnesses but 1 witness is as to the 26 and
the other witness to the 27. That is actual disparity(?) to the ___ because they have to at least to testify to
the same overt act. If the over act is separable, then, both should testify to the separate act.
Unless you have the 2 witnesses, the only other way to convict the person of treason is when the accused
makes a confession in open court.x xxor on confession of the accused in open court.Otherwise, you must
have 2 witnesses. When you say confession, para itong articles 13 na mitigating circumstance. Therefore,
the confession must be before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Also, this will exclude
extrajudicial confession.
Going back to adherence. There are some cases which the SC said that it is enough proof of adherence.
People vs. Adriano (78 Phil 563): the accused joined the Makapili as a member bsagwalasya nag-apil2x sa
meeting. The SC said: Being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. It is not necessary, except for
the purpose of increasing the punishment, that the defendant actually went to battle or committed
nefarious acts against his country or countrymen. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself
at the enemy's call to fight side by side with him when the opportune time came even though an
opportunity never presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort.
The enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals of the
country with which his was at war. It furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces
augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the
accused and his kind who were ready to strike at their own people. The principal effect of it was no
difference from that of enlisting in the invader's army.
Bakitkailangandalawangtalaga to the same overt act? It can be used for vengeance or personal vendetta.
Ang usual rationale dito is diba during war, it is an extraordinary situation, usual yanna may mga rally etc.
but if you are branded a traitor, because it is not only you who will suffer but also your children and your
childrens children. In other words, mapass on ang stigma saimongmgaanak. Years after yung WW II kay
gina-ostrasizegihaponsyabisaganaknasya. The stigma remains kaya they have to be careful in convicting
people of treason.
Other examples of acts which constitute treason:

Aiding Japanese soldiers in arresting and torturing persons suspected of being guerrillas. People vs.
De los Santos (87 Phil 721)
Being an informer or a member of the Japanese military police. People vs. Fernando (79 Phil. 719)

Page 2 of 125

Serving in the Japanese Army as agent or spy and participating in the raid of guerrilla hideout.
People vs. Muoz (79 Phil 702)

Acts not considered treason:

People vs. Perez: Furnishing women to the enemy. It does not directly nor materially tend to
improve the war efforts of the enemy. Ngano man? Kay maluyasiguro? Baliktadnaman dun sa
Vietnam war kasigifeednilaangmgababae eh yunpala eh may sakityungmgababae.

Accepting a position in the government of the occupying enemy.

o Why is that? Kasidiba if you are accepting a position it means that you are adhering and at
the same time you are giving aid or comfort, but why is it not an act of treason? Sabikasi,
when there is war, the municipal laws would continue(?) kagaya ng peace and order. Hindi
man kailangannamay occupying ___kasikailangan man talaganamagcontributesa peace and
order of the country.(Transcribers Note: hindiako sure sa last 2 preceding sentences kasi
super hina ng bosesni sir and hes mumbling most of the words. Sory. ) It is not necessarily
treasonous if you serve in the government of the occupying enemy.
o But there must be a distinction as to the position you are occupying. If your position is of a
policy determining nature, then that is already treasonous. Dun kadapatsamga usual like
tagalinis or tigbantay. But when it is already policy determining, it will already be treasonous.

Defenses raised:
1. Change of sovereignty.
Accordingly, there is suspended allegiance. According to the SC, that is not a defense
because what is suspended is not sovereignty but rather, it is the exercise of sovereignty.
The allegiance of a citizen is not abrogated by the occupation since the sovereignty de jure
is not transferred to the occupier. That is a political law doctrine.
2. Loss of citizenship
Your very crime now becomes you very defense. You commit treason but then kasi you say I
renounce my allegiance to you, ditonaako. Yun nangayonmagiging defense mo kay
walakanang allegiance.
3. Acting under the influence of uncontrollable fear
Remember the Moreno case? Yung sina Sasaki at Susuki? In this case dibaangsabi dun is if
you do not do as ordered then, you have to come with us. But that is not uncontrollable
fear.
Uncontrollable fear, for purposes of treason, kailangan imminent death yan.Only the fear of
imminent death is acceptable as defense.
Also, together with rebellion, meron din itong absorption. Therefore, there can be no complex crime of
treason with murder because murder is inherent in treason. Murder and physical injuries is inherent in the
crime of treason characterized by the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy. The over act of giving aid
and comfort is inseparable from the treason itself or it cannot be considered a separate crime.
Take note also that treason is a continuing offense. You can commit how many acts of treason but you will
only be charged with 1 crime of treason.It can be committed by executing either a single or several
intentional overt acts. A person who commits treason is not liable for as many crimes of treasons as the
overt acts he has intentionally committed to the aid of the enemy. All over acts the accused has done
constitute but a single offense. Thats the ruling in the case of Guinto vs. Veluz (77 Phil 801).
Modifying circumstances:
Aggravating circumstances are not necessary to the commission of the overt act. Cruelty and/or ignominy
are appreciated in treason.
What are the aggravating circumstances inherent in treason? Treachery, abuse of superior strength and
evident premeditation. Adherence and giving aid and comfort to the enemy is usually a long continued
process requiring reflective and persistent determination and planning.

Page 3 of 125

Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. The conspiracy or proposal to commit the
crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos,
and prisioncorreccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Lets connect this to Article 8. In article 8, it is not per se punishable. This time in article 115, it is
punishable. So the mere proposal and the mere conspiracy is already a crime.
What happens if there is a proposal and then the proposal is accepted (so there is a conspiracy) and the
both proceed to make treasonous acts? What happens then to the proposal or conspiracy? They became
the manner of incurring criminal liability. They cease to exist as separate crimes even if, indeed, they are
separate crimes. But, if treason is actually committed, they are absorbed by treason. They only become
the manner of incurring criminal liability.
Why proposal and conspiracy to commit treason is punished when, in fact, they are mere preparatory acts?
Because it is the very existence of the state that is threatened with this crime.
Take note that, here, the 2 witness rule does not apply.
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of
the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them,
conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of
the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished
as an accessory to the crime of treason.
Misprision. Kanangnakadungogkanganaay conspiracy against the government taposdapatmagreportka.
What is punished here is the failure to report the conspiracy. If what you have knowledge of are treasonous
acts actually committed, walaylabotdiri. The offender is a citizen only.
The last part, referring to the penalty, which says x xxshall be punished as an accessory to the crime of
treason. So, it does not actually state the penalty. It only says naang penalty mo is parehosa accessory sa
treason. Naay penalty didtosa principal tapos 2 degrees lower dayon.
There is conspiracy peroyungnagconspire is kapamilyamo (husband, wife, etc). Now sabihinmona exempt
akodahilsa article 20 because of relationship. Pwedebayun? Remember that article 20 refers to exception
that is applicable only to a person acting as an accessory and your relative is a principal. Here in article
116, you are a principal for the crime of misprision, only that your penalty is that of an accessory to
treason. Article 20 cannot apply because you are a principal.
Art. 117. Espionage. The penalty of prisioncorreccional shall be inflicted upon any person who:
1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation
to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or
2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information
referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign
nation.chanrobles virtual law library
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.
Merong 117 but meron ding special law. Mas comprehensive ang special law. Commonwealth Act No.
616:AN ACT TO PUNISH ESPIONAGE AND OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY. CA 616
provides for other ways of committing espionage kasisa 117 eh dalawa lang.
x xxWithout authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to
obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense
of the Philippine Archipelago;x x x

Take note ha: to obtain. It is not necessary nana-obtain moyung information. Bastaangiyong goal
in entering those establishments is to obtain information.

Page 4 of 125

Espionage can be committed during both war time and peace time. Ang treason talaga is war crime talaga.
Kung wlang war, pwdkangmapasokditosa espionage. Usually, in espionage, the effender is a foreigner. Sa
treason, more likely, the offender is a citizen. So the concept is the same with treason and espionage,
perowalangalang treason during peace time. For example, the act of supplying military secrets. If it is
committed during peace time, that is espionage and it cannot be treason. If you commit it during war,
treason sya.
Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who,
by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
You are endangering the peace and security of the country. Nangitakaug away. Usual example here is
burning the flag of the other country. It is considered as provoking war or giving motives for reprisal.
Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. The penalty of prisioncorreccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who,
on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by
competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country. Any person who in time of war, shall have
correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished:
1. By prisioncorreccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government;
2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and
3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the
enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.
You are not supposed to communicate with the enemy. Sleeping with the enemy. Parangganunyan.
Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who,
owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by
competent authority.
The attempted or the consummated is the same thing. Whether you attempt to flee or you actually go to
the enemy country is punished under 121.
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of
its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or
personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.
Lahiangpricay and mutiny ha!
Piracy it is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done with
animofurandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
Dati, it is in the high seas. But now, because of RA 7659, whether robbery in the high seas or in Philippines
waters, it is still piracy.
What do you mean by animofurandi? It means intent to steal.
How is this committed? Mode of committing piracy:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
2. By seizing in the vessel the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its
compliments or passengers.

Page 5 of 125

The offenders are not members of its compliment or passengers. In other words, they must be a stranger
to the vessel.
What if the piracy is committed by a stowaway? A stowaway robbed a vessel in the high seas or in
Philippine waters, is that piracy? Passenger man sya, nisakay man sya. Ano man ibigsabihin ng passenger
dito? Walangproblemasa compliment kasi this refers to the crew of the vessel. These stowaways are
actually considered as strangers to the vessel. Hence, if they rob, piracy anglabasnyan because they are
not passengers and they are also not members of the compliment or the crew.
The attack on the vessel comes from outside. But the seizure of the cargo takes place inside of the vessel
itself. Seizure may be committed by persons which smuggled themselves into the vessel for that purpose.
Since they are neither crew nor passengers, they are considered strangers to the vessel.
I said earlier that RA 7659 included Philippine waters. Now, yungmga acts ng pirates..kasidati the original
concept was that piracy is committed on the high seas. What do you mean by high seas? Bastakay
dilisaatong waters, whether its the waters of another country or international waters. Because, as far as
we are concerned, high seas nanakasi that was the original concept. But 7659 included Philippine waters.
So now, whether the act is committed outside of Philippine waters or inside eh piracy nayansya.
The problem here is 7659 did not amend the other part here not being a member of its complement nor a
passenger. Kasi, if you remember,merontayong PD 532: An Act Punishing the Act of Aiding or Abetting
Piracy.
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 provides:
SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. - The following shall mean and be understood, as follows:
d. Piracy. -Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its
cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any
person including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters, shall be
considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided
(underscoring supplied).
Paanoyanna there seems to be a conflict. Because the offender under PD 532 includes any person.
Peroditosa Article 122 kay wala man gi-amend ang phrase nga not being a member of its complement nor
a passenger. Saato pa, dihalangnasya.
According to the SC in People vs. Tulip (August 30, 2001)there is actually no conflict between these 2; they
can be harmonized. They exist harmoniously as separate laws. Anolabasnyanngayon? Sa PD 532, offender
is any person. So kung any person, dun kasa 532. Now, under article 122, kutoblangkasanot being a
member of the compliment or a passenger. Kung 122 constrained kasa phrase nayun.
Resultnito is a member of the compliment or a passenger cannot be liableunder 122 but can be liable
under PD 532 because it says there any person. So whether you are a passenger or not or a member of
the compliment or not, liable ka under PD 532.
Relevant ruling from People vs. Tulip (August 30,
2001):

To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal

Code, before its amendment, provided that
piracy must be committed on the high seas by
any person not a member of its complement nor
a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by
Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the
pertinent provision was widened to include
offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On
the other hand, under Presidential Decree No.

Page 6 of 125

532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on

piracy embraces any person including "a
passenger or member of the complement of said
vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or
not, a member of the complement or not, any
person is covered by the law.

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor

amended the provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no
contradiction between the two laws. There is
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no
need to construe or interpret the law. All the
presidential decree did was to widen the
coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to
protect the citizenry as well as neighboring
states from crimes against the law of nations. As
expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of
Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among
the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by
the penal statutes of all countries." For this
reason, piracy under the Article 122, as
amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree
No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

September 1 part 1crim 2

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall
attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a
passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment,
or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.
Piracy. Definition: its like robbery but on the high seas. Ang piracy now because of RA 7659, will be piracy
whether the act is committed on the high seas or the Philippine waters. And you have to compare it with
not only RA 7659 but also PD 532 (anti-highway robbery). Now the important thing to remember there is
that: In piracy, the offender is supposed to be a stranger to the vessel. If you remember that a compliment
or a passenger, hindi ka magfall under article 122. On the otherhand, ang PD 532, the offender there is
any person. So you distinguish that, kasi ang sabi ng Article 122 not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger you may think that there is some sort of a conflict but in the case of
People vs Pulin (?) August 13, 2001. The Supreme Court said that this two laws they exist harmoniously.
Kasi kung any person, dun ka sa 532, kung ma apply mo ang 122 then dun ka sa 122.
Take note of how piracy is committed. The modes of committing piracy:
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or the Philippine waters
2. By seizing the whole of part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its
compliments or passengers.
So just take note that if you are a pirate you can be arrested and tried anywhere because what you
committed is not a crime against one state but all countries. Justis humane generis (?) or offense on all
mankind.

Page 7 of 125

So ano itong munity? Beause the article actually talks not only of piracy but also mutiny. Mutiny unlawful
resistance to a superior officer or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship against the
authority of its commander.
So mutiny and piracy are both against the law of nations. Now you can distinguish these two crimes: In
piracy, the persons who attack a vessel or seize its cargo are stranger to said vessel; while in mutiny they
are the members of the crew or passengers.
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be
imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding
article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they 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.
Now, 123 gives you qualifying circumstances with respect to piracy. And this is where the distinction of
whether the offenders comes from inside or from outside the vessel will come to play. Because if you read
the article, yung circumstances mentioned in Article 123, it says Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same Who are they? So when you board, then the premise is that you come
from outside. How can you board a ship when you are already on board. The word they here will only refer
to pirates. Sa number 2, you can considered they because this can encompass the pirates and mutineers
whenever the pirates they have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves so you
can considere both pirates and mutineers here. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homiced, physical injuries or rape take note that these are specific crimes ha? So these are called special
qualifying circumstances, so you do not complex them! They become elements of the crime qualified
piracy.
Is there such a thing as qualified mutiny? Sinabi nga natin dito (referring to number 2) na pwede pirates
and mutineers, so pwede. But as I said earlier, number one cannot apply to mutineers because andun na
nga sila sa loob.
Piracy is seajacking, we also have a law that prohibits hijacking. Pagsinabing hijack, eroplano ni xa.
Anyway, ano yung special law, that is: RA 6235 an act prohibiting certain acts inimical to civil aviation. This
is one where it is hijacking even if the airplane is still in the ground because it is hijacking if the aircraft is
considered as being in flight. Anyway, when do you determine if an airplane is in flight? It is in flight from
the moment all its external doors are closed. That is why from that definition even if the airplane is still on
the ground, it has not taken flight, under the eyes of the law it is already in flight. And if you compel a
change in the course or designation of the aircraft while it is in flight that is violative of this law, RA 6235.
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft
of Philippine Registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from
the moment all of its s external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors is opened
for disembarkation. XXX
Now does this apply to foreign aircraft?
XXX It shall be unlawful for any person to compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in the Philippine
territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is within the said territory.
Now, this is something that you should remember in relation to foreign aircraft, the foreign aircraft kasi if it
is already in a foreign land, it is still considered in flight even if its doors are open. It is considered
in transit.
Four situations governed by anti hijacking law:
1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots
thereof to change the course or designation of the aircraft;
2. Usurping or seizing control of the aircraft of foreign registry while within the Philippine territory,
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of the Philippine territory;
3. carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines,
any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substances, and

Page 8 of 125

4. loading or shipping or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive or poisonous substances if this was done not in
accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the air transportation office on this
matter.
Going back to the definition of in flight, there is a presumption that there are passengers. So accordingly if
it is not suppose to fly anywhere, there are no passengers, the doors are closed and the aircraft is to be
brought somewhere for repairs, so even if the doors are closed, the aircraft is not to be considered as in
flight.
Note: the aircraft is considered as already in flight even if the engine has not yet started.
Take note also of the acts that qualify hijacking:
1. whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
2. whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape. (similar to
piracy)

Title two
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the state
What is the fundamental law of the state? The Constitution. So here these are the crimes against the
constitution. We are talking here of the Bill of Rights. So you have here, state power vs citizen. The Bill of
Rights is there to protect the citizens of the state. Now, in this title, all the crimes here are crimes of
the state against the individual. Therefore the offender here can only be the representative of the
state., the offender here is a public officer in other words. But take note there is one exception here in this
title, where the offender is not necessarily a public officer. That is Article 133, offending the religious
feelings. Where the offender can be a citizen as well as a public officer.
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. Any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than
fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal
grounds for the detention of any person.
Now, arbitrary detention, actually there are three kinds.
1. Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground (article 124)
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (article 125)
3. Delaying release (Article 126).
Anong the violate dito na right sa bill of rights? The right to liberty and due process.
Article 125 ( I think sir is referring to article 124), it only talks about a public officer who detains somebody
without legal ground. Ganun lang yun, thats arbitrary detention. The rest of this article has something to
do with the penalties na.
If it is a felony when you detain somebody without legal ground, it presupposes that there are legal
grounds diba? This article also enumerate what these legal grounds are:

Page 9 of 125

The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement
of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Now take note that the defendant here should be a public officer who is authorized to detain. Not all
officers may be liable for arbitrary detention, only those authorized to detain somebody, like policemen.
Now, if a private citizen does this act, the same act committed by a public officer, that cannot be arbitrary
detention, pag private nagiging illegal detention, it is not arbitrary it is illegal. Illegal because a private
citizen has no business in detaining somebody except yung citizens arrest, so its illegal when you do that
whereas (23:27)

September 1 2ndpart
Whereas if youre a public officer authorized to detain, it becomes arbitrary if you detain somebody when
you know that it is without legal ground. The only legal ground there is, as I said is The commission of a
crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the
patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Commission of a crime yungsa political law, yungsa warrantless arrest:
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In all these situations, the public officer may arrest you without a warrant under any of these 3. Outside
these 3, the only way you can detain somebody is with a warrant (warrant of arrest). If warrantless arrest,
pwedeyun, and the public officer will not be liable for arbitrary detention as long as pumasokxa dun sa Sec
5 Rule 113.
And there are various cases there.
US vsSamonte
"IN THE PRESENCE OR WITHIN THE VIEW," CONSTRUED. An offense is committed in the presence or
within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when
the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof; or the offense is continuing, or has not been consummated, at the
time the arrest is made. (3 Cyc., 886; Ramsey v. State, 17 S.E., 613; Dilger v. Com., 11 S.W., 651; State v.
McAfee, 12 S.E., 435; State v. Williams, 15 S.E., 554; Hawkins v. Lutton, 70 N.W., 483.)
G.R. No. 12779, U.S. v. Santos, 36 Phil. 853
Probable cause for an arrest without warrant is such a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves a to warrant a reasonable man in believing the accused to
be guilty. Besides reasonable ground of suspicion, action in good faith is another protective bulwark for the
officer. Under such conditions, even if the suspected person is later found to be innocent, the peace officer
is not liable.
G.R. No. 46250, People v. Ancheta, 68 Phil. 415
The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime, does not presuppose as a
necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence of a crime. For the detention to be
perfectly legal, it is sufficient that the agent or person in authority making the arrest has reasonably
sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the

Page 10 of 125

same grounds exist to believe that the person sought to be detained participated therein (Decision of the
Supreme Court of Spain of November 5, 1892).
In crimes of arbitrary detention (article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, which is equivalent to article 200 of
the old Penal Code), the legality of the detention made by a person in authority or an agent thereof, as
stated by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of January 27, 1855, does not depend upon the
judicial and much less judicial fact of a crime which, at the time of its commission, is not and cannot
definitively be determined for lack of the necessary data and of jurisdiction, but upon the nature of the
deed, wherefrom such characterization may reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to whom
the law at that moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen.
Can the crime of Arbitrary Detention be committed by simple negligence? Yes. People vsMisaarbitrary
detention through simple negligence may be committed.Although he acted without malice, he committed
arbitrary detention through simple negligence since he could not ascertain from the justice of the peace
the facts of the case before acting. (I couldnt find the case)
People vsOliva Even if the offended parties were occasionally allowed to leave the Municipal Building
where they were confined after their arrest, they could not__ outside if they were to terrorized to take
advantage of the __ and basically return to the possibility __ , arbitrary detention still exists. (Pramis
inaudible and dilinakomakitaangcase )
Is there a minimum period? Is there a rule how many hours, how many days? Walanamangsinabi. In
People vsAlorente(?) - detained for 1 hour only. Case of Braganza the priest was detained for less
than half an hour.
Do you have a remedy if you are detained unjustly? Take note of RA 7309
Republic Act No. 7309

March 30, 1992

AN ACT CREATING A BOARD OF CLAIMS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF
UNJUST IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION AND VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Section 3. Who may File Claims. The following may file claims for compensation before the Board:
(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of
a judgment of acquittal;
(b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code under
a final judgment of the court;
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For purposes of this Act, violent crimes shall include rape
and shall likewise refer to offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical
and/or psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or
committed with torture, cruelly or barbarity.
So if you are a victim of Arbitrary Detention under the RPC, pwedekamagfile under section 3 of RA 7309.
Kaya Board of Claims kasi mag claim kasagubyerno.
How much angbayad for your claim of Arbitrary Detention? Etoyungmasaya!
Section 4.Award Ceiling. For victims of unjust imprisonment or detention, the compensation shall be
based on the number of months of imprisonment or detention and every fraction thereof shall be
considered one month; Provided, however, That in no case shall such compensation exceed One Thousand
pesos (P1,000.00) per month.
In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board may approve a claim shall not exceed Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or the amount necessary to reimburse the claimant the expenses incurred
for hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other expenses directly related to
injury, whichever is lower. This is without prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies
under existing laws.

Page 11 of 125

Section 5. When to File Claims. Any person entitled to compensation under this Act must, within six (6)
months after being released from imprisonment or detention, or from the date the victim suffered damage
or injury, file his claim with the Department, otherwise, he is deemed to have waived the same. Except as
provided for in this Act, no waiver of claim whatsoever is valid.
Section 6.Filing of Claims by Heirs. In case of death or incapacity of any person entitled to any award
under this Act, the claim may be filed by his heirs, in the following order: by his surviving spouse,
children, natural parents, brother and/or sister.

Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The penalties
provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall
detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or
their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalent.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.So you can
see there are times there: 12, 18 and 36. Be familiar with the time.
Be able to distinguish this from the previous article. Kasiang previous article you are detained without legal
ground. Here, there is a legal ground for your detention, your being detained is not the crime; the crime is
the delay in the delivery to the authorities. The premise here is that, the arrest is lawful but the problem is
that the arresting authority did not deliver you to the proper judicial authority within the period allowed by
law.
So we have at time to follow: 12, 18, 36. Take note that this is NOT strictly followed, this is not literal. The
meaning of the law is that you should deliver the detained person at the first opportunity. The usual
example ditokay you were unable to detain the person because of an insuperable cause like
kungnaakasabukid or saisla, dilikakatabok. Basta you are able to file at the first opportunity. Those periods
12, 18, 36 these are the period for rebellion or invasion where the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus is
suspended because the period is different. You are supposed to be delivered to the authorities after 72
hours or 3 days. So meaning, whenever there is a rebellion or invasion and the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended you may be detained. There will be a problem as far as the detaining officer is
concerned if you are still not delivered to the authorities after 72 hours of 3 days kasimaging delay nga in
the delivery of detained persons. So take note of that.
When you say delivery of the detained person unsaon man na? bitbitonnimoangtao? Dili. Delivery is not
physical delivery, it means filing the proper case. And when I say the filing the proper case, this is not
filing before the fiscal because dapat filing in court that is the reckoning factor here. Judicial authority
means the courts of justice or judges vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or
confinement of a person charged for having committed a public offense, so the Supreme Court and the
inferior courts. The fiscal is not a judicial authority/entity because he cannot issue a warrant of arrest. So
the proper authority here is someone who can issue a warrant of arrest. So it legally consists of making a
charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner, or the filing of an information. The filing of a complaint,
yunyungsaMTC, or the filing of the fiscal of an information in court. So take note of that, the crime really
has nothing to do with the detention because the premise is that the detention is lawful, the arrest is
lawful. It becomes a crime because the information was not filed within the period.
In relation to this are the rights of person detained:
Republic Act No. 7438

April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his
counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

Page 12 of 125

Of course a person detained without a warrant can ask for Preliminary Investigation but he has to sign a
waiver of Article 125. Because what do you call that? Inquest diba?If you are arrested after the commission
of the crime, inquest yan.Pwedekapa muhiritug PI but you have to sign the waiver.
As a recap, you have arrest and detention. If the arrest and detention is pursuant to a warrant, of course
there is no crime. But if the arrest and detention is without a warrant, dependeyun.Magiging violation of
Article 124 if the detention is without legal ground, but even if the detention is with legal ground there may
still be a possible violation of Article 125.
Art. 126. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of
the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of
such person.
The prisoner is supposed to be released, and the offender here is the public officer who delays the release
of such person. So example if diliihatagsa warden ang notice of release.
Art. 127. Expulsion. The penalty of prisioncorreccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the Philippine
Islands or shall compel such person to change his residence.
The usual example here is Villa VicenciovsLukban the case involving davao. Kasiyungmga prostitutes
surreptitiously they were shipped to regions unknown, perodavao city diay to! Haha! Perokasi, you cannot
force people to change their domicile, that is expelling them.
Who can do that? Who can expel? Kasisabisa provision who, not being thereunto authorized by law so
there are instances that that a public officer may be authorized by law to expel any person any person
from the Philippine Islands or compel such person to change his residence.Pwedeang president yung
Bureau of Immigration. Persona non grata!
G.R. No. L-10280, September 30, 1963 QUA CHEE GAN vs. THE DEPORTATION BOARD
Under the present and existing laws, therefore, deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in two
ways: by order of the President, after due investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code, and by the Commissioner of Immigration, upon recommendation by the Board of
Commissioners, under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

CRIMINAL LAW 2: SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

Okay, we are still at CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE. We are now at
violation of domicile.
There is a corresponding violation in the constitution here. Actually, these are the penal sanction for
unreasonable searches and seizures. Actually, articles 128, 129, and 130, all these articles are violations
of unreasonable searches and seizures by the state against the individual.
Now, article 128.
Article 128. Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other
effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

Page 13 of 125

If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
How many ways are there in violating article 128? There are three ways namely:
1. When the public officer enters any dwelling against the will of the owner;
2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
3. by refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same.
You look at the first mode of violating 128. Please take note of the phrase against the will of the owner
because against the will is not synonymous with without the consent of the owner. So it may be na the
owner may not have given consent but it is not against his will. So, for example, the door is open, tapos
the public officer enters, that is not necessarily against the will of the owner. So pag sinabing against the
will, dapat may prohibition talaga from the owner to the public officer not to enter.
Now, the second mode. After the public officer enters, he searches papers and other effects found therein
without the previous consent of such owner. So this time it is enough na there is no consent from the
owner.
And number 3, by refusing to leave after having surreptiously entered said dwelling and after having been
required to leave the same.
Anong surreptioulsy? Kanang pina ninja ang pag sulod. Tapos katong nasakpan na, gipahawa siya pero
wala jud siya nihawa. Thats already a violation of domicile.
Now, a police officer can always enter a domicile BUT he has to have a warrant. Kaya lang kasi ito nagging
violation, kasi he is not authorized by a search warrant to search. Pero if may warrant na, hindi yan
violation. That is what you mean by not being authorized by judicial order. Because when you say
judicial order, that means a warrant.
The next article,
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Dito may search warrant na. The public officer has a warrant. So what is the crime here? The crime here is
in the service of the warrant or in the procurement of the warrant. Kasi when you get a warrant your
supposed to go the judge and convince the judge to give you a search warrant. Kunwari ang NBI, they
want to search a house, hindi pwede na diretcho lang yan. Dapat mag apply sila ng warrant sa judge.
Ano ba ang process nyan? They will produce witnesses na magsabi na yang taong yan merong talagang
mga kung ano2x nakatago jan or there was a crime committed or may mga contraband jan. so you have
to convince the judge. So iconvince mo ang judge by the testimonies and affidavits of the witnesses.

Page 14 of 125

Now, ito ang test jan if maliciously obtained ba ang warrant. The test is whether the affidavit filed in
support of the application for search warrant has been drawn in such a manner that PERJURY could be
charged thereon and affiant can be held liable for damages caused.
This is precisely why, if you look at the first part of the article, in addition to the liability attaching to
the offender for the commission of any other offense, this is why if for example you commit perjury,
tapos you use that perjury to obtain the warrant maliciously, you cannot use article 48 complex crime for
that. meaning one being a necessary offense for the commission of another offense. Why? Because it is
expressly stated here in the article na in addition.. so we will have now two separate crimes here. So we
will have PERJURY and SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED. take note ha, separate sila.
So that is the test. remember that.
Now, the other one. When there is abuse in the service of those legally obtained. How do abuse? When
you exceed your authority or by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally procured.
So yan, kunwari ang warrant na issue for search of certain documents pero instead of searching for
documents, ang gipangita nimo furniture. Mga flatscreen tv.mga ipad. And also pwede rin na if upon
service of the warrant, you commit physical injuries dun sa mga tao sa loob. Take note ha IN ADDITION
DIN ang penalty dito ha. So you will be liable for physical injuries plus itong article na toh.
So in order to study these articles completely you have to relate this to political law. Yung mga requisites
for a valid search warrant. Like yung description of the place to be searched, dapat particularized or
specified. The purpose in requiring the place to be searched or the things to be seized be particularly
described is not to leave to the officer the discretion on what articles to be searched or seized to the end
that unreasonable searches or seizures may not be made. So that there will be no abuses.
Now, the third kind of violation of domicile is searching domicile without witnesses.
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in
cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any
person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the
presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
Again the premise here is that there is a warrant. Ang problem ditto is, you did not comply with the
requirements of the search. What is the requirement? That there should be witnesses. So yung una, yung
owner ng place or if he is absent, yung family niya, or in default of his family, two witnesses residing in the
same localaty.
So usually what is done here is you get the barangay officials. Take note of this one case, ang issue is that
ang search was conducted simultaneously in several rooms of the house. Now, according to the court, the
owner cannot watch the search at the same time kay simulataneous man. So even if the owner was
present, may violation parin.
Next article.
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. - The penalty of
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or shall dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any
person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.

Page 15 of 125

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or
hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
The premise here is that the meeting is peaceful. Kay if peaceful yan you cannot prohibit anything jan.
Walang problema if you interrupt or prohibit a meeting if it is not peaceful or it has ceased to be peaceful.

The problem here is dun sa prohibit eh. How can you prohibit something a meeting which has not yet
turned violent diba? Wala pa gani tapos mag una2x na ka? So paraang preemptive measures lang? like in
one case, a permit to hold a rally was denied kasi in the past, this group, ang mga rallies nila always turn
violent. Nagkakagulo talaga always. So this time, yung mayor hindi na nag issue ng permit. Ano sabi ng
supreme court? Sakto lang yung ginawa ng mayor. The mayor may prohibit kasi there is pattern na eh.
May pattern of violence na eh.

Although in another case, the polgoso or (fugoso) case, if the the purpose to hold the meeting is lawful, the
permit to hold the meeting cannot be denied! The mayor can be compelled to issue the permit.

Another case. PP vs REYES. A meeting was held by the Iglesia ni cristo on a public plaza. meron silang
permit. The minister of iglesia delivered his sermon attacking the catholic church and other churches. And
then accused a policeman of having fired two shots in the air and as a result of which they dispersed. The
SC said, article 131 is violated. Sabi ng SC na a meeting held in public place sponsored by a
religious sect is not a religious ceremony.
So this is not an interruption of a religious
ceremony. This is simply a meeting. So ditto siya na article punishable.

In relation to this article, please take note of the PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT of 1985 particularly section 9.

Section 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities - Law enforcement agencies shall

not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to adequately ensure public
safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may
be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meter away from the area of
activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times.

Ang requirement of the law is that may police pero 100 meters away. Dapat nakauniform. Tapos bawal ang
baril. Kaya ang mga dala ng police jan mga baton lang and mga shield etc. basta bawal ang baril.

Which reminds me of that aspect of 131. if you prohibit a meeting na wala pa, hindi mo talaga alam if it is
violent or it is peaceful. Its like a preemptive measure lang talaga.

I am reminded of the policy under the last administration of GMA. Ano nga yon? CPR- Calibrated Preemptive Response. Meron bang ganon? Kuyaw masyado mag-isip yan sila ba noh? Anyway sige na lang.
Parang gi-struck down yata yun ng Supreme Court. Yun nga eh, parang yung international law on the right
of pre-emptive strike which was used by NATO doon sa Europe. Parang yung sa Iraq, right of pre-emptive
strike daw kasi merong WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Pila na sila ka-tuig didto pero wala jud sila
nakita didto. Anyway, kalimti na lang to, basta ang importante, nasulod nila ang Iraq.

Page 16 of 125

Ok, Section 10 of PD 880 (Public Assembly ACT), cannot carry any kind of fire arm, but they may be
equipped with batons or sticks, shield, etc. Now, tear gas, smoke grenades or water cannons, or any
similar anti-riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or
serious threats of violence or deliberate destruction of property. Ok? In other words, these anti-riot devices
may be used but only as a last resort. Kasi what is in place under the law is NOT the CPR, what is in place
is the policy of MAXIMUM TOLERANCE. Naalala ko yung last na SONA, diba may reklamo doon na the
water used by the police was color RED, may coloring. (basta pula na ka, apil diay ka ha!)

Ok, anyway lets go to section 4, this time crimes against religious worship. Youre supposed
to be free to worship or not to worship. Kasama yan ng to believe or not to believe. So, under Article 132
Interruption of religious worship, any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion. And there is a special operating circumstance here, if the
crime is committed with threats or violence. So, thou shall not prevent the ceremonies or manifestations
of any religion, thats 132.

In Article 133 naman, offending the religious feelings. Ayan, may feelings dito. Itong 133,
take note that this is the only article here that can be committed by a private individual. Like I said,
these are crimes against the fundamental law of the state, necessarily the offender is a public officer or
someone who represents the state, but in 133 take note that the offender is ANYONE who, in a place
devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. So you perform acts NOTORIOUSLY offensive, its like
manifestly, yung ganon ba na qualifier. Now, to what is notoriously offensive should NOT be based on the
standards of the offender, that is one ruling in a case decided by the Court. It should be based on the
standards of the offended party or the complainants.

Ok, so People vs Baez 68 Phil 03 whether the act is notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful is to be judged by the feelings of the followers of the religious sect offended and not of those of the
unfaithful ones. An act is notoriously offensive when a person ridicules of anything constituting a religious
dogma or scoffs anything devoted to religious ceremonies or plays with or destroys any object of
veneration of the faithful. Bawal yan.
In the case People vs Megallos, an example is stoning a minister while in the act of preaching. Imong gibato, nag-wali siya didto unya labayan nimo.
What happened in the case of People vs Reyes and Nakana 16 Phil 369, where during the pabasa
the defendants arrived to construct barb-wire infront of the Chapel. Then it was held that this is NOT
notoriously offensive. Nahuli yung isa of unjust vexation, naalala niyo kung bakit unjust vexation?
Remember that crime? kumbaga when all other crimes do not apply, try to look at unjust vexation because
more often than not pwede siya. Tapos anong sabi ng unjust vexation, that which vexes, hehe. Weird ang
definition, diba a principle in English that when you define, you do not use part of the word you define.
Sino nga yung gi-filan nga niadto siya sa atubangan nagdala ug plaka nakasulat Padre Damaso.. (si
Celdran) I dont know if he was charged with 132 or 133.

Lets go to Title Three: Crimes against Public Order. Take note ha, iba ito sa Treason, kasi diba
usually pinagsasama ang rebellion, Sedition, treason diba? Iba ang Treason, iba ang Rebellion because
rebellion is a Crime against public order.

Now lets start with Chapter One. What is the difference of Rebellion and Insurrection? According to
Dean Inigo, ayaw na lang ng distinction anah, kay ngano? Pareho ra man ang penalty. But anyway, for
purposes of Academic discussion, Insurrection seems to be, it seems to fall short of a rebellion. A rebellion
is an all-out, its like a civil war in a larger or smaller scale. Short of overthrowing the government, that
should be Insurrection. Rebellion is broader because it seeks to completely overthrow the government.

Page 17 of 125

Now, lets go to the basic principles. Rebellion, a public uprising, that is one, that is why rebellion
cannot be committed by only one person because this is a crime of the masses, of a multitude. The nature
of the crime of rebellion is a crime of the masses or of multitude which is a vast movement of men and a
complex net of plots.. So there must be a public uprising. Another is that there must be a taking up of
arms. Another is, lets look at the purpose, there must be a purpose to remove from the allegiance to the
Government or its laws, the Philippine territory or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other
armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers
or prerogatives. In other words, here, what sets rebellion apart or what distinguishes it from sedition for
example is that this is political, its PURPOSE IS POLITICAL, ang rebellion. Thats why the Hernandez
Doctrine says na even those common crimes, if the common crimes were committed in furtherance of
rebellion, they lose their character as common crimes and becomes ABSORBED by rebellion as a political
crime, and therefore there is only the crime of rebellion because the common crimes are absorbed.

Now, after Hernandez, during the time that there were several coup attempts by Gringo, sila
Manong Johnny. Si Manong Johnny was charged with Rebellion with Murder and etc., in other words, the
crime is complex, pero sabi natin na hindi man yan complex because Hernandez says that there is only
one crime, that CANNOT be complexed because the other crimes are absorbed. In that case, Enrile vs
Salazar,the State apparently sought to distinguish common crimes committed in furtherance of a
rebellion and common crimes committed in the course of a rebellion, sabi nila Drilon that time in the
course of a rebellion ang purpose is not political, kumbaga ang absorbed lang are those crimes committed
in furtherance of a rebellion not those in the course of a rebellion. Anyway, we all know that the Supreme
Court dismissed that, Hernandez is still good law, so whether the common crime is committed in
furtherance of a rebellion or is committed in the course of a rebellion , its THE SAME, they are absorbed by
the rebellion. They lose their character as independent crimes. Except of course, yung the case of
Geronimo, if really you can prove na there is no.. ah for example Rape, unsa man labot anah sa rebellion,
lahi man ang kuan anah. If the purpose is private, like if the robbing, killing, etc were done for private
purposes or for profit without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punished and would
not be embraced by the rebellion. Ok, thats the case of Geronimo.

In the case of People vs Fernando 33 SCRA 049, the Supreme Court said, any crime like rape
which could not have been done in furtherance of the rebellion is not absorbed. Other cases, People vs
Rodriguez April 25, 1960, the accused charged with rebellion was found illegally possessing firearms
when his house was searched, CANNOT be prosecuted for the latter as an independent crime, as that is
absorbed in the crime of rebellion if such firearm was found in the furtherance of a rebellion.

Well, this is similar also to another case filed against Enrile. Diba yung Amin v. Enrile. Enrile was charged
also with violation of special law, yung concealing/harboring fugitives. Sabi, hindi man dapat ito kay this is
a special law. Supreme Court said absorbed yan maski special law man na o dili special law basta in
furtherance or in the course of rebellion, absorbed na. So that if you would charge him again with this
crime, that would amount to double jeopardy already.

This was the ruling:

All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and can
not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.

Other cases, US v. Constantino

A band of 40 entered the town, attacked policemen and kidnapped officials. In this case kasi, there
was no evidence of the purpose or the motive of these people. So it was said that the crime

Page 18 of 125

committed is not rebellion, it was kidnapping or serious illegal detention.

Carino v. People

Ito yung time ng mga HUKBALAHAP. The charge was the act of giving aid and comfort and moral aid
to the enemy. Ano ginawa niya? Binigyan niya yosi, tsaka supplies and tinulungan niya magdeposit
ng money etc. According to the Court, his acts are not criminal in rebellion unlike in treason. Because
in rebellion, the act punished is taking part in the public uprising and taking up of arms against the
government. The accused here was not charged with treason, although it was established that he
was giving aid or comfort.

There is a similarity between rebellion and treason. However, the distinction lies in the purpose of levying
war, and not in the magnitude of the movement. If the levying of war is done to aid enemy, it is treason. If
not, it is rebellion. In treason, the purpose is to deliver the government to the enemy to perpetrate the way
for the coming of the enemy. In rebellion, the purpose is to substitute the existing government to make
another.

In other words, in treason, you have a third party. Third party, meaning, a different state. Where the
offender, ang kanyang loyalty, ang kanyang heart, mind and soul are with the enemy, a foreign
government. Ang rebellion, dito yan, internal yan. Two parties lang yan; the rebels and the State.

Be able to distinguish the two:

1. Rebellion is a crime against public order. Treason is against national security.

2. Rebellion cannot be committed by one person only, in treason, pwede.

3. In rebellion, the purpose is not to aid a foreign enemy, in treason, that is precisely the purpose.

Now, when there was still a death penalty, murder may be punished by death. Ngayon ang rebellion,
perpetua lang. So kung murder, daghan man imong gipatay, death penalty. Sa rebellion, miski daghan kag
gipatay, in furtherance of rebellion, that's still rebellion. The penalty is still perpetua. Kaya bad trip ang
mga prosecutor niyan. So what they did, they filed homicide and murder, not rebellion. Sa point of view ng
prosecutors, lugi kasi.

Now we have an insertion, 134-A, Coup d'etat.

Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied
by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network, public utilities or
other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried
out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office or employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

Page 19 of 125

This was already asked in the bar. Now, how do you distinguish coup d'etat? Coup d'etat, remember, it
always involves a swift attack. Stealth or strategy. Wa ta kabalo, tua na diay, gi-occupy na nila ang mga
public utilities.

So, a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. There is no
requirement here of public uprising.

So, the purpose is seizing or diminishing state power.

Who are the offenders? According to 134-A, the offender is any person or persons belonging to the military
or police or holding any public office or employment. Sa atin pa, public officers.

Pwede ba na ang offender na macharge dito kay private individual? If you look at the penalty under 135,
you will find out na meron diyan nakalagay "any person not in the government service who participates,
etc.". So there is a penal provision for non-public officers. So ibig sabihin, apil siya pwede macharge niyan.

Now, the penalties will depend on your participation. If you are a leader, you get a different penalty from
that of a follower.

What happens if there is no leader identified? In the same Article 135, it states there that "when the
rebellion, etc. is under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others,
spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts on
behalf of the rebels, shall be deemed a leader of such rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat."

Now, conspiracy. Again, an exception to Article 8. As a rule, conspiracy is not punishable. But here, the
mere conspiracy, the mere proposal is enough, is sufficient to commit a crime.

Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. The
conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and
a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and
by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As
amended by
R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).

Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion
by all the means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control
of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
What about disloyalty? Disloyalty can be committed in the following ways:

1. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power; or

2. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the

control of rebels; or

Page 20 of 125

3. Accepting appointment to office under rebels.

Take note, in failing to resist and continuing to discharge, there is this implication of passivity, or
passiveness. Because if your participation is active, malamang dun ka mapunta sa rebellion.

One other thing here, you cannot commit this crime if there is no rebellion. There must be actual rebellion
before one will be liable under this Article.

Art. 138. Inciting a rebellion or insurrection. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the
Government, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the
same end.
(Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).

How do we distinguish this from proposal? When you incite, you are egging them on. In the proposal,
similar to that.

So, what's the difference? Go back again to proposal, the person has decided to commit a crime, and
proposes its execution to some other person or persons. So, he's decided, he's serious.

Here, in inciting, there is no requirement that he has decided. Basta, ang importante, nang-galgal siya ug
tao. By means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc. It does not matter that he himself does
not believe in what he is saying. There is no such requirement. Whereas in proposal, you actually have
decided for yourself to commit a crime, you are serious.

Here, pwede magyawyaw lang ka didto without believing yourself, basig gibayaran ka lang na magspeech
ka didto, incite them to rebellion.
September 3, 2014
We are now in Article 139, Sedition.
Parang pinagsama kasi yan usually, pag sinabing rebellion, treason, there is a crime called proposal,
conspiracy in treason, rebellion. And some mistake being committed is sedition being included in such a
crime, proposal to commit sedition, when in fact, when you look at the law, there is no proposal to commit
sedition. There is only CONSPIRACY.
Sedition is the raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its the revolt against authority. Although
the ultimate object of sedition is the violation of the public peace, yet it does not aim at the direct and
open violation of the laws or the subversion of the Constitution. So it was held in the cases of Perez,
Cabrera and Abad. It is similar to rebellion but you have to distinguish REBELLION from this crime of
SEDITION. This is short also of, like in insurrection, this is short of rebellion, because, there is chaos there,
there is commotion, but one basic purpose of REBELLION IS POLITICAL, in sedition, it can be for other
purposes, pwedeng social or racial class. The object of sedition is marami; to prevent promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of any popular election, to provent the National Government, or any
provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his function,
or prevent the execution of any administrative order.

Page 21 of 125

So in fact actually, if you look around, usual example of people preventing public officers from doing their
job is yung mga mag issue ng writ of demolition tapos the sheriff is there, tries to implement and regularly
gubot man na kasi merong resistance and when that happens, that will fall under preventing any public
officer from exercising his functions. That is actually SEDITION, when you enforce writs of demolition on
this informal settlers. So yan ang perfect example of sedition.
But thats not all, because if you look at number 3, to inflict any act of hate or revenge, upon the person or
property of any public officer or employee. And number 4, to commit for any political or social end, any
act of hate or revenge against private persons or social clases. So like I said, pwede social purposes, not
only political. Or number 5, to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province,
or the National Government (or the Government of the United States) of all its property or any part
thereof.
Take note that in sedition, the offenders may be PUBLIC OFFICERS OR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
Now comparing this with REBELLION, there is a public apprising but the objects would be different kasi ang
REBELLION, if you remember, it would amount to levying war, sedition is raising of commotion and
disturbances so short or of lesser magnitude than of rebellion.
In the case of Lee vs. Ppl 73 Phil 155, the accused was the treasurer of xxx. What did they do? They
planned an uprising in several provinces, telegraph was down, electricity was down, armed persons were
stationed in highways. The court ruled that it was REBELLION and not Sedition.
In Umali vs. Pasumbal, 96 Phil 185, here the aid of HUKBALAHAPS were sought. They raided the towns,
burned down houses, wounded others but before leaving the town they looted houses. The court said, it is
SEDITION.
Take note also pala, here in SEDITION, because in REBELLION dib a, common crimes are absorbed. Here in
SEDITION, hinde, so if there are murder, rape, arson, tapos may mga commotion that will fall under
sedition, those crimes will be treated separately. They are independent crimes. So you will have sedition
plus physical injuries, murder etc. so please take note of that. There is NO ABSORPTION IN SEDITION. That
is the ruling in the case of Ppl vs. Cabrera.
Ppl vs. Cabrera, ito yung may mga army and police. Away ito ng PC (Philippine Constabulary) at ng pulis.
Anyway, what happened here was that the 77 PC soldiers, rose publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain
by force, outside of legal method the object of inflicting an act of hate or revenge upon all Manila
policemen who arrested one member of the PC or the arrest of one soldier. The arrest provoked an outrage
and the next day, they had an encounter meeting, nag pinusulay sila, one PC died, gumulo ng gumulo. SC
said that the offenders are guilty of separate crimes of SEDITION AND MURDER. So separate. In the case of
Ppl vs. Kahil(?) and Tarson, Datu Kahil(?) refused to pay tax on land and cedula. He gathered several
people in his house who agreed not to pay the taxes. They tried to gain adherence, what better way to
oppose the government by force. There was a complaint for sedition filed before the fiscal. Ang PC, ang
soldiers naman, were sent to arrest them and they resisted. SC said, it is NOT REBELLION. IT IS SEDITION.
The acts committed were limited to preventing the execution of the warrant of arrest.
Lapuz vs. Ppl 144 Phil 148, the defendants were members of an association, whose purpose was to
punish wealthy people and public officials. And as a band, they raided, etc. they took captives and the SC
said, it is SEDITION.
Be able to distinguish this, like I said, from REBELLION, kasi merong, RISING PUBLICLY AND TUMULTUOSLY
in order to attain by force.
Article 140 just gives you the penalty. Just read that.
Article 141, Conspiracy to commit sedition. Like I said earlier, there is a crime on CONSPIRACY but no
PROPOSAL. So again we go back, this operates as AN EXCEPTION to ARTICLE 8. Diba kasi in Article 8, as a
rule, conspiracies are NOT PUNISHED, unless the law provides a penalty therefor. Here, there is the law,
which provides a penalty for people or persons conspiring to commit the crime of SEDITION. As held in the
case of U.S. vs. Flanas 31 Phil 90. Where there was an uprising, they called a meeting of councillors,
summoned policemen, told them to join the rebels, so here there was a conspiracy to commit sedition.

Page 22 of 125

Now, instead of proposal, there is the crime, under Article 142, INCITING TO SEDITION. If you come to think
of it, proposal and inciting, theres a similarity and I already told you kung ano ang difference nun. Ang
proposal kasi, dib a, PROPOSAL, the person has decided to commit a crime and proposes the execution to
another person. Ang INCITING, it does NOT necessarily mean that he has decided to commit a crime,
himself. Pwede nag yawyaw lang sya didto, inciting people. It is not a requirement that he must himself
believe what he is saying. If he should incite others, under 142, incite others to sedition, he is liable under
Article 142. Now how does he do that? By means of writing, emblems, cartoons, banners, or similar
representations, utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, circulate scurrilous libels against the
government. Sometimes it is called SEDITIOUS LIBEL and the famous case here, the landmark case is
Spuelas case, he hanged himself, meron pa syang suicide note, saying that he decided to kill himself
because he could not stand the abuses of the administration unya dili diay, staged diay to.
Other means is to utter means which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the
functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes.
Whats the meaning of cabal? Its to plot. Its to plan or plot, parang may sinister undertone, suggest or
incite rebellious conspiraciws or riots which tend to stir up people against the lawful authorities and
KNOWINGNGLY CONCELAING such evil practices. So take note of that, knowingly.
Ang mga cases, in the case of Perez, shouting that the head of the DIRECTOR GENERAL, should be CUT
OFF. And the case of Ppl vs. xxx, where the PC soldiers were incited to use their weapons against their
commanders.
Take note, of this special law, actually this is an amendment to Article 201, later, we will talk about it. It
can also be related to Article 142, because this talks about expounding or proclaiming, doctrines openly
rebellious or seditious. P.D. 960 as amended by P.D. 969.
Ang 960 kasi is more on idecent, obcene but siningit doon yung publicly expounding or proclaiming
doctrines that are openly rebellious or seditious. Also subject to new penalty, because the penalty under
969, covers of rebellious, seditious literature, published with their knowledge in any form for the editors
publishing such literature and the holders and establishments. Also those who in theatres, cinemas and
other places, exhibits rebellious or seditious plays, scenes, acts or shows which incite or tend to incite
rebellion and sedition. So aside from inciting to sedition, pwedeng pumasok dito sa 960 or sa 969.
Although ngayon, hindi na masyado yan. There was a time kasi na ang gobyerno, paranoid, kahit na
konting dissent lang.
Now, there is also an additional penalty here which is FORFEITURE of these items. Now take note that even
if the offender is ACQUITTED, pwede ma forfeit pa rin yan sya.
Sedition kasi, this particular article is on the freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances
because as a rule, kung peaceful meeting, walang right ang state to interfere. But like all freedoms, it can
be regulated by the state. It is not an unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of
language.
Statutes against SEDITION are not generally violative of the fundamental guarantees. xxxx
Now, there are tests diba; the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST, THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST,
what do you use?
When you talk about sedition?
In our jurisdiction, the DANGEROUS TENDENCY rule and NOT THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST is
adopted, GENERALLY, regarding sedition cases. It is enough that the words used with intent to create a
danger or public uprising. It is not necessary that there must be a clear and present danger.
Now CHAPTER TWO talks about CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION
Section 1 talks about legislative bodies or similar bodies. So if you ook up Article 143, it says there, acts
tending to prevent the meeting of the assembly and similar bodies. We already talked about preventing,
prohibiting, interrupting or dissolving meetings. This 143 is specific of legislative bodies. Any other meeting

Page 23 of 125

involved, doon ka sa previous. But if the meeting is the meeting of any legislative bodies, its 143, or
disturbance of proceedings, pareho din ito meeting rin ito or proceeding ng legislative bodies. Now when
you say meeting of legislative bodies, it not covers only Congress but the provincial board, city or
municipal council or board. In fact, aside from this, if you violate pwede mo ring doble, kasi ang legislative
bodies, may inherent powers to sanction the offense if you disturb the proceedings. Please take note of
that.
Article 145, violation of parliamentary immunity, take note of what is provided there because it does not
jive with the Constituion. Sa constitution kasi, there is immunity, if the crime is punished for not more than
6 years, tapos nakalagay dito, sa 145, in cases such member has commited a crime punishable by a
penalty higher than prision mayor. The penalty higher than prision mayor, eh di reclusion temporal na yun,
of course the Constitution will prevail. There is privilege from arrest while the Congress is in session in all
offenses punishable by penalties of not more than 6 years so kutob lang ka sa PRISION CORRECCIONAL,
kung more than PRISION CORRECCIONAL NA, meaning PRISION MAYOR NA, wala ng immunity dyan, theres
no more privilege of immunity ther.
Ok, CHAPTER THREE, ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS.
We go back to the years of the Marcoses, ito ang karamihan charge sa mga aktibista. Ang usual na gina file
ng gobyerno noon is 146; upon the organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under this code. Basahin nyo nalang yan, I am
presuming that you have read this provision and also that you remember your Crim 2.
So illegal assembly, dito merong meeting, kahit naga move, parang in flight, kahit nasa ground pag closed
doors, considered in flight. Ito kahit naga move pwede naga meeting. If you look at the last phrase there,
the word meaning shall be understood to include a gathering or group whether in a fixed place or moving .
Anyway please take note of that kasi unique itong definition ditto, can be fixed or moving, for purposes of
illegal assemblies under 146.
Now, if you look at 146, if you read that, there are two kinds of Illegal Assemblies:
1. One which is attended by armed person.
How many? Wala man sinabi dyan but it is not required that all of them should be armed. It is enogh
that some are armed, there are some who are not. But the attendance there of the armed persons shall
be for violating the provisions of the RPC.
Now if the purpose is to violate a special law, would that be an illegal assembly? That can be covered
under the 2nd type.
2. Second, one which is inciting to the commissionof the crime of treason, rebellion, insurrection,
sedition, or assault, upon a person in authority or his agents
So pag sinabing illegal assembly, yung first kind, ang purpose nya is to violate any of the provisions of the
RPC.
Who are the persons liable here?
The persons liable here are those who ATTEND. If you look at 146, it says there the persons merely
present at such meeting, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, unless they are armed, in which case
the penalty shall be prision correccional. It says here that if the person present carries an unlicensed
firearm, it shall be presumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit
acts punishable under this Code.
Going back to that phrase, persons merely present, so anybody na napadaan, maminaw didto is guilty of
illegal assembly. He is on his way somewhere, adto sya didto , apil apil sya didto, is he guilty? This is a
felony under the RPC, so felony, kelangan mon iestablish ang offense. So yung persons merely present
dyan, is not really literal, you still have to establish their liability because the person who is merely present
MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE of the purpose of the illegal assembly.

Page 24 of 125

The other type of assembly, the audience is incited to the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion,
insurrection, sedition or assault upon persons of authority. So take note that the audience INCITED.
Now suppose, we said earlier, if you incite people to commit sedition, there is a specific crime INCITING TO
SEDITION. If you yourself, you do not believe, are you liable for inciting? YES, you are liable for inciting. The
persons present liable for being present if they know of the purpose, ikaw nagyawyaw ka liable for inciting
to sedition. Para lang yan conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Parang bribery, the one who gives and
the one who receives, there is a conspiracy but the crime of one is not the crime of the other. The one who
gives is guilty of bribery, the one who receives, is guilty of corruption so the same ditto, katong
nagyawyaw ug naminaw lahi lahi ang crime.
So here you could relate the Public Assembly ACT, yun na yung special law, when you meet, you meet in
the public place without a permit, that is prscribed under this special law. Now let me just repeat the
presumption of law, yung 2nd paragraph dyan: the person carrying unlicensed firearm, is presumed to be
for the purpose of violating the provisions in the RPC. So there is the burden of proof shifts to the defense.
Also distinguish this from assemblies or meetings, strikes, pickets, kasi yun covered ng labor code, walay
labot ang RPC ana.
Now,

what

is

147,

illegal

association.

So

how

is

that

different

from

illegal

assembly?

Ang illegal assembly, a meeting is required. Ang illegal association, no requirement of a meeting.
Also in assembly, who are the persons liable? The persons liable are the organizers, leaders, persons
present.
In 147, founders, directors and members.
What is punishable under 146? Yung holding of meetings or attendance.
association or becoming a leader or a member of the illegal association.

In 147, it is the forming of

So ito yung sinasabi ko, there are two types. Yung first type is association na wholly or partially organized,
for purposes of commiting crimes punishable by RPC, the other type is that which is partially or wholly
organized for purposes contrary to public morals so ditto na papasok ang special laws, PUBLIC MORALS.
Jurisprudence has it, ditto papasok ang associations organized for purposes of committing crimes punished
by special laws.
So, anong ibig sabihin ng PUBLIC MORALS ditto? It refers to acts that affect the interest of society for public
convenience. It is not confined to the limited concept of good customs.
If you remember R.A. 1700, parang gideclare doon ang CPP as an illegal association because it has since
been repealed. So declared sya, mere membership is enough. Yung members mo committed a crime
already. But since it has been repealed, ngayon, members of the CPP can always be charged but evidence
must be presented that the CPP is organized for illegal purposes. Unlike dati when R.A. 1700 is effective,
hindi na kailangan, mere membership is enough because the purpose has already been declared illegal.
You only determine the nature of the association if the purpose is illegal. It can be revealed through the
speeches or pronouncements of the leaders or activities because of course, the purpose of illegal
association is often concealed. So yun illegal association. So any questions? Wala? Ill see you tomorrow!!

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

September 4, 2014 (Complete)
Transcribed by: Ela Velarde
Before 148, you must know 152.
Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. In
applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with

Page 25 of 125

jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or

commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also
be deemed a person in authority.
A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as
a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in
the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be
deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas PambansaBlg. 873,
June 12, 1985).
You must know the persons in authority or the agents of persons in authority because, if these are the
persons that are attacked or assaulted, it will be covered by 148 and 151. The crime would be direct
assault.
Also take note that in Article 152, may pakapinsa paragraph 3. Here you have a provision covering private
individuals. Such that, even if these persons are properly considered private individuals, any attack on
them, under 148/151, will be considered as direct assault. These persons under paragraph 3 are not really
persons in authority or their agents. But, because of this provision, any attack on them will also be
considered direct assault.
Art. 148. Direct assaults. Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or
intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall
suffer the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding
P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public officer or
employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be
present, the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos
shall be imposed.
Two modes of committing the crime of direct assault:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion or sedition.
When you look at the provision, nakalagayjanx xxshall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of
any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition x xx but without a public
uprising. So you do acts taposang purpose is similar to those purposes in rebellion and sedition but, you do
these minus the public uprising. According to Dean Iigonaparangkahirapimagininnyan. Rebellion/sedition
minus the public uprising. The best example sana could have been coup dtat because hndiitokailangan
ng public uprising. But then, there is a particular provision in the RPC which speaks of coup dtat
separately. So, it can no longer fall under direct assault.
The more common type is the second type of direct assault.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, employing force or 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 such performance.
Although the provision actually says x xxshall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents x xx. The word resist there should be construed as serious
resistance to distinguish this from article 151. Kunghindiito serious dito eh parehonasila ng 151.The
resistance, to fall under article 148, should be a serious resistance.

Page 26 of 125

You do all these things (attack, employ force, seriously intimidate or seriously resist) without public
uprising because, if there is uprising, then, it will amount to sedition.
Circumstance which qualify direct assault:
1. When the assault is committed with a weapon;
2. When the offender is a public officer or employee;
When we say direct assault, it can also be committed by a public officer. It does not mean
that, since direct assault is against persons in authority or his agents, the offender should be
a private person. Even a person in authority himself can commit the crime of direct assault.
3. When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority.
When you say lays hands, what does that mean? It means that you employed physical
attack.
Elements of Direct Assault:
1. The person assaulted or the victim must be a person in authority or his agent;
People vs.Sion (277 SCRA 127): Punong Barangay, Sanguniang Barangay Members and Members of the
Lupon in each Barangay shall be deemed persons in authority in their jurisdiction. So they are not merely
agents of persons in authority.
People vs.Sion (277 SCRA 127):

We disagree with Appellees submission that

there was no voluntary surrender because
appellant Sion surrendered to a mere barangay
"Kagawad" or Sangguniang Barangay member,
and not to the police authorities, implying that
the former is not a person in authority. This
ignores Section 388 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 which expressly provides, in part,
that "[f]or purposes of the Revised Penal Code,
the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay
members,
and
members
of
the
lupongtagapamayapa in each barangay shall be
deemed as persons in authority in their
jurisdictions...." This law expands the definition
of a person in authority under the Revised Penal
Code, wherein among the barangay officials,
only the barangay captain or chairman, now
called Punong Barangay, is expressly considered
a person in authority, as provided in Article 152
thereof.
Thus, in addition to the Punong
Barangay, the members of the Sangguniang
Barangay, or Kagawads, and members of the
LupongTagapayapa are now considered not
merely as agents of, but as persons in authority.
2. The offender knows that the person he is attacking, etcis a person in authority or his agent.
Kung hindinyaalam eh the essence of direct assault is not there. There must be an intention to defy the
authority, to insult or offend that authority. Thats why, this direct assault cannot be committed by culpa.
Intentional felony talagaito. Knowledge must be proven by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

Page 27 of 125

For example, pumasoksabahaynilakasi raid pala. Tapos the agents of persons in authority are in civilian
clothes. But then, if they introduce themselves at magpakita ng mga badge nila. If you attack them, even
if they are not in uniform, it will constitute direct assault. Meronkasi case nayung first 2 napumasoknanakaplain clothes did not introduce themselves as policemen so nipalagsya. After nun, saka pa sila nagintroduce na NBI sila. Yun resistance nya dun or serious intimidation or the attack which he did against the
first 2...he did not know that they were agents of persons in authority. So hindiyunsya direct assault.
Perokung after sila nag-introduce na agents silataposgistabniyasila, then, it will not constitute direct
assault.
But take note of the case of People vs.Banwa(?) 121 SCRA 1119: Knowledge that a school teacher is a
person in authority need not be expressly alleged as status is a matter of law and not fact. Ignorance
thereof will not excuse non-compliance.
So in certain situation, the laws says that you should know. So if you do not know that the person you are
attacking is a person in authority or his agent, is there a crime? Of course there is a crime! But the crime is
not direct assault. Depende, baka serious or less serious or light.
3. The offender makes an attack, employes force, seriously intimidate, or seriously resists.
What is an attack? It is any offensive or antagonistic movement or action of any kind.
To seriously intimidate, to lay hands, to inflict physical injury, to strike with the hands, to choke, to
suffocate,etc.
When you say seriously resist or seriously intimidate, you must distinguish the force employed: when the
force employed is against a person in authority and when it is against an agent. As ruled in the cases of US
vs. Tabiana (37 Phil 515) and People vs. Reyes. These 2 cases involved agents of persons in authority.
Here, isakapulisgisumbag; they employed physical force against the agents of persons in authority. What is
the ruling? The ruling is that it is resistance only. It is not direct assault. Gisumbagannyaangpulis but it is
not direct assault, it is only a resistance. Meaning to say, the resistance is not serious.
US vs. Tabiana (37 Phil 515)

If at the ultimate moment no force is employed

to resist, there is not resistance but submission;
and if it had been intended that every
manifestation of force, however slight, against
the authorities, and their agents should bring the
case under article 249 (now Article 148), it was
an idle waste of words to make other provisions
to cover grave resistance and simple resistance.
It therefore seems reasonable to hold that the
words in article 249 (now Article 148) relating to
the employment of force are in some degree
limited by the connection in which they are used
and are less peremptory than they at first seem.
Reasonably interpreted they appear to have
reference to something more dangerous to civil
society than a simple blow with the hands at the
moment a party is taken into custody by a
policeman.
You compare these 2 cases with the cases of Teves and US vs. Gumban (38 Phil 76). Gumban is about the
mayor. The mayor was slapped. Teves, on the other hand, was a governor and gisikosya.So compare that.
Dun sa Reyes/Tabian kay agent, pulisgisumbag. Ditosa persons in authority, ditto gi-slappangisa kay gisiko.
So, comparing these 2, medyo lower ang violence dun sa governor and mayor. But, the ruling was that it
was direct assault.

Page 28 of 125

The force occurred, the violence employed, the physical attack employedthe crime of direct assault
would depend on the person attacked. If the person attacked is a person in authority, the violence
employed is not required to be serious. Because, in fact, if it is serious, it can be qualified because it can
be considered as laying hands on a person in authority. So kung person in authority eh kontingviolence
langyan eh direct assault nayan. Kung medyo serious na assault nayan, that is even qualified.
With respect to agents of persons in authority, the violence or the physical violence to be employed is
required to be higher because they are agents. Kasidiba they keep the peace, they prevent violence.
Because when these people do their job, it is natural for force to be exerted. There is a certain amount of
violence involved. So kung agent ang involved, the law says that its ok namedyo may violence jan.And
when there is serious violence, then, that is the time that it becomes direct assault. Kay kunggisagpalang
or gisumbaglangangpulis eh that is merely resistance and not direct assault. Kailanganmas violent if the
assault is committed against an agent of a person in authority.
US vs. Gumban (39 Phil 76)

According to the doctrine above set forth, the

facts proved in this case involve all the
necessary elements that constitute the crime of
assault, inasmuch as the offended party, being a
municipal president, was a person in authority
(U.S. vs. Dirain, 4 Phil. Rep., 54 1), and was in
the performance of his official duties. In reaching
this conclusion, we took into account the
decision rendered by this court in the case
against GelacioTabiana and Canillas, in which it
is said that the distinction between an assault
and a resistance to agents of authority lies
largely in the amount of the force employed in
each case, and that a sudden blow given to a
policeman while engaged in effecting an arrest
does not constitute that employment of force
which is punishable as assault. We have also
considered the decision rendered by this court in
the case against Cipriano Agustin (R. G. No.
13083 [decided December 11, 1917, not
published]) in which it was also held that a blow
upon a policeman was not an aggression
amounting to an assault. It must be
remembered, however, that in these two cases
the crime involved was that of assault upon
agents of authority, in which the essential
element is substantially the force employed. It is
said in these two cases that any force is not
sufficient to constitute an assault, but that it is
necessary to consider the circumstances of each
case to decide whether the force used is, or is
not, sufficient to constitute assault upon an
agent of authority. In the present case, the crime
involved is that of assault upon a person in
authority, in which the force necessary to
constitute this crime is specifically defined by
the law and consists in laying hands upon the
person. In this case, it is not necessary to
ascertain what force the law requires in order to
constitute an assault, since the law itself defines
concretely this force in providing that it consists
in laying hands upon the person. The law simply
mentions the laying hands without making any

Page 29 of 125

distinction as to the different cases, and it would

not be just to make that distinction when the law
does not make it. It is to be noted that the same
provision of the law with regard to intimidation
or resistance is not intended to be applied to the
case of laying hands.

TN: This case was under the old RPC.

When is it direct assault on an agent? Examples of attacks on agents which are considered as direct
assault:

Policeman was jabbed with several blows.

Policeman was attacked with a pen knife and wounded while making an arrest
Discharging a firearm at the police officer wanted to arrest the accused

4. The person in authority or his agent must have been attacked while in the performance of his duties
or functions.
This element is very important! Kumbaganagtatrabahosya. He is engaged in the performance of his duties.
Although, along this line there is still direct assault if he is assaulted on the occasion of such performance.
So, ihiwalaynatinyan.
While in the performance of his duties.So walangproblemajankasiklaro man yan. If a person in authority
or his agent is performing his duties and you attack him that is direct assault provided all the other
requisites is present. When should a person in authority be attacked? When he is engaged in the
performance of his duties, that is direct assault. And it does not matter what his motive his, whether its
personal or because of his being a public official.
For example, a judge is holding court (naghearing) andnabadtripkasa judge. You attack him right there in
his sala. He is in the performance of his duties, then, thats direct assault. But, it could also be
nanasalabasang judge and hes not in the performance of his duties,then, you attack him. Anonayan? That
is direct assault but not direct assault while in the performance of his duties. This time the motive must be
known because it should established that the attack was because of his (judges) performance of his
duties. That is the meaning of on the occasion of the performance of his duties.
A person in authority or an agent may be attacked even if he is not engaged in the performance of his
duties and it will be considered, still, as direct assault if it is established that the attack was because of his
performance of his duties. This will apply even if the person in authority or his agent is already retired.
Kaya kailangan, if the attack on a person in authority or his agent is not done while in he is in the
performance of his duty, it must be shown that the attack was motivated by the performance of his duties.
Otherwise, it would be physical injuries only.
So the first is engaged in the performance where it does not matter what the motive is, whether
personal or official ang motive. But if the person in authority or his agent is not in the performance of his
duties, then, you waited outside and your motive is personal, that cannot be direct assault. Because direct
assault, if not engaged in the performance of duties, should be on the occasion of such performance. That
means that you were attacked because you did your job as a person in authority or an agent.
It seems to protect public officers or persons in authority even outside. Like me (sir referring to himself as
an
employee
of
the
office
of
the
ombudsman),
we
adjudicate
cases.
Taposnaadiaynaghulatdidtosagawassaamuahabanggasuroysuroy mi nganasukosa among resolution or
gipirmahannga dismissed from service. Outside office hours nayan. Are we protected? Yes! If the attack is
because of what you did as a person in authority, then, the law will protect you. That will become direct
assault and not just physical injuries. The penalty for direct assault is higher than the penalty for physical
injuries.

Page 30 of 125

What happens if a person in authority is attacked and he is killed? Is that homicide or murder? But person
in authority man? And he was killed while engaged in the performance of his duties. What is the crime or
crimes? Are there 2 crimes: homicide/murder and direct assault? This is an example of Article 48, a single
act results in 2 or more grave or less grave felonies.Here, murder or homicide plus, because he was
attacked as a person in authority while engaged in the performance of his duties, direct assault. So duha!
A good example of the application of Article 48.
Like this case of People vs. Garcia (20 Phil 358) where the accused disagreed with the decision of the
judge. He attacked the judge by slapping him while he was walking home. Kay nabadtrip man syasa
decision sa judge so that is on the occasion of the performance of his duties. Meaning to say, by reason of
the performance of his duties.
Take note that the rules on self-defense apply. If you are a victim of unlawful aggression, you can defend
yourself. If the person in authority or his agent is the aggressor, you can always defend yourself from him.
Ingatlang dun sa complex crime ha! Kunwarinamatay..direct with homicide. Kunwari, gikulatanimo, the
same. That is direct assault with serious physical injuries. Paanokungimonggisagpa. So slight physical
injuries. Remember always the principle in complex crime that you cannot complex light felonies; you can
only complex grave and less grave. In that case, what is the crime? Direct assault lang? can you separate
these 2 (direct assault and slight physical injuries)? No! Slight physical injuries is absorbed by direct
assault.
Art. 149. Indirect assaults. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods and a
fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make use of force or
intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the
commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.
Elements:
1. Direct assault committed against a person in authority or his agent;
2. The offended party comes to the aid of such person in authority or his agent;
Although the article says aid of the authorities or their agents.
3. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the
person in authority or his agent.
Take note of RA 1978 which amended Article 152 paragraph 2. This person who comes to the aid of the
person in authority now becomes an agent of a person in authority.
Article 152 paragraph 2: x xxA person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. x xx
So the person who comes to the aid of a person in authority becomes an agent.That means that when this
person is attacked, what is the crime? Direct assault ang crime nya. So even if he is not a person in
authority or an agent, if he goes to the aid of a person in authority who is being attacked (there must be
direct assault being committed) he becomes now an agent of a person authority and if he is also attacked,
then, the attack against him is likewise direct assault because he is an agent.
But remember, for direct assault to apply, there must be direct assault being committed. May nag-attack
tapostinulungannya. If the person being attacked is a person in authority, then, he becomes and agent and
an attack on him is, therefore, direct assault. Therefore, Article 149 will apply only when the person goes to
the aid of an agent of a person in authority. so dapat upon any person who shall make use of force or
intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of agents of persons in authority on occasion of the
commission of any of the crimes defined in the next preceding article.
So if a person goes to the aid of an agent, then, indirect assault yansya. Kung angiyanggitabangan kay
person in authority, direct assault yun.

Page 31 of 125

Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by
the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. The penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment
shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the
National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee
chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such
summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be
sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers,
documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a
witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
Article 150, kung si Dean Iigo pa, basahanlangnasya.!
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not
being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in
authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of
arrestomenor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
The first premise here is you should not be included in the provisions of the preceding articles. So it is not
direct assault and it is not indirect assault. Article 151 can only apply if there is no direct assault or indirect
assault.
What do you do here in Article 151? You should resist or seriously disobey. Yung kanina is seriously
intimidate or seriously resist. Ditosa Article 151 kay resist lang. Merong serious but this relates to
disobedience or has something to do with disobedience.
Take note of while engaged in the performance of official duties. Walaangon the occasion of such
performance. Hence, when you talk about Article 151, kutoblang ta sa engaged in the performance of
official duties; walanayung because of or by reason of the performance of official duties.
You should also know that the person you are disobeying or resisting is a person in authority or his agents.
Take note of this case of US vs. Ramayrat(22 Phil 183). May writ of execution issued by the court. Naay
sheriff niadtosyadidto para iturn over angisaka certain parcel of land to the plaintiff. Peropag-abotdidto kay
niingon tong occupant nga diliko.Ang sheriff niuliugnisumbongsa judge nga dili man gusto, judge.
So,gi-filanugkaso. Is that serious disobedience or resistance? The SC said naanoang nature ng writ? The
writ is addressed to whom? It is addressed to the sheriff. The sheriff must obey or enforce the writ. That is
not an order to the occupant. Sala to sa sheriff nganongdili man niyaipugos to obligado man
syangaiexecute. So, according to the court, hindisya guilty of resistance or serious disobedience kay dili
man syaanggina-order sa writ of the court. There is no disobedience to the authority because the judicial
order/the writ of execution is addressed to the sheriff.
US vs. Ramayrat(22 Phil 183)

We do not think that the defendant disobeyed

any judicial order whatever. The order issued by
the justice of the peace and alleged to have to
have been disobeyed, is a writ of execution and
addressed, as was natural and proper, to the
competent sheriff, and not to the defendant. In it
the sheriff is commanded to place the plaintiff,
SabinoVayson, who had won in the suit against
the herein defendant for the recovery of the
property, in possession of the said disputed land.
Such command is made solely and exclusively to
the sheriff, and not to the defendant. Absolutely

Page 32 of 125

no order whatsoever is made to the latter;

nothing is demanded on him and he is not
restrained from doing anything, neither is he
required to do anything; he is not told to
perform, or not to perform, any act whatsoever;
in a word, the writ or order in question in no wise
refers to him. Nor could this process, indeed, be
addressed to the defendant, for the reason that
it wholly concerns the execution of a judgment,
the serving of which is specially and exclusively
incumbent upon the sheriff. And it is superfluous
to add that the defendant could hardly disobey
an order that in no wise concerned him. The
order itself leaves to this be clearly understood
by warning the sheriff, and no one else, that he
shall be liable to the penalties of the law in case
of noncompliance. "Failure to comply with this
order," it says literally, "will subject you," the
sheriff, "to the penalties of the law." The warning
is solely for the sheriff, because the writ must be
served by him, and he alone it was who could
fail to comply with or disobey it.

But, while the defendant did not disobey the said

writ of execution, may it be said that he
disobeyed the sentence of the justice of the
peace who ordered that he restore the disputed
land to the plaintiff, Vayson? It is contended by
the Attorney-General in his brief that he did. He
says that the act performed by the defendant in
setting forth in Exhibit C-2 that he was not
willing to deliver the land to Vayson was one of
the disobedience to the said sentence. This may
be true, and undoubtedly is, in a certain sense, in the same sense that it may be said that he
who infringes or violates any law passed by the
legislative power disobeys its authority; or that
the defendant who refuses to surrender himself
voluntarily and of his own free accord to the
prison authorities for the purpose of serving his
sentence disobeys the sentence that imposes
imprisonment upon him. But this is not the
disobedience that is punished as a crime by
article 252 of the Penal Code. The juridical
conception of this crime consists in a failure to
comply with orders directly issued by the
authorities in the exercise of their official duties,
and not with legal provisions of a general
character, nor with judicial decisions merely
declaratory of rights or obligations, such as
those proper to be rendered in a civil suit
relative to property or possession of land, like
that which gave rise to the present controversy.
Nor even do the violations of prohibitory
decisions, although undoubtedly of a more
serious character, constitute the crime of
disobedience to the authorities provided for and
punished by the aforecited article of the Penal

Page 33 of 125

Code, for they give rise only to a civil action.

In another similar case, People vs. Bacani (CA 40 OG 981). This is a case where rhe court issued a writ of
injunction ordering the accused not to enter the land in dispute, and the sheriff told him not to enter the
land. But the accused, who claimed that he was the owner of the land, with his right hand on the handle of
his bolo, advanced with rapid strides towards the sheriff, and the chief of police then present intercepted
the accused, grabbed his hands as he was about to unsheathe his bolo and wrested the bolo from the
accused who was resisting. It was held that the accused was guilty of simple disobedience.
The concept is the same that the offender must know that the person he is resisting or disobeying is a
person in authority or his agent. Take note also of this case of People vs. Hernandez (59 Phil 340) involving
the governor who resisted the attempt of the sheriff (who was hi political enemy) to enforce a tax
judgement. Anoangginawa ng sheriff? Kinuhaang piano at furniture ng governor. Sabi ng governor
nameron man ibajan, wag yang piano ko.
People vs. Hernandez (59 Phil 340)

It will be seen that the alleged offense of

resistance to an agent of a person in authority,
with which the defendant is charged, consisted
in is having the provincial sheriff from carrying
away his piano and chairs from his house by
holding him by the arm with one hand while the
other he wrested the chair which the said sheriff
was trying to deliver to one of the several
laborers standing by for his debtors below or at
the foot of the stairs of the appellants house.

Under other circumstances, the appellants act

in trying to prevent the sheriff from carrying
away his piano and chairs, in the manner above
stated, would constitute a slight offense of
resistance to an agent of a person in authority,
but under the circumstances which led to the
commission thereof, it cannot be considered as
such. There is no question that a sheriff may
attach the property of a judgment or execution
debtor if he is clothed with the necessary
authority under a judicial writ, as provided for in
section 453 of Act No. 190. However, it should
not be construed to mean that, having discretion
in choosing the property to be attached, he
should necessarily levy upon such property as is
valued by the execution debtor, particularly
when the latter places other property at his
disposal, as was done herein, the value of which
is greatly in excess of the amount of the
judgment under execution. The aforesaid
provision does not forbid the execution debtor, in
case he has sufficient property to answer for the
payment of the judgment, to point out to the
sheriff which of such property should be
attached and sold to satisfy the judgment with
the proceeds thereof.

Page 34 of 125

Another case which negatives disobedience because it is somehow similar to mistake of fact: People vs.
Fernandez and Quintos. There was failure to vacate the auditorium as ordered by the provincial governor.
He was allowed to occupy by the provincial constabulary. Kasiakalanyaditonayung order ng governor was
superseded by the order of the police ____. Akalanyaperomalipala. So there was really no intent to resist
because nagkamalilangyungpag-appreciate nya.
Be able to distinguish 148 and 151. Under 148, you attack, force, intimidate and seriously resist. Under
151 is resisting or seriously disobey. Under 148, while in the performance or by reason or on the occasion
of the performance of such duty. Under 151, only while in the discharge of such duty.
Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to
cause disturbance. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisioncorreccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause
any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public
performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of
Articles 131 and 132.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption
of a tumultuous character.
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than three persons
who are armed or provided with means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting, association, or public
place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or
emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order.
The penalty of arrestomenor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon these persons
who in violation of the provisions contained in the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body
of a person who has been legally executed.
Tumults and other disturbances of public order:
1. Causing serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or gatherings or peaceful meetings, if the act is
not included in Article 131 and 132;
Remember that we already talked about yung peaceful meeting being interrupted. Anoang difference
nyan?Article 153 is a crime against public order. In the first place, yungunanatingpinag-usapan is under the
fundamental laws of the state, Article 131.
Article 131 involves the abuse of state power and there is a public officer. Ito ditto sa Article 153 eh walang
abuse of state power. And because this has nothing to do with the fundamental laws of the state, the
offender may be a private individual. Although, pwederinnarepresentatives of the state. But more
importantly(?)ditopapasokyung offender is a private individual.
But a public officer or a person in authority may be an offender here. But take note that he may be the
offender if he is a participant in the meeting. Kasi kung outside ka or you are not a part of the meeting, the
public officer who is not part of the meeting..that will fall under Article 131. In Article 153, the offender is a
private individual or a public officer who is aparticipant of the meeting.
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place;
We already talked about inciting top sedition dba? And this is still different from that crime. So what is the
difference between them? Angnakalagaydito is outcry and when you say outcry, it is somewhat
spontaneous. Its spontaneous; its not deliberate. When you say inciting to sedition, the requirement is
that it must be deliberate and you really want to incite them.

Page 35 of 125

Here in public disturbances of Article 153, there is no such intent. Kumbagaduring lang and
nandoonbiglalangsyanagyawyaw nun maybe because of his passions. Kung ganunsya eh
ditomoilagaysyasa Article 153 at hindi dun sa inciting to sedition. So this is lower than dun sa inciting to
sedition or rebellion.
Another distinction from inciting to rebellion is that here in Article 153, the meeting at the onset is legal.
Yung sa inciting to sedition, illegal nasyasapagsugod pa lang or from the beginning. In article 153, the
offender has no prior intent, it just arose in the course of the meeting. Whereas, inciting to rebellion or
sedition, the offender has prior intent.
Take note also of this case of People vs Bacolod (89 Phil 621). Nagpabutosyaug submachine gun. He was
prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. The issue is pwd pa
basyafilanugibangkaso? And the ruling was yes! He can still be charged under Article 153 aside from the
quasi-offense because different ang nature. Ang second charge causing serious disturbance to the festivity
or gathering. The one who fired the submachine gun committed 2 offenses: causing serious disturbance in
a public place, the people present becoming panicky and terrified, and serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence.
Also take note of Villanueza vs. Ortiz (108 Phil 493). The election inspector was assaulted while he was
canvassing the election results. Nagkaroon ng gubot. According to the SC, there is a complex crime of
direct assault with disturbance of public order.
Religious rally, taposidisturbmoyan. Kung saloob ng church and dun yanmagfallsacrimes against religious,
Article 132 or 133..Perokungsalabas or outside, dun sa streets,ditokasa Article 153.
Take note langitong tumultuous disturbance or interruption. Tumultuous ang character, higher ang penalty.
And it shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence.
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
Kung gipataynasyasa state, ayawnasyailubongngamurakaugnagfiesta because that is a crime.
Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or
cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to
the interest or credit of the State;
2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience
to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have been published officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as
anonymous.
Yan, basahinnyonalang!
Take note of this CA case of People vs. Arrogante. Defendant distributed leaflets urging the people to
disobey and resist the execution of the portion of the National Defense Act requiring compulsory military
training. He was charged with inciting to rebellion but he was convicted of inciting to sedition by the trial
court. The CA held that the crime is not inciting to sedition or rebellion. The acts charged which are
subversive in nature fall underparagraph 2 of Article 154 or the unlawful use of publication.

Page 36 of 125

Criminal Law 2
September 9 part 1crim 2
Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm,
rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other
disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or
scandal in public places, provided that the circumstances of the case shall not
make the provisions of Article 153 applicable.
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause alarm or danger;
Ang una dun sa discharge of firearm, you remember that there is a crime called discharge of firearm. Yun
na crime is different from this one. So please do not confuse that. In discharge of firearm although
sometimes it is difficult to imagine, you point a firearm at somebody but without intent to kill. Di lang pajud
point, you fire. You fire at a particular person without intent to kill. Yan ang discharge of firearms. Kasi pag
merong intent to kill mahimo nang attempted. Itong discharge dito, how is that distinguished from
discharge of firearm? Well here, you do not point the firearm at anybody, you discharge the firearm, pataas
siguro wherever, so yan ang alarms and scandals.
Now another thing to consider is that phrase calculated to cause alarm or danger because it is another
example of an erroneous translation from the Spanish text. Kasi sa Spanish is produca peligro, ibig sabihin
nitong calculated to, the law seems to say that when it is intended to cause alarm or danger you are liable,
but the Spanish text is saying that it should result in alarm or danger. So for example you explode the
firecracker and nobody is around, you should not be held liable under this article.
Ang sinasabi ni Inogo ditto, magpaputok ka sa silingan, instead of a stampede, what happened was that
everybody clapped (yehhheeeey). Anyway, if it does not result to alarm or danger, you should not be liable
under this article because the Spanish text says alarm and danger should be the result of the explosion of
these explosives.
People vs Dinulan, this is the case of discharge of firearm and alarms and scandals. This is a court of
appeals case, where the accused fired gun shots from his kitchen, in the wall of the house, there was no
evidence saying that there were people in the house or what part of the house they were. So it could not
be said that the firing was directed to a particular person or group of persons. Yun ang ibig sabihin, pwede
siyang alarms, kasi hindi man nya alam. Nagpaputok niya hindi man niya alam na may tao dun. Kasi if you
fire at a particular person, that is discharge of firearm.
Also another CA case, the case of Pabalan, where a carbine pinaputok in the direction of a market, pero
malayo yung market. Pinasok dito under alarms and scandals.
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility;
Anong Charivari? It is the mock serenade of discordant noises made with kettles, tins, horns, etc., designed
to annoy or insult. A noise barrage would fall under that. So something that irritates, annoys, kanang
samok ba. Yang New Year pala, diba you drag cans sa likod nga sasakyan mo? Mao na siya charivari na
siya. That will fall under Alarms and Scandals.
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or
Take note that you need not be intoxicated because that would refer to the next paragraph. dito wandering
at night, disturbing the public peace, there is no requirement of being drunk.

Page 37 of 125

4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in
public places, provided that the circumstances of the case shall not make the provisions of
Article 153 applicable.
Take note that there is disturbance diba, but if the disturbance is serious, you go to Article 153.
People vs Gangan. Where the accused entered a billiard hall and challenged everybody, when no one
accepted his bet, caused commotion and disorder. So dito nahulog yung crime not under 153 because to
fall under 153, the disturbance must be serious.
Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any
person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of
violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by
taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their
minimum period.

When you say deliver the prisoner, ibig sabihin imong gitakas sa preso. Now, what kind of preso are we
talking about? Because we said there are two kinds. There are detention prisoner and there are convicted
prisoners. In Article 156, we are talking about BOTH types of prisoners.
Who is the offender here? And nakalagay sa 156, ANY PERSON who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein. That means a private individual or a public officer. Note that
the public officer who can be liable under this paragraph must be a person who is not charged with the
custody of the prisoner. Because if the prisoner is in the custody of the public officer or the public officer
has custody, the offense will not fall under this article.
And what does he do? He removes the prisoner from jail. Take note ha, na when you say remove the
prisoner from jail Jail jud ni nga preso. Gikan didto sa prisohan kuhaon nimo from the prison/penal
establishment. Kasi if you remember the Doctrine of Abilong, evasion would include yung violation of
Destierro. In destierro kasi you are not confined in a penal institution, diba if you enter, that is evasion.
NOTE: dito (Article 156) hindi pwedeng destierro.
So either you yourself remove the prisoner from prison or you assist him. So when you assist or help the
prisoner escape, that is also punishable under 156. How do you help? Well, you furnish him with materials
and the means to escape. Like yung mga gabas, mga rope, whatever.
If you remove a detention prisoner from jail, then you are liable. May liability ba on the part of the person
that you helped escape? So you have to make a distinction. So if the prisoner is a detention prisoner, he
incurs no liability. Kasi dito ikaw man yung nagremove or naghelp remove. And prisoner himself wala.
UNLESS ganito: do you remember persons who are criminally liable? Principal there are three kinds. If the
prisoner can be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation. Anyway, that is something to think
about. You can probably argue it that way, kasi dito the person who is liable is the person who removes the
detention prisoner from jail. (transcribers note: nagakatawa man si sir, so dili ko sure if serious ning
UNLESS na part)
With respect to a convicted prisoner that is a different story because the person who will remove or who
will help him escape is liable under this article, he himself, because he escaped, that is evasion of
sentence.
Chapter Six
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Art. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall
evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by
reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken

Page 38 of 125

place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,

roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, deceit, violence or intimidation,
or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.

The offender here should be a convict by final judgment, hindi pwedeng detention. The offender is a
convict by final judgment, he is serving his sentence involving deprivation of liberty and he evades the
service of his sentence by escaping. Although the law says escaping during the term of his imprisonment
but as I told you, you have to remember Abilong, ang ginasabi kasi dito deprivation of liberty, in Abilong
the SC said again that it is the wrong translation, it is deprivation of liberty, it is not necessarily
imprisonment because destierro is a form of deprivation of liberty. So if your penalty is destierro and you
enter, then that is evasion.
Now suppose that the prisoner escaped but return voluntarily. Of course we all know that once a crime has
been consummated, tapos na, hindi mo na pwedeng sabihin na wala kang liability. Although he return may
be akin to voluntary surrender which may merit to be a mitigating circumstance. Although as a general
rule, this is synonymous to jail break.
So if you escape and then you are recaptured, this will necessitate another case. You will be charged anew
for this crime, evasion of sentence. So this requires a new prosecution and imposition of the penalty
prescribed.
And please take note this is a continuing crime. You can be prosecuted in any place where you are found if
you are an escapee.
What about deported aliens or illegal aliens. People vs Loo Ehue (?) 36 Phil 867 where an alien is deported
and he returned to the Philippines. The court said there is no evasion because one deported is not
sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Evasion may be qualified. It is qualified when evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of
unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys,
deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal
institution.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder,
conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. A convict who shall evade the
service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been
confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,
explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not
participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time still remaining to be
served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if
he shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following
the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing
away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above mentioned period of
48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.

So you have a here an offender who is serving in prison in a penal establishment, he evades his sentence
by leaving the penal institution on accession of a disorder due to all these (referring to the codal provision).
But take note that the crime is really not escaping, the crime here arises when you do not return after the
declaration of the calamity has passed.
The penalty is one-fifth of the penalty evaded or the penalty left to be served. Yun namang bumalik, may
award, deduction naman yun for the period of one-fifth of the original sentence. Now what about those
who did not escape during the disorder? Lozada vs Habenas (?) 78 Phil 226 good manners and right
conduct kayo sila others already escaped. Nung nagbalikan na, binigyan ng deduction na one-fifth. Kami? If
they are loyal we are more loyal because we did not escape. The law says kadtong ni escape unya nibalik.
You obviously do not belong to this group because you did not escape. That is the premise here that is the

Page 39 of 125

requirement. That you must escape. Because when you escape you put yourself at risk diba pwede ka
mapusilan dinha. When you risk your life by escaping but then you return. Kaya ka may award.
Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period 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 six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired
portion of his original sentence.

What is this other case? Those granted with provisional pardon. If you violate the condition of your pardon,
that is a form of evasion because diba you are supposed to serve the condition.
When you violate then there are two consequence dyan. First is administrative, the president can order
your re-arrest. Or the other one is that you will face charges under this article. And please take note that
that is not mutually exclusive, pwede yan sabay.
How long are you supposed to follow the conditions of the pardon? Kung merong period yung condition ng
pardon that will prevail. But if there is no period. The rule is you are required to follow the condition for the
remainder of the sentence. (25:45)

September 9 2nd half

[G.R. No.L-3972. October 13, 1950.] FLOREA SALES v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON; POWER OF PRESIDENT TO RECOMMIT
PRISONER; ARTICLE 159, REVISED PENAL CODE, AND SECTION 64 (i), REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE,
CONSTRUED. Article 159 of the Revised penal Code, which penalizes violation of a conditional pardon as
an offense, and the power vested in the President by section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative code to
authorize the recommitment to prison of a violator of a conditional pardon to serve the unexpired portion
of his original sentence, can stand together and the proceedings under one provision does not necessarily
preclude action under the other. Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code has not been repealed
by article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.
We are of the opinion that article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes violation of a conditional
pardon as an offense, and the power vested in the President by section 64 (i) of the Revised
Administrative Code to authorize the recommitment to prison of a violator of a conditional pardon to serve
the unexpired portion of his original sentence, can stand together and that the proceeding under one
provision does not necessarily preclude action under the other. Take, for instance, the case of the present
prisoner Fidel Ariston. Although under section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code he has been
recommitted to serve the remitted portion of his original sentence 4 years, 8 months, and 29 days for
having violated the condition of his pardon, he may still be prosecuted under article 159 of the Revised
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer prisioncorreccional in its minimum period. In other words, one who
violates the condition of his pardon may be prosecuted and sentenced to suffer prisioncorreccional in its
minimum period without prejudice to the authority conferred upon the President by section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code to recommit him to serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence,
unless such unexpired portion exceeds 6 years, in which case the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
minimum period provided by article 159 of the Revised Penal Code shall no longer be imposed.
G.R. No.L-4164 December 12, 1952 In the matter of the petition of Antonio Infante for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. ANTONIO INFANTE, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE
PROVINCIAL WARDEN OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
In Huff vs. Dyer, 40 Ohio C.C. 595, 5. L R A, N S, Note 1064), it was held that the duration of the conditions
subsequent, annexed to a pardon, would be limited to the period of the prisoner's sentence unless an
intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in
which it was imposed.

Page 40 of 125

And when you say unexpired portion it does not include the time at large by virtue of the pardon but good
conduct allowance otherwise earned before the pardon should be considered.
Dibadalawaang remedies, yungsa Administrative Code patieto (RPC Art 159). Sa Administrative Code
automatic nay un, prisodayonka, but if the state wishes to exercise both (so balikkasaprisohantapos Art
159 ka pa). Take note, etong Art 159 crime nayan, so you have to be charged and prosecuted and
convicted by final judgment before you are made to suffer the penalty under Art 159. You must be found
guilty under Art 159 before ka mag serve sentence. This is a distinct felony, substantive felony. But
conviction is not necessary under the Revised Administrative Code.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty.
Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving
the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the
age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it
after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy
of such clemency.
Art 160 we have already encountered this. A form of criminal repetition Quasi Recidivism.It is applied
even if the present offense is different in character from the former offense.
So criminal repetition merong previous crime merong present crime.Sa quasi recidivism, your former crime
may be a violation of a special law or a felony but the present crime must be a felony punished under the
RPC to qualify as quasi recidivism. (People vs Peralta)
Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62 that is Habitual delinquency (HD). So the provision is
saying that besides habitual delinquency you may be liable for being a quasi-recidivist. So they are not
mutually exclusive. So kung HD ka, may additional penalty yungsa HD, plus you are a quasi-recidivist, iba
pa ito. You can be made to be made to suffer the penalty under Art 160.
And it says there that matindiang law if you are a HD because if a quasi-recidivist reaches the age of 70 he
may be pardoned. But if the quasi-recidivist who reaches the age of 70 is a HD, walaypardonaydira!
One last thing, Quasi-recidivism is a Special Aggravating Circumstance meaning it cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstances. The penalty shall be maximum regardless of any mitigating circumstance. Of
course, it must be alleged in the information, otherwise that cannot affect the criminal liabilities.
Just be able familiar with the other forms of criminal repetition.
People vs Salazar 266 scra 607
At the start of the trial the prosecutor volunteered that the appellant was on probation. The appellant
herself admitted that she was on probation when she was arrested.
Issue: Will this aggravate the offense when this can fall under Quasi Recidivism?
Held:In regard to aggravating circumstances, the prosecutor volunteered at the start of the trial that
appellant was then on probation. Appellant herself admitted that she was on probation when she was
arrested by Sgt. Cubillan and Cpl. de Guzman.
As such, the circumstance of quasi-recidivism should ideally aggravate her offense considering that she
committed the felony after having been convicted by final judgment and before serving sentence. That
she was on probation would not erase the fact of her conviction even though service of her sentence was
suspended. However, for its appreciation as an aggravating circumstance, quasi-recidivism
must be proven by records of the previous sentence. As this Court stated in People vs. Capillas, the
evidence (or the lack of it) must prevail over appellant's admission that she was a probationer
when she committed the crime.
Sakahitgi admit, storyastorya,perowalasa records na you have a previous conviction, safe ka. strictly
against the state, liberally in favor of the accused.
[G.R. Nos. 109138-39. April 27, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALBERTO GAORANA

Page 41 of 125

The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and
rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted by the Regional
Trial Court of Kabangkalan, Negros Occidental in Crim. Case No. 013 on March 29, 1988 and was serving
sentence for the crime of homicide. However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence
the record of appellants previous conviction. Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion,
necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused .The
fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been
rendered against him.
So dapatnasa record na may previous conviction ka by final judgment. Otherwise, miski nag admit nakana
you have been previously convict, wala pa rin. It cannot be appreciated for the purpose of quasi-recidivism.

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Chapter One FORGERIES

In order to know what Forgery is, lets go to Article 169
Art. 169. How forgery is committed. The forgery referred to in this section may be
committed by any of the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words or signs contained therein.
People vsGalano
So after nggiyera, angmgaperana pre-war gi demonetize. Angbagona money almost the same kaya
langang difference ng pre-war and post-war money kaygilagyandawng letter V (for victory) ang post-war
money. Tamadsiguroning accused muadtog Central Bank so angkwartagibutangannlngniyaug V
kaymupalitsiyaugbalot.
HELD: It was held that forgery can be committed through the use of genuine paper bills that have been
withdrawn from circulation, by giving them the appearance of some other true and genuine document.
The forgery here committed comes under thefirst paragraph of Article 169 or the Code. This provision
doesnot only contemplate situations where aspurious, false or fake document orinstrument is given the
appearance of a trueand genuine document, but also to situationsinvolving originally true and
genuinedocuments which have been withdrawn ordemonetized, or have outlived theirusefulness. The case
under considerationcould not come within the second paragraphof the aforesaid article (By
erasing,substituting , counterfeiting or altering byany means the figures, letters, words or signscontained
therein) because no figure, letter,word, or sign contained in Exhibit A has beenerased, substituted,
counterfeited or altered.The forgery consists in the addition of a wordin an effort to give to the present
documentthe appearance of the true and genuinecertificate that it used to have before it waswithdrawn or
has outlived its usefulness.
That is forgery. Take note here the note was genuine although nademonetize. So
hindikailangannamagfalsifytalaga or feigning (gawagawakalangtalaga). So forgery applies even if it
involves another genuine note. So if you give a genuine note an appearance of another genuine note, that
is still forgery.
Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine
Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
Ang great seal, mahabaang description nyansa administrative code. Take note that It is not called
falsification, it is called counterfeiting the great seal of the government.

Page 42 of 125

Art. 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. The penalty of prision mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature or
stamp mentioned in the preceding article.
Under Art 162 hindidapatikawang nag counterfeit otherwise dun kasa Art 161. The offender is not the
forger but he is the user, of course, he must know of the forgery. That is the requirement there, parang
accessory lang. so here he must know that the signature, the stamp, the seal was forged/counterfeited.
Section Two. Counterfeiting Coins
Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. Any person who makes, imports, or utters,
false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten
centavo denomination or above.
2. Prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if
the counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the
Philippines below ten-centavo denomination.
3. Prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited
coin be currency of a foreign country.
Counterfeiting is to imitate a coin that is genuine to give it the appearance of one of legal tender. The
imitation must be such that is to deceive an ordinary person into believing it to be genuine. If the imitation
is so imperfect that no one will likely be deceived thereby (ex: monopoly money), that cannot be a
violation of Art 163.
Uttering is to use it and represent it as good money. To utter and publish an instrument is to declare or
assert, directly or indirectly, by words or actions, that it is good; uttering it is a declaration that it is good,
with an intention or offer to pass it. Take note that this includes the act of giving it away. Kung
ipanghatagnimoangkwarta, that is uttering. And it even includes counting prior to delivery.
Note that kasaliang foreign currencies dito and includes all coins even if they are no longer legal tender.
Bakitganon? Because of the dangerous tendency of the counterfeiter to counterfeit kasimalaymoang talent
nyagamitinnya next time doonnasa legal tender, edi mas sakitnaangulonggobyernonyan. So kungbaga,
before it graduates into something greater, kasuhanna.
Art. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. The penalty of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the United States or of the
Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins, or in connivance with mutilators
or importers.
What is mutilation?
Noon, ang value ng P1 silver coin is really the value of a P1 silver coin. Yan angibigsabihinng worth its
weight in silver/gold. So that if you abstract the metal by filing or whatever, that is what you call
mutilation. Tinganggalanmongayonng value angpera, such that the person receiving it does not receive
the full amount of the P1 silver coin kasitinanggalanmonaxangkonting part.
In art 164 the coin must be legal tender.
More important is the fact that there is PD 247.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 247 July 18, 1973
PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING DEFACEMENT, MUTILATION, TEARING, BURNING OR DESTRUCTION OF
CENTRAL BANK NOTES AND COINS.
1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn or destroy, in any manner
whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines; and

Page 43 of 125

2. That any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than twenty thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than five years.
So mas up to date xa, than the article under the RPC. Defacement so kasama din ang mutilation
dito.Kasiang mutilation you diminish the metal content of the coin, but if you deface it is not
necessary na nag diminish ang metal content nya. So this will include not only coins but also notes.

Criminal Law 2
September 10, 2014

Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. The person who knowingly,
although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin
with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower by one degree
than that prescribed in said articles.
Take note here that mere possession is punished. The possession must be with intent to utter. So, although
without connivance, but with intent to utter. So that when you say possession, it is not only actual
possession but also constructive. And it's not required that the coins be of legal tender.
Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing,
and uttering such false or forged notes and documents. The forging or falsification of treasury or
bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and
uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be
punished as follows:
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document
which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of
the Philippines Islands.
The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all
bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills,
checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine
Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued
under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered
document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or
counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or
altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.
You know the meaning of payable to bearer sa inyong Negotiable Instruments Law. Relate this to Article 2,
yung obligations and securities. So that even if these are forged outside, exception siya na
extraterritoriality. Do not forget that.
The protection covers foreign currency. It says there "if the falsified or counterfeited document was issued
by a foreign government".
In the case of People v. Balmores:
Ang involved dito, sweepstakes ticket. So, kasali pa rin siya as government obligation.
Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. Any

Page 44 of 125

person who shall forge, import or utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers, any instrument
payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the penalties of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos.
Itong 167 na man, we are talking about instruments not payable to bearer. Yung kanina, payable to bearer.
So what is an example of an instrument not payable to bearer? Treasury warrant, pero ambot kung unsa
na. And postal money order.
Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit. Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any
person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified
instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in
said articles
Again, there must be knowledge and intent to use. Possession without intent, not liable. Take note of the
presumption that the possessor is presumed to be the author of the falsification. The burden of proof is on
him to explain his possession.
People v. Baraquia
Where counterfeit money was passed to the accused from gambling. Cara y cruz. So counterfeit
money was passed to the accused. He did not know that this was counterfeit. He only learned so
when he tried to use it. Ang ruling was he was acquitted because he did not know. The accused
here was also illiterate.
Of course, possession and intent to use is difficult to prove. But it may be indicated by other circumstances
like you have a huge stash of counterfeit money. Unsaun man diay nimo na, astang daghana.
Now let's go to Section 4. Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents,
and wireless, telegraph, and telephone message.
Ngayon, falsification na ang tawag. When you talk about forgery kasi, in a criminal law sense, you are
talking mostly of currency, mga ganyan.
When you talk na man of forgery of documents, the proper term there is falsification.
Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon 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.
170 talks of legislative documents. Take note the bill, resolution or ordinance here must be genuine and
you alter them in such a way that you change the meaning of the bill, etc. So kahit pending approval,
covered.
Now, ang nakalagay diyan kay "any provincial board or municipal council". Now, apil ba ang city council
ana? This must be read in such a way that the city council is included.
When you study falsification, you take 171 and 172 together. Intertwined itong dalawa eh.
How do you define document? Any written instrument in which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished; or every deed or instrument executed by the person by which some disposition or
agreement is proven.
What are the types of documents? 171 and 172 kasama public, official, commercial and private.
Anong public? These are documents created, executed, or issued by the public official in response to the
exigencies of the public service. Anything, actually, pwede sulat ng Regional Director, tapos isign niya, that
is a public document.

Page 45 of 125

Take note that a public document may also be one that is an instrument notarized by a notary public or
competent public official with the solemnities required by law. Even if that document does not strictly come
from a government office, because of the intervention of the notary public, that becomes a public
document.
Ano na man itong official? Official is more limited as compared to the public. Yung public, broader. Ang
public will include those notarized, even if they're not official. Some documents may be public but not
official. But all official documents are public documents.
Official document is any instrument issued by the government or its agents or officers having authority to
do so, the officers must issue the documents in the performance of their duties.
If a letter is made and signed by a head of office of a government agency, that is an official document, and
that is also a public document.
What is a private document? It covers any deed or instrument executed by a private person without
intervention of the notary public or any other person legally authorized by which document some
disposition or agreement proven.
Ano na man ang commercial? Any instrument executed in accordance with the Code of Commerce or any
mercantile law containing disposition of commercial rights or obligations.
All of these documents must be complete. Kasi kunwari draft lang yan, it is not yet signed, that is not yet a
document. It is just a scrap of paper. Yang payroll na draft lang, not yet approved, wala yang value.
Pamphlets or books, they do not evidence a fact. These are mere merchandise.
There are certain documents which, although they were not public documents at the time they were
prepared and falsified, any falsification on that private document will be considered falsification of public
document if these are intended to form part of the records of the government.
The best example of that would be, kunwari you are taking the Civil Service exam. Ibig sabihin wala ka sa
gobyerno, you are a private individual so you take the exam. Tapos you ask somebody to take it for you.
May case yan. Ilang beses na kumuha ng exam, hindi makapasa. Nag ingon siya sa bright niya nga kaila na
siya na lang mukuha sa exam. Maraming mga ganyang cases of impersonation.
In the course of the impersonation, you fill out certain documents. At the time that you filled them out, of
course there is falsification. Hindi man ikaw yung nandun. At the time you falsified the document, is that
falsification of public document? You are not yet a public officer and these were mere forms at that time.
They cannot yet be considered strictly public. But since its purpose is to be part of the public record, any
falsification contained therein will fall under falsification of a public document. They are intended to form
part of a public document.
Can falsification be committed by omission? In the case of People v. Dizon 47 Phil., the Court said yes.
This involved a case of a bookkeeper in the post exchange. May ledger siya, doon irecord yung mga naissue na mga chits. Doon sa ledger niya, he omitted to record his own chits which he signed for articles
bought on credit. So, the Court said that is falsification by omission.
What about falsification through reckless imprudence? Maraming matamaan na mga abogado dito. When
you fail to verify the identity of those people who have asked you to notarize something. Kasi diba,
"subscribed and sworn to before me". Tapos, you did not care to verify kung siya ba talaga yun. Unya kung
patay na diay tong tao na imong ginotaryohan. Kaya dapat a lawyer should refuse to notarize when the
party is not there in front of him. Kasi nga, "before me". Kasi you are attaching your signature there, that
will be a public document.
Let's go to 171 and 172.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The
penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing
any of the following acts:

Page 46 of 125

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

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 a 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.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such
character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding
article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;
and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any
private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of
another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in
the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the
penalty next lower in degree
If you look at 171 and 172, what are the documents involved here? In 171, nakalagay diyan "shall falsify a
document", it does not say that the document should be a public, official, commercial or private.
If you look at 172, paragraph 1 diyan, nakaspecify diyan, "any public or official document or letter of
exchange or any other kind of commercial document". Sa paragraph 2 na man, "private document".
Here, in 172, paragraph 1, public, official, or commercial. Paragraph 2 na man, private.
Sa 171, any document.
The more important factor here is who is the offender. Because in 171, the offender is any public officer,
employee or notary. Sa 172, any private individual. In paragraph 2 niyan, any person.
When you say public officer, you go back again to Article 203. Kinsa man ang mga public officer?
Art. 203. Who are public officers. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the
preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public

Page 47 of 125

duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public
officer
Take note that a public officer must take advantage of his official position. Because if you do not take
advantage of your official position, you cannot fall under 171.
Example diyan yung clerk sa government office. Kunwari yung court stenographer. He's supposed to
submit the TSN, transcript of stenographic notes. That is his function. If he alters the TSN, which is a public
document, that falls under this because he takes advantage of his position. Yun man ang trabaho niya
talaga.
But when you talk about somebody who does that, pero wala siyay labot ana, that will not be under 171.
In the same manner yung LCR, local civil registry. You will participate in the preparation of a document. You
are taking advantage of your position there. You are the official custodian of the document, tapos you
falsify. Lahat ng mga marriage certificate, birth certificate, nandiyan yan. If you falsify these documents,
then you are taking advantage of your position.
Somebody who does not have custody of this document, and falsifies that, hindi na siya kasama kasi he
does not take advantage of his position.
Another thing, sabi nita 171, public officer tsaka notary. The notary is one example of a private individual
who can be prosecuted under 171. Kasi ang 171, ang offender dito, public officer. Ang notary, well pwede
mong sabihin public officer kasi of his character of being officer of the court. But aside from that. a notary
may properly be considered as a private individual, kasi wala siya sa government service, wala siyang
appointment. But, because of the express provision in 171, any falsification committed by a notary, can
properly fall under 171. The only other exception, where a private individual would fall under 171, is when
there is a conspiracy between the public officer and the private individual.
Ano pa yang isa diyan, yang minister, public officer ba diay na? But if the minister commits any of the
offenses there in 171, yang eight diyan, tapos the falsification may affect the civil status of persons. Then
the offense properly falls under 171.

Sept 11, 2014

Art 171 gives us falsification of public or official documents. It will fall under 171 if the offender is a public
officer or notary who takes advantage of his position in falsifying the documents.
The public officer takes advantage. He takes advantage of his position if he intervenes of participates in
the execution of the document and he caused it to be falsified, or when he has custody of the document,
which he falsified.
Outside of that, if you are a public officer but you do not intervene in the execution of the document, then
you do not fall under 171. You will be treated like a private individual under 172. 172 talks about
falsification of public or official documents but he does not act as a public officer, does not take advantage
of his position and falsified the document.
Another thing to remember, under 172, commercial documents are included.
Take note that there are certain documents which at the time of falsification were private but if they are
made to form part of public record then the falsification will be falsification of public document even when
at the time it was falsified, it was private.
Usually when there are charges of falsification, they are in relation like 172 in relation to 171 because the
modes of falsifying are contained in 171. Under 172, what is stated there are the offenders whereas the
manners of falsifying fall under 171.
Art 172. (2) xxx enumerated in the next preceding article.
falsification.

This

is

referring

to

the

modes

of

First mode: Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.

Page 48 of 125

First thing to notice is that counterfeiting is very similar to imitating. You try to copy something else,
mimic. What is the difference?
Counterfeiting and imitation have no essential difference. The problem is the erroneous translation from
the Spanish to the English text. The Spanish word used is fingiendo which means feigning. It is making
something out of nothing.
Ex. Somebody who is illiterate and does not know how to write and he uses a signature, passing it off as
his.
He did not copy anything. he did not have a signature. He was making something out of nothing. That is
feigning.
Counterfeiting, you copy something that exists. When you copy an existing handwriting and you copy it,
thats it. There must be an intent to copy a distinct signature, handwriting or rubric.
Another requirement: There must be resemblance between the signature you copied and the original
signature. Although, it is not required that there is a perfect resemblance. It tends to imitate. It is not
required in feigning because exactly, you are pulling something out of thin air (you will make a signature,
does not know how to write.)

Rubric- a mark indicating a sign in lieu of a signature.

Instead of signing something, others draw something like birds, fish, kisses. (sir makes a joke na wag lang
cross because its like those beside the names of lawyers, with cross, means theyre dead)
Second Mode: Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate.
Ex: Stenographer.
He made a transcript, placed there that Mr. A testified when in fact he did not. He is causing it to appear
that Mr. A participated or testified in that participated when in fact he did not.
Lets go back to Feigning. When you feign, you sign and you have nothing to copy that signature from. If
you sign another persons signature, tried to copy it, and you use your own strokes in doing so, it cannot
be counterfeiting because with it, there must be a resemblance, a requirement thats intent to imitate.
Even if you do not intend to imitate, you write on your own stroke.
You do not feign either because in feigning, there is no original signature to copy from. Here, when you
sign the name of another with your own strokes, you cannot be liable under the first mode. However, you
can be held liable under the second mode.
Example, a deed of sale, youre making it appear that you participated in that transaction when in fact you
did not. Or in an examination, when you take an exam for someone when in fact he did not take it.
( Liges vs. Reum 38 Phil 318?) One who signs the name of a third person even without attempting to
imitate the genuine signature is guilty of falsification by causing it to appear that it was his (inaudible). It
shall not give ground for conviction under paragraph 1 but it shall not be an impediment for conviction
under paragraph 2.
Third Mode: Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceedings statements other than
those in fact made by them.
There is really an act or proceeding. It exists. Example, the testimony of the stenographer. He really
testified. However, there were added testimonies, changed answers during the testimony when in fact he
did not say it or it did not happen.

Page 49 of 125

US vs. Capule
24 Phil 13

Facts: Nicasio Capule, for the purpose of appropriating to himself a tract of coconut land,
without the knowledge or consent of the owners thereof, by agreement and cooperation with
the notary public who later died, prepared and drew up a document setting forth the sale in
his favor of the said land, pretending that it was made and executed by the said owners of
the tract, stating in the document that they had made the declaration that they has sold said
land for the sum of P550 paid at the time of the sale of the vendors; and Eulogio Ortega and
Doroteo Guia as the signers of the deed of sale, because the alleged vendors did not know
how to do so.

It appears, however, that the owners of the land did not sell it to Nicasio Capule or that they
executed in his favor any document of sale; that what they really did was that they conferred
a power of attorney upon him so that he might represent them in a suit they had with
Maximino Reyes. Because of the absolute confidence they had in the defendant; and that
they never were in the house of the notary Inocente Martinez to execute or ratify any
document.

Held: The defendant executed upon said notarial document of an official character, acts
constituting falsification, by counterfeiting therein the intervention of the owners of the land,
to whom he ascribed statements different from what they had made to him and by
perverting the truth in the narration of facts, getting persons to sign in the name if the
owners of the land, through deceit, after giving them to understand that the document
contained a power of attorney, when in fact it was a deed of sale of the land, the legitimate
owners whereof had never intended or consented to its alienation.

Fourth Mode: Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

It is more common, but there are requisites to be complied with for conviction under this paragraph.
Requisites:
1. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts;

There must be a Narration of Facts. Example, a check. According to the SC, it is not a narration of facts.

2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
People vs. Quasha
93 Phil 333

Facts: The accused was a lawyer who drafted the articles of incorporation of a public utility
corporation. In preparing it, the accused made it appear thereon that Baylon, his servant,
was the owner of the shares which amounted to more than 60% of the subscribed capital

Page 50 of 125

stocks.

The falsification imputed to the accused consisted in not disclosing in the articles of
incorporation that Baylon was a mere trustee (or dummy as the prosecution chose to call
him) of his American co-incorporators, thus giving the impression that Baylon was the owner
of the subscribed to by him which, as above stated, amounted to 60.005% of the subscribed
capital stock.

Held: The Constitution does not prohibit the mere formation of a public utility corporation
without the required proportion of Filipino capital. What it does prohibit is the granting of a
franchise or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility to a corporation
already in existence but without the requisite proportion of Filipino capital.

For the mere formation of the corporation, such revelation was not essential and the
Corporation Law does not require it. Defendant was, therefore, under no obligation under the
law to make it.

The SC said, (maraming nababad-trip dito) at that point, there was no legal obligation yet to disclose
the truth because when you apply or operate, thats the time when the legal obligation begins but he
did not reach that point.
Examples where there is an obligation to state the truth:
Deed of sale, insurance claims
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and

Example:
Daily Time Record. It was established that this guy, when he timed in, he said he reported
for duty, when in fact he just timed in and left immediately and did not come back.
The SC held in such case that the statement is NOT absolutely false because it was true that
he did report, even if he left. If there is a color of truth to the statement, then you are not liable.

4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the willful or deliberate intent
on the part of the offender to make a statement of falsehood.
This only applies if the offender falsifies a private document.
If a public document, it does not matter. Whether you have deliberate or willful intent to assert a
falsehood, it does not matter. However, Good faith is a defense.
Example:
Theres a case, she filed a certificate of candidacy and placed it there that he is eligible to
run for that position. It turns out that she was not, as she still did not reach the qualified age of 23.
Her defense was that she would be 23 during that term.
The SC said that the word eligible is a conclusion of law and not a narration of fact. If she
placed her age that was 22, it was a narration of truth. But she only placed eligible, so it was a
conclusion according to the court. (Pp vs. Yanza?)

Page 51 of 125

FIFTH MODE: Altering true dates

The date must be material. If it is immaterial, it will not constitute falsification. The document will only be
affected if the date is essential.
Example:
Prescriptive period is about to lapse. You file a pleading and you alter the date to make it appear
that it is still within the period.
Also with policemen who avoid prosecution for delay in the delivery of prisoners. He already
exceeded the number of hours. So he makes it appear in the records that the prisoner was delivered within
the time frame. That constitutes falsification where the alteration was material because it would tell
whether or not he was guilty in the delivery of prisoners.
SIXTH MODE: Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning.
Here, you alter a document which changes its meaning.
Requisites:
1. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2. That it was made on a genuine document;
3. That the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document;
4. That the change made the document speak something else.
Take note that this does not apply to legislative cases, otherwise, they would fall on Article 170.
Cases:

US vs. Mateo

Facts: A case of falsification was filed against a priest because in his Community Tax
Certificate, the clerk made it appear that he was 21 when in fact he was 23. He changed it
so that his true age appears.

Held: Not liable. The priest only made the document state the truth.

The word alteration is inherent in it the idea of deception making the parties did not intend to speak.
To be an alteration in violation of the law, it must be one which causes the instrument to speak the
language with a different in legal effect from that which really spoke. The alteration must affect the
veracity of the document or the effect thereof.
SEVENTH MODE: 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.
This answers the question Do you need to have an original document in order for falsification to exist?
There is no need.
Example, you make a duplicate birth certificate when in fact, you have no original.
Or, you show an original which is different from the real original.

Page 52 of 125

EIGHTH MODE: Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry or official book.
Example, blotter.
Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000
shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce
damage of another or who, with intent to
documents embraced in the next preceding
this article, shall be punished by the penalty

in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the

cause such damage, shall use any of the false
article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of
next lower in degree.

First paragraphs covers public, official, letter of exchange or commercial documents. AS to what kind of
falsification, in relation to Article 171. Any modes of falsification except number 8. And the offender is a
public officer who does not take advantage of his position, or a private individual.
Take note under paragraph 2, there is an additional requisite. There is intent to cause damage as an
element.
If it is a private document, that additional requisite is needed, that is: damage or intent to cause damage.
It is not present in falsification of other documents.
Last paragraph, the use of falsified documents. Where do you use?
In other words, you use a falsified document as evidence in a judicial proceeding. Take note that he must
not be the falsifier because if he is, he becomes the falsifier. Here, he uses it, he was not the falsifier.
It is also punishable when the user uses a falsified document in another document. First, he used it in a
judicial proceeding. But this time, there is an intent to cause damage.
Its just like a public or official document. You do not have to prove the willful and deliberate intent when
the document is public or official or introduced in a judicial proceeding, the reason behind is that we want
to protect the integrity of the document.
Take note of the circumstances when damage is required as an element in falsification and when it is not.
Falsification of a private document requires damage as an element or at least intent to cause damage.
Falsification may be used as a means to commit another crime. It may be part of a complex crime. When
you falsify you commit falsification to commit another crime. It is only a necessary means, and not your
object or end crime. You are interested in the other crime but you have to commit it.
Example:
Malversation through falsification. You appropriate public funds and in order to do it, you commit
falsification. You falsify public documents so the funds would be released.
There can be no complex crime of Estafa through falsification of private document. Why? Because they
share a common element. Under Article 315, the elements can be reduced into two: deceit or abuse of
confidence and damage.
In falsification of public documents, you dont need damage as a requisite but when you talk about private
documents. If falsification of private documents is complexed with estafa, you now have a common
element which you cannot do. Its like the circumstances, you can only have one source for a single

Page 53 of 125

circumstance. Here, you can choose where you can use damage as an element. Can it properly fall under
Estafa or Falsification?
Example:
Payroll of a private company. You sign it for the funds to be released. Damage is necessary for the
crime to be committed. You defrauded somebody who is supposed to claim the salary. However, the
falsification came first before the Estafa.
Damage as an element has already been used as an element. Then, you cannot use it in Estafa. The
crime of falsification was consummated first. Therefore, in that case, since falsification cannot be
complexed with estafa, the crime would only be falsification because it came first.
Compare this with the Salesman. Hes collected payments and remitted to the office. He uses half
and only remitted half to the office. He falsifies a document stating that it was all that he was able to
collect which means damage, and then he submitted the money to the office. Meanwhile, there was
already Estafa and he appropriated the money to himself which he was supposed to turn over. In this case,
the falsification was used to conceal the fact of estafa. Meaning, Estafa came first before the falsification.
We say that whenever one crime is committed to conceal the other, we have separate crimes.
However, here, they share a single element. So you have to have only one crime.
In the second example, the money was with him all the time. The falsification was committed
merely to conceal. Since they share a single element which was already used for estafa, there is no more
falsification. That is why there can be no complex crime of Estafa with Falsification of Private Document,
although when you talk about private or official document, its fine because damage is not an element
there.

CRIMINAL LAW 2
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
Lets go to article 173
Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said
falsified messages. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed upon officer or employee of the Government or of any private corporation or
concern engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message
who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message of any system or falsifies the
same.
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the
intent of cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.

Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc. - The
penalties of arresto mayorin its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period
and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall
issue a false certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct
or similar circumstances.

Page 54 of 125

The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a
certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
-

Article 174 is specific. The one thing that you should remember is that while these are also
classified as documents, this will not fall under 171 or 172. The documents here are specific. It
talks about false medical certificates, false certificates of merits, and false certificates of service. In
paragraph one, the offender is a doctor, physician, or surgeon who issues a false medical
certificate.

Now, in paragraph 2, this time the offender is a public officer who issues a false certificate of merit
or good conduct or other similar circumstances.

The underlying principle here is that issuing false certificates knowing that they are false. And if
you notice, intent to gain is not essential here. Although ofcourse, if the public officer receives
money for the issuance of the false certificate of merit, then he may also be liable for bribery and
the giver may be liable for corrupting a public officer. These will be separate offenses.

Now, article 175 talks about using the false certicates under article 174. The premise here is that there
are false certificates under 174. There must be knowledge that the certificates are false and despite
that knowledge, the offender uses that certificate. Do not also confuse this with falsification of public
documents. Kasi dun sa falsification of public documents, if you use them in a judicial proceedings,
dun ka sabit sa offense na yun. But when you talk about the use of this use false certicate of merits
under 174, ang violation nyan, the user, will be liable under 175.
kasi yung sa use of public documents under 171 and 172, they will be liable under the third paragraph
of 172.
Now, 176 gives you the offense of manufacturing, importing, and possession of instruments or
implements for falsification. Mere possession, liable na ka under this article.
Now, what if sometimes diba by set yang instruments for falsification. What if you only possess a part
of that set of instruments? According to jurisprudence, that is already enough. Hindi kailangan na buo
yung set na hinahawakan mo. Kahit part lang yan ng set liable ka na.
Now, 177 is usurpation. Take note that there are two violations here.
1. usurpation of authority and;
2. usurpation of official function.
There are two separate violations here. Do not mix them.
The usurpation of authority, the offender knowingly misrepresenting himself to be an officer of the
government, whether local, national, or even foreign government. Take note that this will include GOCCs.
it is enough that you represent yourself. NBI ako.. or pulis ako! Pero pulis2x ra diay.
The usurpation of official function, you actually perform a function which you are not
authorized to perform. Kumbaga, you issue a business permit pero di ka na man pala taga business
bureau. Take note of the element that there is pretense. You perform the official function under pretense.
Because if there is a color of authority, then it is not punishable under this article. Kahit konting authority,
ok na yan. What is punished here kasi is performing a function without authority whatsoever.
Now, you have to distinguish this between other articles. There are other articles na almost similar sa
violation here. Im talking about article 239, 240, 241.

Page 55 of 125

Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. - The penalties of prision correccional in its
minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall
be imposed upon any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative
branch of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of
his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions. - Any judge who shall assume any power
pertaining to the executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of
their powers, shall suffer the penalty ofarresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period.
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of
the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the
execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.
If you notice, ang 3 departments of government yan. Legislative, executive, and judicial. In other words,
the offender here does not come from the said department and performs such function.
Also, please observe the bias ha. Take a look at 239. who are the offenders in 239? any public officer
who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government.
Now, in 240 who is the offender here? The offender is a judge who shall assume any power
pertaining to the executive authorities
Sa 241 sino? any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial
powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within
its jurisdiction
Ano napansin nyo jan? kung magusurp ng executive functions ung taga judiciary lang ang sabit. If mag
usurp ng judicial function ang sabit lang is ung taga executive function. So wala giapil ang legislative!haha
Itong sa 239, 240, and 241 INTER DEPARTMENTAL relation ito. Thou shall not interfere with the function of
other departments. Ang sa 177 INTRA DEPARTMENTAL ito. Ang una dito, if you are a private person tapos
you perform a function of a business bureau, you issue a business permit.
OR you may even be a public officer who comes from the SAME DEPARTMENT. Kasi nga if you come from
other department, dun ka sa 239, 240, 241. ditto dapat same ka. The offender may be a public officer but
from the same department.
Going back dun sa usurpation of authority, take note that this must be an active representation. Kunwari,
may magkaibigan si A and B. may kasama silang babae, gi introduce ni A si B sa babae. Sabi ni A, hello
miss eto pala si colonel B. tapos si B nag hello lang cya. Sabit na ba siya dun? NO! Like I said, this must
be an active representation. Dapat ikaw mismo mag sabi na ako si colonel B . dapat active
representation.
More on usurpation, usurpation can be complexed. Ung Hernandez ba yun? Yung may babae na gusto nya
pakasalan. tapos sabi nya may kilala ako minister. Yun pala barkada lang diay nya nag usurp na minister
daw cya. Diba complex crime yun. Seduction through Usurpation.
There are also times na ma absorbe ang usurpation. Like what? Estafa. Forcly pretending to possess power
etc. in this case, element na kasi yan ng crime of estafa so hindi mo na yan iseparate. Another example is
robbery. May robbery kasi na you simulate public authority. Simulating public authority kasi is usurpation
but it is deemed absorbed by the robbery. So you do not file a separate case for that.

Page 56 of 125

Now, 178. using fictitious name and concealing true name. take note of the purpose. The purpose here
is to conceal a crime, or to evade the execution of judgement, or to cause damage to public interest.
There must be any of these purposes. Its not enough that the offender used a name other than his real
name. there must a showing that he used another name because of any of these three.
The other act punished here is to conceal true name. For what? Yan lang. just to conceal your true name
lang. No purpose whatsoever. Just to conceal your identity.
Also, take note of a special law here. The ANTI ALIAS LAW. Remember nyo yung kay president erap? Ung
jose velarde? Either 178 or anti alias law yun.
now, ofcourse, there are exceptions here. Like the use of pseudonym. When you use a pseudonym, you
are using another name publicly other than your true name. ano ba mga famous na pseudonym? Kunwari
sa music, si Bob Dylan. Thats not his true name. His true name is Robert Zimmerman. Si Sting. Ano real
name nya? (no answer). So pseudonym are allowed for literary, cinema, television etc. kunwari, sa
television, yung mga totoy bato, totoy mola, yung mga ganun.
Now, lets go to 179. illegal use of uniforms or insignia. Take note ha this is a crime. For example, may
barkada kang pulis tapos imong gisuot iyang uniform, bawal yan!
Article 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms or dress
pertaining to an office not held by such person or to a class of persons of which he is not a
member.
An exact imitation of the uniform is not necessary. Mere resemblance of the uniform is enough. As long as
it tends to deceive the ordinary man then that is already sufficient.
What do you mean by improperly make use what does improperly mean there? It means the offender
has no right to use the uniform.
Also, in relation to this is another special law, RA 75. which punishes the unauthorized wearing of any
naval, military, police or other official uniform, decoration or regalia of a foreign state or one nearly
resembling the same, with intent to deceive or mislead.
Okay, lets go to section 2; false testimony.
What
is
the
nature
of
false
testimony?
It is a declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to what is true or to
deny the same. Take note, JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. And this requires a criminal intent and cannot be
committed through fault or culpa or negligence. So if the error the error is due to good faith, it is not a
felony. Also, it cannot also be attempted or frustrated. Take note ha, must be with CRIMINAL INTENT.
Now, there are three forms.
1. false testimony in criminal cases (article 180-181)
2. false testimony in civil cases (article 182)
3. false testimony in other cases (article 183)
Now, ang article 180, this covers criminal cases. 180 talks about testimony against the defendant.

Page 57 of 125

Article 180. False testimony against a defendant. - Any person who shall give false testimony
against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been
sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion
temporal or reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any
other afflictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a
correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine
not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
So if you notice, the penalty will depend to what happens to the accused.
Question, is it still false testimony if the judge did not believe you? You are presented on the witness stand,
then the judge will look at you. Tanaw pa lang ni judge sa imo kay dili jud katuohan imong dagway. So
wala jud siya nituo sa imoha. So are you still liable even if the judge did not believe you? What do you
think?
-

if you look at the penalty sa paragraph 4, there is a violation of 180 even if the defendant is
acquitted. In other words, despite your testimony against the defendant, na acquit cya, kunwari
ang dami mong sinabi against him pero wala nituo ang judge sa imo kaya na acquit parin cya, SO
EVEN IF the judge did not believe your testimony because it is apparently false, YOU ARE STILL
LIABLE! Punished by arresto mayor parin!

Now, what is weird in this article is that what happens if the defendant is sentenced to arresto menor?
Wala mang naka lagay jan diba? So pano yan? So sa ato pa, if you testify falsely and the defendant is
sentenced to arresto menor only, wala kang liability. Kay wala mang naka sabi sa law.
One thing I want you to remember with respect to false testimony is when do you recon the running of the
prescriptive period of the false testimony?
-

The prescriptive period will start to run FROM THE TIME THAT THE DECISION ATTAINS FINALITY. its
not after you testify. Its when the decision becomes final.

Now, 181, this time the false testimony is in favour of the defendant. Yung kanina is testimony against.
Pero ditto the testimony is in favour.
Now, when you compare the penalties here, 181 imposes lesser penalties. Now, why is that? bakit mas
mababa ang penalty ditto sa 181 when we are talking about false testimony parin.?
-

The answer is simple. When you testify against the defendant, there is a penalty na ma priso jud
cya or if naa pay death penaly basi mapatay pa siya. Here sa 181 is there is no possibility na priso
cya. So THERE IS NO DANGER IN LIFE OR LIMB. Kaya mas different ang penalties nilang dalawa.
Mas mabigay sa 180 because you are going to sentence a person in prison eh.

Under this article, it is not necessary that the testimony will directly influence the decision.

Page 58 of 125

Now, will this apply to the defendant himself? Kasi diba if you are the defendant, you will go to the witness
stand man jud. You will surely testify in your favour man jud diba. Now, if you falsely testify in your
favour, is that false testimony in favour of a defendant? What do you think?
-

NO! The law understands why you have to do that. kumbaga its a natural reaction! That is why the
law will not punish if you testify falsely in your favour.

But it will be a different story if the testimony will include somebody else. For example, you testify
in your favour pero you impute somebody else then thats a different story, hindi papasok ditto yan
sa false testimony.

Now, 182 false testimony in civil cases. If you notice, ditto sa civil cases wala ng distinction yan whether
the testimony is in favour of the plaintiff or against the plaintiff.
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases. - Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil
case shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to
exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall exceed 5,000 pesos, and the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy shall not exceed said amount or
cannot be estimated.
The penalty will depend on the amount.
Now, take note of the 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 it to be false
5. the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said
case.
Take note ha, ditto walang distinction if in favour ba or against the defendant. So pag mag false testimony
ka sa civil case, ditto ka sabit.
So natapos na natin ang false testimony sa criminal and sa civil cases. Itong sunod, false testimony if
other cases. Ditto na papasok yung false testimony in special proceedings or in admin proceedings, this
will also include quasi judicial proceedings like yung preliminary investigation. Basta kay other cases. If
hindi sa criminal or civil proceeding, ditto ka babagsak.
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included
in the provisions of the next 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, shall suffer
the respective penalties provided therein.

Page 59 of 125

If you notice 183 says false testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation there is that
misconception kasi na na when you say perjury ang ibig sabihin daw nyan is yung nag lie ka sa korte.
Hindi yan! As lawstudents you should now na hindi yan ang meaning. When you say perjury iba yan,
separte yan, that is a false statement on a material matter. False affidavit kumbaga. So if you falsely
testify, you are liable for false testimony either in criminal, civil, or other cases. Perjury is only one type of
false testimony.
How do you define perjury?
-

Perjury is the wilful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation on a material
matter.

There are two ways of committin perjury:

1. by falsely testifying under oath or affirmation.
2. by making false affidavit
How about yung mga tao na ang religion na bawal sila mag swear? Mag oath?
-

meron silang option. Kasi naka lagay ditto sa law oh Any person who, in case of a solemn
affirmation made in lieu of an oath affirmation in lieu of an oath. So no problem if ayaw mo
mag swear. Instead of saying I swear to tell the truth eh di sabihin mo na I affirm to.. .

What is an affidavit? A sworn statement in writing; a declaration in writing, made upon oath before an
authorized magistrate or officer.
So it is a sworn statement. Pwede wag sworn affidavit kay redundant na yan.
What are the elements of perjury?
1. the accused made a statement under oathor executed an affidavit upon a material matter
2. the statement of affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and
administer oath
3. that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a wilful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood
4. that the sworn statement of affidavit containing the falsity required by law
Take note ha, ang perjury must relate to a material matter. If the statement will not relate to a material
matter to the case, that cannot be considered as perjury. One good example is yung guy na kinasuhan ng
immorality kasi married cya tapos he maintained an illicit relationship with a married woman. He was
investigated. When he was asked about his personal circumstances under oath, he said that he is single
but actually he is very much married. So, he lied about his civil status and for making that false statement
that he was single, he was charged with perjury for making a false statement during his testimony.
Now, what happened? He was acquitted! Because it was immaterial! How come it is not material? Because
whether you are married or single, IMMORALITY parin yun! so your status does not matter. Therefore, it will
not constitute perjury.
Basta remember, in perjury dapat it should relate to a material matter.

Page 60 of 125

Now, yung second element. he statement of affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to
receive and administer oath.

First of all what is a jurat? ung subscribed and sworn to before me ung mga ganyan2x. siya ang
administering officer diba? So ofcourse dapat dito, the administering officer must be authorized to
administer the oath.
Next element, that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a wilful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood. So here dapat wilful. Hindi kasali ditto ang negligence. To be considered as perjury, dapat
wilfully asserted.
And the last element, that the sworn statement of affidavit containing the falsity required by law.
Now, what is material matter? It is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance
which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the
testimony relative to the subject or inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who
testifies.
Take note na hindi limited ito sa testimony bearing directly to the issue. pwedeng pumasok jan ang mga
collateral questions.
Ano yang collateral questions? Testimony which although not direct proof upon the issue yet has
substantial bearing on the testimony relating to the issue.
The test is not whether the evidence is proper to be admitted but whether if admitted it could properly
influence the result of the trial.
So again, the illustrative case there is the immorality case because it could not have influence the result of
the trial. The question there is not whether you were relieved but rather whether you could have been
relieved.
Other principles, what if contradictory statements. What if today you executed an affidavit. Tapos the next
day you executed another affidavit directly contradictory to the previous affidavit. So one of them must be
false! So is that sufficient to convict you of perjury? Logically, that is sufficient na. pero legally, you must
prove which one is false and which one is true.
Another example. What if you submit an affidavit tapos there was probable cause found so nag prosper
tlga yung case. now, during trial nag testify ka na, now your oral testimony directly contradicted yung
affidavit mo. Now, you have to determine first kung saan ang false ditto. Kasi if it is the affidavit that is
false, then that is perjury! Pero pa gang oral testimony mo ang false, then false testimony yan!
Now, in the past may subornation of perjury. Ano yan?
-

it is committed by a person who knowingly and wilfully procures another to swear falsely and the
witness suborned does testify under the circumstance rendering him guilty of perjury. Subornation
of perjury is NOT expressly penalized in the PRC, but the direct induction of a person by another to
commit a perjury may be punished under article 183 in relation to article 17.

Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. - Any person who shall knowingly offer in
evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished
as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.

Page 61 of 125

Who is the offender here? Eh sino ba ang nag offer ng evidence ditto eh diba ang abogado diba? So ang
offender ditto ang abogado who KNOWINGLY offered the false testimony. Knowingly ha. And this covers
oral testimony ha. Kasi kung documentary dun ka sa by use of falsified document.
This is consummated the moment the false witness is offered to any judicial or official proceeding. And
take note of the penalty, ang penalty mag depende lang din like in the preceding articles. (END)

September 17crim 2
Section One. Machinations, monopolies and combinations
Art. 185. Machinations in public auctions. Any person who shall solicit any gift
or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public
auction, and any person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an
auction by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50 per centum of
the value of the thing auctioned.

Well diba, what is the concept of an auction? The concept is for you to get the best price for whatever it is
youre selling. So if you interfere with the process, how do you interfere? Under 185, when you solicit any
gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction, because of people
will bid, the price will really go up, that is the normal course of the proceeding in an auction, so if
somebody so thats what usually happen sa mga bidding, they call that fake(?) bidding, sabot sila
daan, naa nay madaog. Well government auction is covered by a special law, RA 9184, this will cover those
not falling under 9184 ofcourse so sa 185 yun when you act to solicit for gifts to not take part of an auction
that is part of 185, or any person who shall attempt to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by
threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned. So even if there is no consideration but you threaten them, you are again interfering with the
process since the best price cannot be had. Thats the whole concept that is why it is forbidden to cause
bidders to stay away from the public auction.
Now I mentioned RA 9184 Government Procurement Reform Act. Maraming acts and prohibition na
considered a violation of RA 9184, suffice it to say that the concept is still the same, the rationale is the
same. And take note ha sa RA 9184 we are not necessarily looking for the lowest price, that is a
misconception that the lowest bid will win. Because in the new law (RA 9184), its what you call the lowest
calculated and responsive bid. That does not necessarily equate with the lowest bid. There may be a bid
that is lower than a particular bid but if the lowest bid is not responsive to the project or proposal or
whatever service subject of the bidding, then it should not win. What should win the bidding is the lowest
responsive and calculated bid. So take note of that, NOT NECESSARILY THE LOWEST BID. (emphasis
supplied )
Now another thing to remember in 9184 is that in a public bidding there are stages. The first stage is
called the Eligibility stage where the bidders submit eligibility docs and financial documents. In eligibility
documents, please take not that the criteria there is just pass and fail. Meaning, kasi before the bidding,
kasi merong na yan announcement etc, and if you want to participate in the bidding(inaudible) you
submit public documents, eligibility documents when you say the criteria is pass fail, the bids and
awards committee has only to check whether or not the documents are there and it complies with the form
and substance. For example, Mayors permit, meron wala? Kung meron, Check. There is no discretion. Kung
wala,X kaagad yan, you fail At that point, wala ka na, out ka na. ganun lang. No discretion what so ever on
the part of the bids and awards committee.
That is why sometimes problema yan, a company may bid and it has a good reputation etc, sometimes
they forget one of the documents, so out na yan, so you are left with kung sino ang natira. Government
principles, of course transparency in government procurement process.
You remember there was a new, because one of the prohibited acts under 9184 (?) (inaudible jud. Sorry)
there was this news about binay. Overpriced na parking bidding something. Naay bidder nga wala kaabot

Page 62 of 125

sa bidding kay ilang gisulod sa elevator human nagmalfunction ang elevator. Because the rules in 9184 is
very strict. If you arrive late, you are disqualified to bid. The bids and awards committee may not accept
your proposal. That is what? Interfering with the procurement process.
Dito sa 185, machinations, monopolies and combination, anyway that also becomes applicable to ________,
in the proceeding (?) diba we mentioned earlier that when the bidders connive among themselves that is a
violation. Or when the bidders connive with the persons in the government.
Take note of this principle. The rule stated in the case of Demosthenes Agan Jr. vs PIATCO, Philippine
International Air terminal Corporation. Sabi ng Supreme Court, By its very nature and characteristic,
competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible
advantages through open competition. [45] It has been held that the three principles in public bidding are (1)
the offer to the public; (2) opportunity for competition; and (3) a basis for the exact comparison of bids. A
regulation of the matter which excludes any of these factors destroys the distinctive character of the
system and thwarts the purpose of its adoption. [46] These are the basic parameters which every awardee of
a contract bidded out must conform to, requirements of financing and borrowing notwithstanding. Thus,
upon a concrete showing that, as in this case, the contract signed by the government and the contractawardee is an entirely different contract from the contract bidded, courts should not hesitate to strike
down said contract in its entirety for violation of public policy on public bidding. A strict adherence on the
principles, rules and regulations on public bidding must be sustained if only to preserve the integrity and
the faith of the general public on the procedure. Yan, so ang hinahanap natin ay yung best possible price.
So when you connive amongst yourselves or when you interfere with the process then you will not get the
best possible price.
Remember Joey Marquez, procurement din yun. I remember yung walis tingting. Over pricing naman yun.
But the last thing I heard was that gi.reverse yan ng Supreme Court. And he was acquitted. And why do
you think he was acquitted, well actually it was more on technicalities on the procedure in the Commission
on Audit. Kasi the reason provided was that there can be no basis for comparison, wala yung number 3.
Paano ang comparison daw, sabi ng Supreme Court when the very sitting of the procured thing is in
Paranaquewhen the COA conducted its audit ang kinuha nilang price for comparison purposes was not
the price sa Paranaque. (13:07)
September 17 - 2ndpart
When the COA conducted audit, angkinuhanilana prize for comparison purposes was not the prize sa
Paranaque but the prize of walistingting in the neighboring cities. So the comparative analysis was
conducted several days after the procurement. Kaya ganon, so flawed yung audit.
So Article 186 Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.Basahinnyonalangyan. If you
monopolize xempre you set the price and that cannot be good for the consumer. So any interference in the
market may fall as a violation of this article. Take note that when you talk about Article 186, monopolies,
you are talking about corporations. Paanomagkaroonng criminal liability ang corporation?Whenever any
of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president
and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign
corporation or association xxx
Take note lang of a particular phrase here: who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent
the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals thereof. In other word even if
you do nothing, example if nag botohannaang board members ng price and you abstain from voting, that
is not enough. Under this article, you should have prevented the commission of the offense or tried to
prevent but failed. You cannot prevent liability really just by abstaining, you must vote against, that is
evidence of trying to prevent the commission of the rime.
Art. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys.
Just remember that in all these things you must indicate their actual fineness (i.e. karat) and what is
punished here is knowingly import or sell or dispose of any article or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals, or their alloys, with stamps, brands, or marks which fail to
indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.

Page 63 of 125

The next article Art. 188. Subsisting and altering trade-mark, trade-names, or service marks has
been repealed by the Intellectual Property Code (IPC). This law involves trademarks, trade names, service
marks. Basically we can say that there are two: (1) Infringement and (2)
When you say Infringement, that is a violation of the trademark etc. because these marks are protected
because you are registered them. So ang infringement refers to the violation of that protected trademark,
trade name, service mark. Ang Unfair Competition is much broader, kasiang infringement it is limited in
the sense na there is only a case of infringement if there is trademark, trade name, or service mark being
infringed. AngUnfair Competitionhindiyan requirement as long as there is that attempt to deceive the
public with respect to the goods, that will fall under Unfair Competition.
IPC Sec. 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies. - 168.1. A person who has
identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or
services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property
right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be
protected in the same manner as other property rights.
Kung baga you have to already identified the products in the minds of the public so that even if there is no
registered trademark there meron pa ring property rights sought to be protected under the IPC. Sa
Infringement you cannot file it if walakang registered Trademark etc.
Example: Frigider is a brand, Kodak-i ko be! Actually nag away ang San Miguel Beer ugang Asia
Brewery
because
of
beer
na
beer!
Ingonsa
SC
walay
unfair
competition.
Why?
becausekinsabaangmagkamaliana? Ang San Miguel beer who has been in the Phil for a hundred years
kinsa pa bay ma deceive ana? Walajud. Yang sa DCLA kasamayan! Sany as if Sony.
Take note also, kasama din angSec. 169. False Designations of Origin; False Description or
Representation.Sabihinmong made in New Zealand perodidtodiaygibuhatsaBukidnon! That is false
representation of origin.169.1. Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services,
or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact,
or false or misleading representation of fact, which:
(a) is likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person
with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services,
or commercial activities by another person; or xxx so bottom line is if it deceive or is likely to
deceive.
In United States vs. Manuel (7 Phil. Rep., 221), SC said:
The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an appearance which
is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care, and not whether a certain limited class
of purchasers with special knowledge not possessed by the ordinary purchaser could avoid mistake by the
exercise of this special knowledge.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

September 18, 2014 (Complete)
Transcribed by: Ela Velarde
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGERUOS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
There were a lot of attempts to amend or repeal the old law on drugs and this 9165 embodies all those
proposed bills.
One thing thats different with this law from the previous ones is that, here the title is dangerous drugs act.
In the past, drugs were classified into 2, its either prohibited or regulated.Angmga prohibited is
yungmgacocain, shabu; prohibited outright. But there are also, of course, regulated drugs,
yungmgakailangan ng prescription. Now, that distinction has been done away with. All of them, now, are
called dangerous because the rationale given to that is that they are all the same. Even the regulated are
considered as dangerous.

Page 64 of 125

Another thing is that the penalties in the old law were increased. Usually ang penalty is life to death.
Taposang fines kay millions. While this law increased the penalties, it lowered the threshold amount for
possession. Kasidibaang penalty isdepende man yansa kung gaanokadamiyung possession mo. The
threshold amount, for purposes of possession, was lowered and the penalty was increased.
Features to remember regarding RA 9165:

The rules on plea bargaining is not available to the accused.

Probation is also not available. Probation does not apply regardless of the penalty imposed. Even if
the penalty imposed is probationable, probation could still not be applied if it is under 9165.

Terms: Article 3
(a) Administer. Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without
his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of
indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless
administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.
Angbagodito is the word inhalation. So there are many ways of administering the drug into the body:
injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means.
Take note here without his knowledge.
By the way. In this laws, aside from drugs themselves, the subject matter of this law includes drug
precursors and essential chemicals. So production, manufacturing not only of the dangerous drugs but this
includes the controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988 UN
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the
attached annex, which is an integral part of this Act.
What is important is that these controlled precursors and essential chemicals...we only adopted(?) the
international standard. Yung international standard, ganunang treatment nilasa drugs themselves and
including the chemicals that are mixed to form the drugs. Kasidibakailangan ng mga chemicals to make
the drugs; iba-ibayannahinhalo.
This law, there are several provisions here where it says that regardless of quantity or purity of the drug.
When you say regardless of the purity, you are not talking here of the drug themselves. This will include
the additives; the chemicals and precursors.
For example, isangtambakangnahulisaiyo. Hndi man yansya pure kasidiba may halo na man yannamga
chemicals, etc. so when you are arrested and prosecuted for possession of drugs in any quantity,
kasamana dun ang additives. Hindi mopwdsabihinna may threshold ang drugs eh, may 10, 50 grams,
etc; you cannot say that the quantity of drugs that was taken from you was only actually 5 grams
because the other grams were additives. You cannot raise that as a defense because kasamana dun ang
additives.
(j) Dangerous Drugs. Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single
Convention on Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the attached annex which is an integral part of
this Act.
So the dangerous drugs here defined refers to the international standards as defined in certain
conventions. So we conform to the international standard as to what is dangerous or what comprises
dangerous drugs.
(m) Dispense. Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or
without the use of prescription.

Page 65 of 125

This paragraph m is a new term in this law.

(o) Drug Syndicate. Any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with the
intention of committing any offense prescribed under this Act.
Kasi when you say syndicate, what comes to mind is a complex group, etc. but when you read the
definition, angnakalagay is Any organized group of two (2) or more persons x xx. So 2 persons can form a
syndicate. Just take note nakapag drug syndicate, pwedenaduhalangkatao.
(v) Cannabis or commonly known as "Marijuana" or "Indian Hemp" or by its any other name. Embraces
every kind, class, genus, or specie of the plant Cannabis sativa L. including, but not limited to, Cannabis
americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, churrus and ganjab, and embraces every kind, class and character of
marijuana, whether dried or fresh and flowering, flowering or fruiting tops, or any part or portion of the
plant and seeds thereof, and all its geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin, extract, tincture or in
any form whatsoever.
Noon, this cannabis or marijuana was not mentioned in the law. Similarly, shabu was not also specifically
mentioned in the old law. May male at female na marijuana pa! ang marijuana, dun yankumukuhasa
female ang potency nya. Sa male, walakangmakuha dun. Walangsilbianglalaki.
Kasi may kaso noon naang accused went technical, angsabinyanaangnakuhasakanya is male marijuana at
hindi female. Peroanaangcourt(?) ngawalakoylabot kung male man na or female basta kay every king,
class, genus or specie of marijuana; that includes male or female. No distinction.
(w) Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or commonly known as "Ecstasy", or by its any other
name. Refers to the drug having such chemical composition, including any of its isomers or derivatives in
any form.
Same with shabu, kahitano pa angpangalannanakalagaysa information, it does not matter bastakapag
tested chemically lalabasna MDMA sya.
(x) Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as "Shabu", "Ice", "Meth", or by its any other
name. Refers to the drug having such chemical composition, including any of its isomers or derivatives in
any form.
(cc) Planting of Evidence. The willful act by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting,
placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in the person, house, effects or in
the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing
the commission of any violation of this Act.
This is new in this law. You have to pay attention to this kasingathe threshold amount or quantity was
lowered and we are talking here of grams. Kung 10 grams lang, gaanokalaki or damibayan? Kasikung 10
grams lang eh madalitalagasya ma-plant. Kaya kapag the offender is a public official or especially a
policeman eh maximum kaagadang penalty sa planting of evidence regardless of the quantity.
(ee) Protector/Coddler. Any person who knowingly and willfully consents to the unlawful acts provided for
in this Act and uses his/her influence, power or position in shielding, harboring, screening or facilitating the
escape of any person he/she knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe on or suspects, has violated the
provisions of this Act in order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
What you will observe in this law is kasaliyung financer at yung coddler. Although the penalty is always
lower for the protector or the coddler. But usually, under this 9165, pag may penalty for the financer,
meron din yang coddler.
(ff) Pusher. Any person who sells, trades, administers, dispenses, delivers or gives away to another, on
any terms whatsoever, or distributes, dispatches in transit or transports dangerous drugs or who acts as a
broker in any of such transactions, in violation of this Act.
Tigbaligya! x xx gives ayaw to another, so it does not matter kung may consideration or wala. If you sell
or give away for free, you are considered a pusher under the law. Bisag out of love pa na, pushing

Page 66 of 125

langgihaponna! naaygihatagsaimotaposimonggihatagsauban kay ingonkanga dilikoana kay bad na

peropagnadakpanka kay pusher langgihaponka under the law.
If the accused..kasiang defense ng accused is hindi man akoang may-arinyan. Is he covered by the
definition of a pushereven if he is not the owner? Sa definition pa lang give away, it does not need
ownership. Basta kay nanghatagka, nagdispenseka, nagbaligyaka, etc. mahulogkasa pusher.
(jj) Trading. Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, email, mobile
or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of
such transactions whether for money or any other consideration in violation of this Act.
This is a new provision. If you use any of those instruments eh trading anglabasmonyan.
(kk) Use. Any act of injecting, intravenously or intramuscularly, of consuming, either by chewing,
smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or otherwise introducing into the physiological system of the
body, and of the dangerous drugs.
This is similar to the old law.
Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- .The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and purity involved,
including any and all species of opium poppy or any part thereof or substances derived therefrom even for
floral, decorative and culinary purposes.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import any
controlled precursor and essential chemical.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized under this Act, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any
other means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of the same. In
addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this
Section.
So it involves the importation not only of dangerous drugs but also the precursors and essential chemicals.
Look at the penalty. penalty of life imprisonment to death and a ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
This is supposed to be a deterrence. Tanawargud ng penalty ana oh kungdili b aka madeterana!
even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes. Lamisiguroibutangangshabusa adobo? orang
brownies butanganlangnanimo. Even for culinary purposes apilna! and for floral or decorative purposes.
unless authorized by law. You cannot just import them. You must have the authority.
So ibayung penalty sa drugs at ibaangsa precursors and essential chemicals. Lower angsa precursors.

Page 67 of 125

Take note of the 3rd paragraph. Maximum penalty! Kanino? Dun samga diplomats or nagagamit ng
diplomatic passport. Kasidiba usually hindi man yansiklagina-inspect. Kagayanungsa Italy
naginamitangsasakyan ng Vatican. Pagbaliknilagikan Italy kay gibutanganug drugs angsakyanansa Vatican.
Maramitayong jurisprudence involving importation. Noon pa! kahitnung opium pa! kagayanungmga look
chow na case. We still apply them. The ruling is that it will be considered importation if it is landed on
Philippine soil. If it is in transit, it is not considered importation.
Also, in importation you must prove that this vessel came from another country. It cannot be importation if
you cannot prove that. May isangkasonaangbarko is galing Saigon atataposdumatingsa Zamboanga.
Peroangnaprovenilana is the vessel..na nag arrive ng Zamboanga. The premise is it must be proven that
the vessel came from outside. When you say importation, you are getting some goods from another
country.
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from
the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug
and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the
proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section
shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this
Section.
When you look at the penalty, it is similar to section 4. Take note of the circumstances when the maximum
penalty shall be imposed.
Take note that if there is delivery of dangerous drugs, even if there was no receipt yet at the time the
arrest was made (pa-transit pa). When you say transport, the SC said in one case, TRANSPORT is defined
as to carry or convey from one place to another. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to
support the finding that the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether the place of
destination is reached.
Yung isang case ngana the accused said that is not mine! that is not material. Ownership or possession
are not indispensable elements of the crime.

Page 68 of 125

Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or
resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any
dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a
place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den,
dive or resort, the penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed on the maintainer, owner and/or operator.
If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated in
favor of the government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically allege that such place is
intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution shall prove such
intent on the part of the owner to use the property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall
be included as an accused in the criminal complaint.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this
Section.
Take note of the penalty. Its the same. Take not of those where the maximum penalty is imposed.
Take note that it is not important to prove the intent kasi 9165 is a special law!
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who isaware of the nature of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware of the
nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.
So if you are an employee and you know that it is a drug den or resort, pwdka ma-filanana! Angtanong is
what kind of employee? Kasiyou have to have knowledge dba. If you are the lawyer or the
accountant..orikawanghardinero or labandera. If you are aware of the nature of the place you will be
considered as an employee under this provision.
We are not only talking about employees here because of paragraph b. mag-adtoka or magbisitakadidto. It
may fall under section 7.
Section 8. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
engage in the manufacture of any dangerous drug.

Page 69 of 125

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall manufacture any
controlled precursor and essential chemical.
The presence of any controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the
clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof of manufacture of any dangerous drug. It shall be
considered an aggravating circumstance if the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or established
under the following circumstances:
(a) Any phase of the manufacturing process was conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s:
(b) Any phase or manufacturing process was established or undertaken within one hundred (100) meters
of a residential, business, church or school premises;
(c) Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected with booby traps;
(d) Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with legitimate business operations; (for example is naas
front or farm)or
(e) Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this
Section.
Take note of the penalty. It is similar. Uniform penalty of life imprisonment to death. Take note of the prima
facie proof of manufacturing of dangerous drugs. Take note also of the aggravating circumstances.
Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall illegally divert any controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person who shall deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, knowing, or under circumstances
where one reasonably should know, that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest,
manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain or
conceal any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in violation of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine
ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed if it
will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a dangerous drug in
violation of this Act.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who uses a
minoror a mentally incapacitated individual to deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

Page 70 of 125

Kanina, manufacture of dangerous drugs. Ditosa section 10 is Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,

Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals.
Again, the maximum penalty is imposed when you use a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual to
deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDA)
or
"ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine
(PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB),
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated
as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride
or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred
(300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or
other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value
or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300)
grams of marijuana.

Page 71 of 125

Section 11 is the most popular provision in 9165 because most of the cases involving this law are
violations of this provision, section 11 which is possession. The other one is section 15 which involves the
use. Ito angpinaka-usual na charges; either possession under section 11 or use under section 15.
So look at that, uniform penalty of life imprisonment to death. Fine of 500k to 10M for possession yan
although may quantity. Take note of the quantity yung 10 grams at yung 50 grams. So kung 50 grams or
more of shabu life to death nayan. Pero kung cocainyan, 10 grams pa lang eh life to death nayan. Kung
marijuana, under 9165, its 500 grams. Its down from 750 grams. If the quantity is below eh lower
angpenalty. Bastayunangmga threshold amounts. Lower than that, there is also a corresponding lowering
of the penalty.
What do you mean by possession? Jurisprudence defines possession as the retention or enjoyment of a
thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or by another who keeps or exercises in his hand(?). One
thing toremember is that possession under this law will also include constructive possession. So hindisya
actual or physical possession only but will include constructive possession.
The purposetalaga is to deter! To create a deterrence!
September 22, 2014
Note: Please refer to RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) Provisions were not entirely
copied.
Most of the cases filed are under Sec. 14 of RA 9165.
Sec. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. What is the penalty for the first offense of use under this law?
Rehabilitation for a minimum of six months. Thats the first penalty and the new provision.
Also take note, that if there is possession, it must have to be limited to that, and should not reach Section
15 on use. It says:
Provided, that this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to
have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11
of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Although, like I said, what really happens is that one is charged under Section 15. Possession is different
from use. If you commit the crime and are tested and found positive, then you fall under Section15 as
opposed to Section 11.
Sec. 16, Cultivation or culture of plants classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources thereof.
Plants like opium poppy, although in Sec.16, you will find there a provision of medical laboratories or
medical research centers because these cultivate plants from which medical herbs can be derived
especially marijuana, because it has scientifically-proven medicinal effects.
Sec. 17. Maintenance of Records. Why do we need recording? Because we are not just talking here
about drugs. It also includes precursors. If you fail to maintain records, it will fall under Section 17.
Sec 18. Unnecessary Prescription. The offender here, take note, is a practitioner. It is illegal if he is not
a practitioner. Penalty, 100,000.00 to 500,000.00 and the additional penalty of the revocation of his/her
license to practice.
who shall prescribe any dangerous drug to any person whose physical or physiological
condition does not require the use or in the dosage prescribed therein xxx
In other words, you gave it to someone who does not need it. Instead of giving him something thats good
for six months, when he only needed it for one month.
Sec. 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs.
Take note of the vast difference of the penalties between Sec. 18 and 19. Under Sec. 19, the penalty is
500,000.00 to 1,000,000.00 and life imprisonment to death.
Here, you are not a doctor who makes prescription.

Page 72 of 125

Sec.20. Confiscation and forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act,
Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
What should catch your attention here is not only that there is a similar provision in the RPC on forfeiture
but also the second paragraph:
Xxx after conviction in the RTC in the appropriate criminal case filed,
immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of all the
offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either owned or held
name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out
his/her lawful income xxx

the Court shall

proceeds of the
by him or in the
of proportion to

After conviction, there is here a similar provision in RA 1379 (Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth of
Public Officers and Employees). What you have to establish only is that your net worth is manifestly out of
proportion to your legitimate income.
It seems that 1379 and 9165 are combined. This time, it does not matter if the convict or accused is a
public officer or not. RA 1379 talks only about public officers, here, it does not.
In RA 1379, theres merely a petition for forfeiture of the assets of a person for it being so many compared
to his income, not balanced to the scale of justice. You may know it through the ITR where the income is
stated and from there, it will be checked if the assets and liabilities are balanced. If not, part of your
income must be coming from illegal sources. That is the basis for forfeiture.
Sec. 21 has been amended by RA 10640 (An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti Drug Campaign of the
Government).
As to the raid, because the police are having a hard time in the inventory with respect to the chain of
custody. From the raid, inventory, to the transport, to the police station or PDEA, the chain of custody must
not be broken. If it be broken even just a little, the case will be lost.
What will be amended here?
1. the apprehending fee xxx The same but there is added there, provided that the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served or at the nearest
police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures.
This is not contained in the original 9165, the inventory must be conducted at the place. Now, it is at the
nearest police station or office.
There must be an inventory with photographs. The amendatory law now includes any elected public official
and a representative from the National Prosecutors office, meaning, or the media.
2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs xxx in the new law, it says
immediately, but it does not say within 24 hours.
3. A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s. the new law does not include the time, 24 hours anymore. It states that immediately xxx does
not allow time frame xxx
What is important here is the inventory with respect to the chain of custody.
his presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. Cite
Why do you need certification?
So many cases where the amount reported in the inventory is different from that presented in court.
(Gihinay-hinayan kuha sa police) this affects the chain of custody.
Sec. 22. Grant of Compensation, Reward and Award. This is a new provision.
Sec. 23. Plea-bargaining provision. This is no longer allowed.

Page 73 of 125

Sec. 24. Non-applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. This is a new
provision also.
Sec. 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender
Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. This is confusing. A positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender. It should
be in the maximum period if aggravating. The problem is, qualifying aggravating, if you kill somebody and
youre high on drugs, instead of homicide then it becomes murder. If you have to qualify, it changes the
nature of the offense. It does not only change the period, but altogether changes the nature of the offense.
Necessarily, the penalty provided for the change of its nature is higher. Theft becomes robbery. This is a
new section, thats why I have not heard of cases falling under this.
Sec. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Exception to the General Rule. Attempt is punished in the same way as
consummated or conspiracy punished the same way as attempted. Attempted stage is the same as when
you attempt to flee the country, punished. When you actually leave, punished. Here, attempt or
consummated, the same. Conspiracy or consummated the same.
What are the instances?
1. importation
2. sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation
3. maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form
4. manufacture
5. cultivation or culture
For these acts, it does not matter if the act is merely attempted or they merely conspired. There is no overt
act here in conspiracy. They have just agreed to commit any of these acts, or in attempt, they commenced
the execution of the felony directly by overt acts. It is already punished as consummated.
Sec. 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or Employee for Misappropriation, Misapplication
of Failure to Account for the Confiscated, Seized, and/or surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources
of
Dangerous
Drugs,
Controlled
Precursors,
and
Essential
Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment Including the proceeds or properties
obtained from the unlawful act.
There are many cases where drugs are gone, the public officer is penalized. The penalty is life to death and
500,000.00 to 1,000,000.00. Moreover, the next paragraph:
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the
trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have received any financial or
material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons found guilty of trafficking
dangerous drugs shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any
elective or appointive positions in the government, its divisions, subdivision and
intermediaries, including government owned or controlled corporations.
Mere receipt, you did not anything. the problem here is that it is a special law. There is a collateral crime.
The official will be removed from office if found to be benefited. It is very broad.
Sec. 28. Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees. Again, talking about liabilities.
Note that if the offender is a government official or employee, the penalty is maximum in addition to
perpetual disqualification. That is basic. They say that public officers are lugi. But if you dont want to be a
subject of this bias, then do not enter public service, or leave. Thus, public office is a public trust. If you
have to compare the liability of a private individual and public official, who is more guilty? All things being
equal, some are more equal. In this case, the public officer will always be the more guilty.
In cases such as bribery, PD 749, you grant immunity not to the public officer because they are both guilty.
There is one who receives and gives. While there is conspiracy, the public official is the more guilty. That is
why the public officer will always be the one who is considered to be graver. That is why theyre offering
the carrot to the bribe giver.

Page 74 of 125

Sec. 29. Criminal Liability of Planting of Evidence. The penalty of death is placed here. Why, because
the volume of drugs that merits a very very high penalty is very small. Very easy to plant. This is supposed
to deter planting of evidence especially by agents or persons in authority.
Regardless of the quantity or purity, that is the mandatory penalty.
Sec. 30. Criminal Liability of Public Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or
Other Juridical Entities. Of course, the officers are liable.
Sec. 31. Aliens. After serving sentence, you will be deported.
Sec. 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued by the Board.
Sec. 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment.
Compared to RA 749, here in 9165 it has its own provision, there is an immunity. In the language of the
intelligence community, it is palit-ulo. Bigyan mo ako information, we will not file charges against you.
What is usual in grants of immunity, there is guilt but there would be no charge. This witness should not be
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. You can only qualify if youre not guilty of such. However, in
9165, you can still be allowed even if you have been convicted with a crime involving moral turpitude.
Par (4) There is an exception, Except when there is no other direct evidence available for the
State other than the information and testimony of said information or witness.
In other laws granting immunity, there is no such exception. Why? The persons who are involved in this
kind of crime are usually of shady characters. Usually, they do not have a good record. Their history would
most likely involve conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude in the past. If we are going to restrict
ourselves to those who were not convicted with it, we would most likely not be able to get witnesses.
Sec. 34. Termination of grant of immunity. If the person granted immunity will renege if he does not
comply with the terms of the grant of immunity, it shall be revoked.
The only requirement of the law as to who it should be is that the person who is not the most guilty. This is
different from the person who is the least guilty. As long as you are not the most guilty, you are qualified to
be witness for the State or prosecution.
Sec. 35. Accessory Penalties.
Also, such rights, meaning to guardianship, convey property and political rights, shall be suspended during
the pendency of an appeal from such conviction. That is explicit. In the past, we used to see the spectacle
of public officers running and winning in the elections while in prison. All these rights shall be suspended.
True, one has not been convicted by final judgment, therefore, Im still innocent until proven guilty by final
judgment. If the case is on appeal, then I am still innocent. But here, nevertheless, the rights are
suspended even on appeal.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

September 23, 2014 (Complete)
Transcribed by: Ela Velarde
CONTINUATION OF RA 9165 (COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002)
So we are in Article 36.
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic
laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard
the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH
accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ,
among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well
as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug
test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the

Page 75 of 125

date of issue which may be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug
testing:
(a) Applicants for driver's license. No driver's license shall be issued or renewed to any person unless
he/she presents a certification that he/she has undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon
that he/she is free from the use of dangerous drugs;
(b) Applicants for firearm's license and for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. All applicants for
firearm's license and permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall undergo a mandatory drug test to
ensure that they are free from the use of dangerous drugs: Provided, That all persons who by the nature of
their profession carry firearms shall undergo drug testing;
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant
to the related rules and regulations as contained in the school's student handbook and with notice to the
parents, undergo a random drug testing: Provided, That all drug testing expenses whether in public or
private schools under this Section will be borne by the government;
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. Officers and employees of public and private
offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in
the company's work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing
the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt
with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of
Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. Officers and
members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory
drug test;
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty
of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug
test; and
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government
shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs
use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.
So itoang basis para dun samga drug testing for:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Applicants for drivers license

Applicants for firearms license
Students of secondary or tertiary schools
Officers and employees or public or private offices
Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies
All persons charged before the (DOJ) prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable
penalty (penalty prescribed by law) of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test
So the drug testing becomes mandatory when the penalty is at least prision mayor
g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
Here, those found to be positive, in addition to the penalties prescribed, shall be subject to the provisions
of Section 15.
Section 37. Issuance of False or Fraudulent Drug Test Results. Any person authorized, licensed or
accredited under this Act and its implementing rules to conduct drug examination or test, who issues false
or fraudulent drug test results knowingly, willfully or through gross negligence, shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

Page 76 of 125

An additional penalty shall be imposed through the revocation of the license to practice his/her profession
in case of a practitioner, and the closure of the drug testing center.
Section 40. Records Required for Transactions on Dangerous Drug and Precursors and Essential
Chemicals.
a) Every pharmacist dealing in dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall
maintain and keep an original record of sales, purchases, acquisitions and deliveries of dangerous drugs,
indicating therein the following information:
(1) License number and address of the pharmacist;
(2) Name, address and license of the manufacturer, importer or wholesaler from whom the dangerous
drugs have been purchased;
(3) Quantity and name of the dangerous drugs purchased or acquired;
(4) Date of acquisition or purchase;
(5) Name, address and community tax certificate number of the buyer;
(6) Serial number of the prescription and the name of the physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner
issuing the same;
(7) Quantity and name of the dangerous drugs sold or delivered; and
(8) Date of sale or delivery.
A certified true copy of such record covering a period of six (6) months, duly signed by the pharmacist or
the owner of the drugstore, pharmacy or chemical establishment, shall be forwarded to the Board within
fifteen (15) days following the last day of June and December of each year, with a copy thereof furnished
the city or municipal health officer concerned.
(b) A physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner authorized to prescribe any dangerous drug shall issue
the prescription therefor in one (1) original and two (2) duplicate copies. The original, after the prescription
has been filled, shall be retained by the pharmacist for a period of one (1) year from the date of sale or
delivery of such drug. One (1) copy shall be retained by the buyer or by the person to whom the drug is
delivered until such drug is consumed, while the second copy shall be retained by the person issuing the
prescription.
For purposes of this Act, all prescriptions issued by physicians, dentists, veterinarians or practitioners shall
be written on forms exclusively issued by and obtainable from the DOH. Such forms shall be made of a
special kind of paper and shall be distributed in such quantities and contain such information and other
data as the DOH may, by rules and regulations, require. Such forms shall only be issued by the DOH
through its authorized employees to licensed physicians, dentists, veterinarians and practitioners in such
quantities as the Board may authorize. In emergency cases, however, as the Board may specify in the
public interest, a prescription need not be accomplished on such forms. The prescribing physician, dentist,
veterinarian or practitioner shall, within three (3) days after issuing such prescription, inform the DOH of
the same in writing. No prescription once served by the drugstore or pharmacy be reused nor any
prescription once issued be refilled.
(c) All manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, dealers and retailers of dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall keep a record of all inventories, sales, purchases,
acquisitions and deliveries of the same as well as the names, addresses and licenses of the persons from
whom such items were purchased or acquired or to whom such items were sold or delivered, the name
and quantity of the same and the date of the transactions. Such records may be subjected anytime for
review by the Board.

Page 77 of 125

So titingnanang records mo because you are not just dealing with dangerous drugs but also with what was
considered in the past as regulated(?).
Basahinnyonalang yang Article VIII: Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents.
ARTICLE IX: Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Please take note of the DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD. The number of members has been changed. In the
past, there were 8 members of the board. Now, we have 17. Just be familiar with these members or
positions.
Section 78.Composition of the Board. The Board shall be composed of seventeen (17) members
wherein three (3) of which are permanent members, the other twelve (12) members shall be in an ex
officio capacity and the two (2) shall be regular members.
The three (3) permanent members, who shall possess at least seven-year training and experience in the
field of dangerous drugs and in any of the following fields: in law, medicine, criminology, psychology or
social work, shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. The President shall designate a
Chairman, who shall have the rank of a secretary from among the three (3) permanent members who shall
serve for six (6) years. Of the two (2) other members, who shall both have the rank of undersecretary, one
(1) shall serve for four (4) years and the other for two (2) years. Thereafter, the persons appointed to
succeed such members shall hold office for a term of six (6) years and until their successors shall have
been duly appointed and qualified.
The other twelve (12) members who shall be ex officio members of the Board are the following:
(1) Secretary of the Department of Justice or his/her representative;
(2) Secretary of the Department of Health or his/her representative;
(3) Secretary of the Department of National Defense or his/her representative;
(4) Secretary of the Department of Finance or his/her representative;
(5) Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment or his/her representative;
(6) Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government or his/her representative;
(7) Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or his/her representative;
(8) Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs or his/her representative;
(9) Secretary of the Department of Education or his/her representative;
(10) Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education or his/her representative;
(11) Chairman of the National Youth Commission;
(12) Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Cabinet secretaries who are members of the Board may designate their duly authorized and permanent
representatives whose ranks shall in no case be lower than undersecretary.
The two (2) regular members shall be as follows:
(a) The president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(b) The chairman or president of a non-government organization involved in dangerous drug campaign to
be appointed by the President of the Philippines.

Page 78 of 125

The Director of the NBI and the Chief of the PNP shall be the permanent consultants of the Board, and shall
attend all the meetings of the Board.
All members of the Board as well as its permanent consultants shall receive a per diem for every meeting
actually attended subject to the pertinent budgetary laws, rules and regulations on compensation,
honoraria and allowances: Provided, That where the representative of an ex officio member or of the
permanent consultant of
ARTICLE XI: Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Cases
Section 90. Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing
Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this
Act. The number of courts designated in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the
number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of their filing.
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is
established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the
termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable
cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within fortyeight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the
date of the filing of the information. Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the date of submission of the case for resolution.
Section 90 is the basis why there is a specialized or a drugs court that tries drug cases.
So when you have special drugs courts, the DOJ is also mandated to designate special prosecutors for
drugs cases. So the prosecutors assigned to drugs courts are also specially designated to handle drugs
cases. So these prosecutors are supposed to be exclusively prosecuting RA 9165 cases. Although the
meaning of this exclusivity is that you assign a lawyer for this court or prosecutor for this drugs court.
Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and other Government Officials and
Employees in Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs Cases. Any member of law
enforcement agencies or any other government official and employee who, after due notice, fails or
refuses intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings,
involving violations of this Act, without any valid reason, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less
than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by
his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee
mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2)
months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned, the former
does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other government office located in
another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. However, the concerned member
of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling
reasons: Provided, That his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the
order to transfer or re-assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval; Provided, further, That

Page 79 of 125

his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one
(1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but
not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from
public office, should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of
any existing law.
Section 91 addresses the problem in the past whereby the witnesses..of course the witnesses in drugs
cases are those who usually those who seized the drugs and those who conducted the raid, etc. Tapos may
media and phot ops. Peropagpanahonnangamutestifysilasacourt eh mangawala man! They would refuse,
forget or fail to testify leading to the dismissal of all these cases. This became alarming.
So the penalty here is without prejudice to administrative liability.
Take note also that under this section, the superior of this witness may also be penalized. Second
paragraph. But take note namerong condition na office if despite due notice to them and to the witness
concerned, the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court. So he must
show that he exerted reasonable effort unyanawalaangiyangwitness or subordinate. If he fails to give to
the court a satisfactory explanation, he will be liable under this section. So, its not just the witness but
also the superior.
Take note also of the 3rd paragraph. The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government
employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other
government office located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court.
Because this used to be the reason kungbakitnawawala. Now, the law says that you cannot be transferred
as a GENERAL RULE if they are to testify in drugs cases which are pending. There are EXCEPTIONS. They
can be transferred if there are compelling reasons. PROVIDED that the superior SHALL (mandatory) notify
the court where the case is pending of the order to transfer or re-assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from
the approval of the order to transfer or re-assignment. PROVIDED FURTHER that the superior shall be
penalized if he fails to notify the court of such transfer or re-assignment.
Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. Any government officer or employee
tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable
neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the
said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years (reclusion temporal) without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
This provision addresses the problem in the past with respect to the prosecutors themselves. There was
this perception that, in many cases, there was connivance with the prosecution leading to the dismissal of
the case. Accordingly, delay was intentional, etc.
Now, when the prosecutor delays or bangles the prosecution, he will be penalized by section 92. Like when
you receive the subpoena but you do not appear.
Under the RPC, yung failure to prosecute. The prosecutor may also be liable under that particular article
under the RPC if the prosecutor fails to prosecute or tolerates the commission of offenses. So this is the
counterpart nungsa 9165.
Any question about 9165? Wala?! Cgemangulina ta!

Page 80 of 125

Before we continue with crime against public morals. lets go back to crim 1. I was informed last night that
there was a new law, RA 10592. This law amends 5 article of 3850. what is Act 3850? It is the revised
penal code.
Republic
Congress
Metro
Fifteenth
Third Regular Session

of
of

the
the

Philippines
Philippines
Manila
Congress

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-third day of July, two thousand
twelve.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592]
AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment.
Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of
counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except
in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and
shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
deducted from thirty (30) years.
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced
and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to
the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under
this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at
any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.

ATTY BUENAS COMMENTS: Now, and na change dito is the detention prisoner should at
least voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the

Page 81 of 125

assistance of counsel. Actually yun ang nabago. Also there is an addition. Credit for
preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from
thirty (30) years." so RP is computed at 30 years.After that paragraph, the accused who
has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to, wala na yung "more than"
it says there only a period equal to the maximum. Possible maximum imprisonment.And
what is added is this, the computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of release
under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowanceProvided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any
stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided,
finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act

SEC. 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.

ATTY BUENAS COMMENTS:Actually ano man ang nagbago dito, yung number 3, for good
conduct allowances earned while he serving sentence yung ang original. NOW,
dinagdagan ng while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment. In other woords, good
conduct allowances may apply even if your still undergoing preventive imprisonment not
only when you have been sentenced.

SEC. 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any offender qualified for
credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted
prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail
shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty
days for each month of good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction
of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study,
teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances
for good conduct.

ATTY BUENAS COMMENTS:Again ang siningit ng Republic Act na ito "offender qualified for

Page 82 of 125

preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29." this special law dinagdagan ng

rehabilitation or detention center or any other. meaning this will apply to those
undergoing preventive imprisonment. And take note, ito yung substantial because the
days na ma-deduct lumaki. dati in the first two years you will be allowed a deduction of 5
days ngayon 20. and so on. (just check the codal above) and this was added, an appeal
by the accused shall not deprive him of the entitlement of the above allowances. so even
if the case of still on appeal, you are still entitled.

SEC. 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. A deduction of one fifth of the period of his
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive
imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article
158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance
of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to
in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be
granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in
Article 158 of this Code.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving sentence.

ATTY BUENAS COMMENTS: Again siningit yun preventive imprisonment.Now the law
recognizes the loyalty of those who remain. kung dili sila maghawa naa na silay award, a
deduction of two-fifths. so in other words, you are being encouraged to stay.

SEC. 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or
the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good
conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.

SEC. 6. Penal Clause. Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby
mandated. As such, the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment, a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be
imposed against any public officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Secretary of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
shall within sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations
on the classification system for good conduct and time allowances, as may be necessary,
to implement the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 8. Separability Clause. If any part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the
remainder of the provisions not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

SEC. 9. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order,
letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

Page 83 of 125

SEC. 10. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication
in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) new papers of general circulation.

Ok now lets go back to our lesson.

The main law now is PD 1602. this is the mother law when it comes to gambling and betting. PD 1602
repealed Articles 195 to 199 of the revised penal code.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1602
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES ON ILLEGAL GAMBLING
WHEREAS, Philippine Gambling Laws such as Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code
(Forms of Gambling and Betting), R.A. 3063 (Horse racing Bookies), P.D. 449
(Cockfighting), P.D. 483 (Game Fixing), P.D. 510 (Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos.
33 and 97 of the Ministry of Justice, P.D. 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies) and other City and
Municipal Ordinances or gambling all over the country prescribe penalties which are
inadequate to discourage or stamp out this pernicious activities;
WHEREAS, there is now a need to increase their penalties to make them more effective in
combating this social menace which dissipate the energy and resources of our people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines,
by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
Section 1. Penalties. The following penalties are hereby imposed:
(a) The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period of a fine ranging from one
thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in
its medium period or a fine ranging from five thousand to ten thousand pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-sections who in any
manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or
games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and
game fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and the
like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine, poker and its derivatives,
monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue and other card games; paik que, high and low,
mahjong, domino and other games using plastic tiles and the likes; slot machines,
roulette, pinball and other mechanical contraptions and devices; dog racing, boat racing,
car racing and other forms of races, basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, pingpong and
other forms of individual or team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other
machinations; banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon
chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of
value are at stake or made;
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the
preceding subparagraph to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place
where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited
gambling is frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public or government building
or barangay hall, the malfactor shall be punished by prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine of six thousand pesos.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of six thousand
pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor of the above gambling schemes.
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary absolute
disqualification or a fine of six thousand pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer,

Page 84 of 125

conductor or banker of said gambling schemes is a government official, or where such

government official is the player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case of
game fixing, point shaving and machination.
(d) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging from four
hundred to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall, knowingly
and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day, possess any lottery list, paper or other
matter containing letters, figures, signs or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in
the games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar games of lotteries and
numbers which have taken place or about to take place.
(e) The penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications shall be imposed upon any
barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a gambling house or place in his
jurisdiction fails to abate the same or take action in connection therewith.
(f) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from five
hundred pesos to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any security officer, security
guard, watchman, private or house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and
the like which have the reputation of a gambling place or where gambling activities are
being held.
Section 2. Informer's reward. Any person who shall disclose information that will lead to
the arrest and final conviction of the malfactor shall be rewarded twenty percent of the
cash money or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.

So what are punishable here? Direct or indirect participation. When you say indirect what does that mean?
if you are watching the game, are you an indirect participant? Sabi ni dean, hindi. When you say indirect
participation it refers to those nagpapakain, catering sa gambling house na yun. According to dean Inigo,
basta nandoon ka lang, that is not considered indirect participation. Now when you say gambling you are
talking about the game or scheme. Now take note that the concept of the game or scheme in the revised
penal code is different from the concept in the special law which is 1602. Anong difference dun? Ang sa
RPC kasi, it is a game or scheme that is based on chance. In 1602, the game or scheme may be based on
chance or on the skill of the players. cause when you say chance, chance talaga, random yan but when
you say the game, the game is sometimes based on the skill of the players, so under 1602 if the game is
based more on the skill included pa rin siya, that still amounts to gambling. that is a radical departure
from the concept in the revised penal code.
Now one thing you have to remember is is yung lottery. It is not included although it is based on chance.
Lottery, the concept really is it is based on chance you are buying, a raffle ticket for example, what you
are buying is really the chance to win. you do not get anything save for that chance. and that price is
usually, malayo ang difference ng value than the amount you spent for the value for the chance to win.
substantially bigger ang price. that is why ang lottery is prohibited by 1602.

But when you notice in our malls beside SM department store, there are coupons. When you buy
something from the department store you sometimes get a coupon, tapos ilagay mo dun sa tambyolo (?)
you put it then manalo ka, is that lottery? Jurisprudence would say hindi yan sya lottery. because when
you got o that store, you buy something diba, you get something for your money's worth, pakapin na lang
yung coupon na yan in which you are given a chance to win a price. In lottery kasi you do not get anything,
you just get that paper which is worthless anyway, you are buying really the chance. Lottery is when you
invest someting where the outcome is pure chance and the price is disproportionate to the investment.

Also take note that this 1602 has been amended by LOI 816.
TO

The Minister of National Defense

The

minister

of
Local
Community

Government
and
Development

Page 85 of 125

The
Armed

Forces
The

Chief
of
of
the
Chief
Director-General,
The

Staff
Philippines
Constabulary
INP
Chairman

Task Force Anti-Gambling

SUBJECT
No.

To exclude certain prohibited games under Presidential Decree

1602

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Presidential Decree No. 1602 to discourage and
prohibit gambling not regulated or sanctioned under existing laws;
WHEREAS, there is need to exclude therefrom certain games like domino, bingo,
poker when not played with five cards stud, cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong
when exclusively intended for parlor games or for home entertainment;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do
hereby order that the games of domino, bingo, poker when not played with five
cards stud, cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong, provided that they are played as
parlor games or for home entertainment; and Provided Further, That they are
not played in places habitually used for gambling and the betting is not
disguised to defeat the intent of Presidential Decree No. 1602, are hereby
exempted.
Done in the City of Manila, this 20th day of February, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.

LOI actually only excluded certain games from the application of the law. like domino, bingo, mahjong
exclusively intended for parlor games or for entertainment provided they are not played in places
habitually used for gambling and the betting is not disguised to defeat the intent of 1602. What do you
mean by disguised? meaning , instead of money , chips, yung mga ganyan mga representative of money.
Also take note of other special laws. (1) Cockfighting law of 1974. dili man na sila pwede adlaw-adlaw,
usually during fiesta and hindi pwede maglagpas nga tatlong araw. the law prohibits more than three days.
When is it allowed?
PD 449. Section 5 (d) Holding of Cockfights. Except as provided in this Decree,
cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays
and during local fiestas for not more than three days. It may also be held during
provincial, city or municipal, agricultural, commercial or industrial fair, carnival or
exposition for a similar period of three days upon resolution of the province, city or
municipality where such fair, carnival or exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of
the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting
on the occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the month of a
local fiesta or for more than two occasions a year in the same city or municipality:
Provided, further, that no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12
(Philippine Independence Day) November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good
Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during Registration Days for such election or
referendum.

that is why may na file-an dito ng kaso kasi the city officer issued special permits, bakit man yun na meron
mang law that governs the holding of cockfights. meron dun sa Buhangin man yata yun.

Now lets go to grave scandals.

Page 86 of 125

Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
Art. 200. Grave scandal. The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be
imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any
highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.

Article 200. Number one thing that you should remember is that this is an article of last resort. Meaning
even if an act can be considered as scandalous. If it properly falls under another article, then do not use
Article 200. Example, concubinage may acts doon ang isa doon is having sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances with a woman other than your wife. diba scandal man na oh? unsa man man day ni, that is a grave scandal. it is against decency and good customs. (21:30)

September 24 2nd half

Gwapolaginingstatuani David no? didtosila nag anasailalomsastatuani David. Oh di under scandalous
circumstances? Are you gonna charge them with grave scandal? Hindi.DoonkasaConcubinage (Sexual
intercourse under scandalous circumstances)
All other scandals nahindi mag pasok dun, ditto kanasa Art 200.
Art. 200. Grave scandal. The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any
person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not
expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
So if the person youre having sex with is other than your wife, it will fall under Concubinage. But if it is
your wife, then it may fall under Grave Scandal.
The act in Art 200 must be made public or accessible to the public because all of these scandalous conduct
if made in the confines of your own bedroom, that cannot fall under grave scandal. Here you are talking
about decency or good customs of the community. You are therefore committing a crime against the
community/the public. The act must be done publicly, committed in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view. So kungdidtokasaimong room, ok lang, peropagdidtonakasa terrace,
ibangusapannayan.
From Notes in internet: (The public view is not required, it is sufficient if in public place. For public
knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who sees it is not material).
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. The
penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such
imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
Etoyungproblemadito, how will you classify if the doctrines/publication/exhibitions are indecent or
obscene? You go to the norms of the time as standard or basis.
(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
Immoral doctrines Example: wife swapping, if you advocate that it will fall under article 201. So this has a
relation to sexual conduct.
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing
such literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those
which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for
violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

Page 87 of 125

For example: the book of DH Lawrence, that book during his time was banned kasi obscene nga but now
cute ka, literary something2x ka if you have that, uy deep xa! hahawut? Because its a social
commentary apparently angkabitni Mrs. Montero is actually based on this book. Ngayon, that is no
longer considered obscene. Again, you go back to the norms of the times.
Who is liable here?
(1) Authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form (so liable langsila if it is
published with their consent, if without his consent he cannot be made liable)
(2) Editors publishing such obscene literature (will always be liable)
"obscene" something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy. No redeeming value to himself or appeal
to prurient appetite.
Test of obscenity: whether the matter has a tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds of those who are
open to immoral influences. A matter can also be considered obscene if it shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as indecency.
G.R. No. L-20569 October 29, 1923 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. J. J.
KOTTINGER
The word "obscene" and the term "obscenity" may be defined as meaning something offensive to chastity,
decency, or delicacy. "Indeceny" is an act against behavior and a just delicacy. The test ordinarily followed
by the courts in determining whether a particular publication or other thing is obscene within the meaning
of the statutes, is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article
charged as being obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency, (29 Cyc., 1315; 8 R. C. L., 312.)
Fernando vs CA
There is no perfect definition of obscenity but the latest word is that of Miller v. California which
established basic guidelines, to wit: (a) whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards
would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or
describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
With respect to immoral or obscene shows, relate this to a special law.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1986 CREATING THE MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND
CLASSIFICATION BOARD
Section 3.Powers and Functions. - The BOARD shall have the following functions, powers and duties: c) To
approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation,
production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures,
television programs and publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of
the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being immoral,
indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines
or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or crime,
such as but not limited to:
i) Those which tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or otherwise
threaten the economic and/or political stability of the State;
ii) Those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or the
duly constituted authorities;
iii) Those which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
iv) Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence or pornography;
v) Those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;

Page 88 of 125

vi) Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living
or dead; and
vii) Those which may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to matter
which are sub-judice in nature.
Provided, however, That deletions or cuts must not be made on the master negative of the films, and that
such master negative shall be deposited with the Film Archives of the Philippines and shall be released for
export purposes to the film owner only upon showing of the proper export permit; Provided, finally, That
the film owner shall execute his own undertaking that such master negative shall be exclusively used for
export purposes and not for local showing;
This law does not just prohibit yung prurient interest but it also includes those that glorify criminals. That it
why our movies will never end happily for criminals, mamatayjudna or mapriso.
(3) Those who shall sell,give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals.
So kungbigyanmopalaangkaibiganmonga obscene publication (asus porn ragani to!) is that considered
giving away for it to be considered as violation of this law? No. when you say give away it should be
giving away to the public in general .if you just give it to one person, that is not covered. It does not
include the isolated, casual, or occasional act of giving to a single recipient. What is punished here is
giving or distributing to several people. Take note, because the intention of the law is to protect the morals
of the public.
Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes;
First, erase vagrants there because that is no longer punishable under RA 10158.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158

March 27, 2012

AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO.
3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE
"Article 202.Prostitutes; Penalty. For the purposes of this article, WOMENwho, for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
"Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article shall be punished by
arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in
the discretion of the court."
Section 2.Effect on Pending Cases. All pending cases under the provisions of Article 202 of the
Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be dismissed upon
effectivity of this Act.
Section 3.Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be
immediately released upon effectivity of this Act: Provided, That they are not serving sentence or
detained for any other offense or felony.
There seems to be a definition of a prostitute. Then it says "Any person found guilty of any of the offenses
covered by this articleshall be punished by, but to my mind walanaman offenses covered ditokasi this
article only defines what is a prostitute. How are you going to file an information under this? Just think
about that.
Who are prostitutes under the law?
WOMEN who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct

Women so walang gender equality. Merong male prostitutes but that is not included in the definition
under the law. KAHIT PA MAS MALANDI PA TAYO (men) KESA SA MGA BABAE, we will not be considered
as prostitute. (capital for emphasis haha).

Page 89 of 125

for money or profit so if you have sex for free kahitlahat pa nglalakesalawschool, you are not a
prostitute.

Take note also that it must be done habitually so as to ano yang habit, ewanko, once every month
or once every sempagtingbayad nag tuition? Haha. Just take not of that nadapat habitual

Can a virgin be a prostitute? Yes! sexual intercourse OR lascivious conduct so kahitwalang

penetration, lascivious conduct na, you can still be considered a prostitute even without sexual
intercourse.

In relation to this prostitution we have RA 7610 child prostitution.

Republic Act No. 7610

June 17, 1992

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD
ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
ARTICLE III Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
Section 5.Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or
other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such
child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of
age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act
No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be:
Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment
where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or
establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the
license has been issued to said establishment.
Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under
Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with
the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other
similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any
person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other
similar establishments. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated

Page 90 of 125

felony under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the crime of
child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal Code.
Also in relation to vagrancy is PD 1563 or the Anti-mendicancy law.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1563
ESTABLISHING AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR THE CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF
MENDICANCY, PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Section 1. Title And Scope Of The Decree. This Decree shall be known as the Mendicancy Law of 1978. It
shall apply to all mendicants, and exploited infants or children who are 8 years old and below, minors
found begging and covered by Presidential Decree No. 603 and parents of exploited infants and children
criminally liable under Article 59 and 60 of Presidential Decree No. 603
Section 5.Criminal Liability. A mendicant as defined in Paragraph (a) Section 3 hereof, shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2
years or both at the discretion of the court.
A habitual mendicant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a period
not exceeding 4 years or both at the discretion of the court.
Parents of exploited infants or minors under Section 4 of this Decree shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Articles 59 and 60 of Presidential Decree No. 603, unless they are themselves
mendicants.
Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms directly to mendicants, exploited infants and
minors on public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall be punished by a fine nor exceeding
P20.00.
So it is a violation of the law if you give alms to beggars.
exceeding P20.00.

Peroang penalty angmaganda fine nor

In relation to mendicancy, nasa child abuse law.

Republic Act No. 7610

June 17, 1992

ARTICLE VIOther Acts of AbuseSection 10.Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua.

Criminal Law Review September 25, 2014

We are now in CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS, when we think about public officers.. I deem it
best to plug the Office of the Ombudsman, sa BAR exams sige labas yan, mga crimes committed by public
officers in relation to the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman. Before that, in Title 7, crimes
committed by public officers, you relate that immediately to the Constitution which says that Public Office
is a public trust. In fact, that is section 1 of Article 11, and again if you situate the Office of the
Ombudsman as compared to other Constitutional bodies, one thing that you would notice is that the Office
of the Ombudsman does not have its own Title, it is under the Title Public Accountability. This would tell
you that the Ombudsman really is about public accountability.

Page 91 of 125

In Title seven, although the Title says Crimes committed by public officers, but actually it is NOT an
exclusive list there.
The concept (Ombudsman) is not really unique to us, actually gihulaman o gikopya lang nato nah
sa Scandinavian countries. But the concept is the same: To keep an eye on Royal officials. So some sort of
oversight ka, ang labas. From 1713 pa yan and from there, nagkalat-kalat na. They say that the Office of
the Ombudsman in the Philippines is one of the MOST POWERFUL if not the most powerful. In other
countries kasi, the Ombudsman is like the CHR, only recommendatory. Ang atin can actually impose
sanctions diretso for administrative cases and file criminal cases, also merong fact-finding function. That is
not common in the Ombudsman of other countries. I think that the Ombudsman that is more powerful than
ours is that in Hongkong, kasi sila merong law enforcement powers eh, they can arrest, pero ang
Ombudsman dito wala.
Anyway, it is in the Constitution, an independent body with fiscal autonomy. Without that
independence, sayang2x lang tag buhat aning Ombudsman kung madictahan lang sa executive or
legislative department. Necessarily, for us to have an effective Ombudsman, it should be set apart from
the other departments of the government.
(Referring to the powerpoint) This is our organizational structure now, you see our very own Atty.
Elman is Deputy Ombudsman for two-thirds (2/3) of the country. Actually, yang tatlong Deputy
Ombudsman diyan is from Mindanao, kasi si Gerard comes from GenSan
Lets look at the mandate. The law creating the Ombudsman is RA 6770, The Ombudsman Act of
1989. The mandate is taken not only from that law but also from the Constitution, similar wordings, and its
not just criminal cases, its anything as long as it is against a public official or employee. So daghan
nagyawyaw anah kay any complaint or a complaint filed in any form or manner. So sa atoh pa, if
you write a love letter to the Office of the Ombudsman, the office should act on it. It need not be
subscribed or sworn to. It doesnt have to be notarized because the Constitution or the law only says to act
promptly pa jud, to complaints filed in any form or manner as long as it is against a public official or
employee, yun na yun. Thats why we receive all these anonymous letters, letters from concerned citizen,
kung ano ano lang, varying from plunder or gibiyaan sa asawa apil pa nah, maski unsa. Basta kay public
officer. Wala na daw siya kadawat sa iyang monthly nga sustento, patabang sa Ombudsman. Di ba kaha ka
mabuang nga hastang daghana anang magsulat anah.
Anyway, Jurisdiction, take note is in the Constitution and the law (Ombudsman Act). And take note
again how broad the conditions are, kung ano pwede naming mainvestigate or maprosecute jurisdictionwise: anything that is illegal, unjust, inefficient, improper ganon lang. Walang problema ang
illegal kasi law yan eh. How about ang unjust or improper. Kumbaga, come to think of it, anything under
the sun as long as it involves a public official may be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman. Look
at the disciplinary authority. When we say disciplinary authority, this simply means the power to
discipline or the power to sanction. So sinong pwede masanction or madiscipline ng Ombudsman: all
elective and appointive officials of the government, etc. EXCEPT: impeachable officers, members of
the Judiciary and members of Congress. Take note of this because disciplinary authority is different
from investigative authority. Kasi kahit yung mga yun ay pwede ma-investigate for purposes of filing a
verified complaint for impeachment. And thats exactly what happened during kay Erap na time.
Now, the second paragraph here is the basis for indicting or impleading or including private
individuals in criminal cases filed against public officers. You may have heard diba na some people,
although private individuals, are criminally charged before the office of the Ombudsman. Pwede ba yon?
The answer is YES, based on this paragraph in section 22 but you have to establish a conspiracy
between this private person and the public officer. That is why naging issue yan sa Napoles na kaso
because Napoles is a private individual. Anong basis ngayon to file a case against her? The Ombudsman
can only file a case against her, a private individual, if is alleged in the information or in the complaint na
nagconspire siya with the public officer. Yan ang basis niyan.
What happens if the public officer dies? Nandoon na sa SandiganBayan (SB) yung case tapos
merong private individual charged together or in conspiracy with a public officer. Then the public officer
dies, does the SB retain jurisdiction? The rule is once acquired diba, andiyan na ang jurisdiction BUT in the
case of Henry Go, sabi ng Supreme Court, eh wala na nga ang public officer bakit magstand ang case, na
ang natira ay private individual. So wala na daw jurisdiction ang SB. And corollary to that is the question:
What happens if the death occurs during Preliminary Investigation (P.I.) in the Office of the Ombudsman?
Alangan, wala na talaga. Mas lalong wala yon. Anyway, just take note of that case of Henry Go vs
SandiganBayan.

Page 92 of 125

Ok, these are the other functions. Prevention is better and above the cure, char lang. How many
millions could have been saved if the kawat, instead of filing cases left and right, could have been
prevented. Another function of the Ombudsman (OMB) is public assistance. Pwede magmediate or
request for assistance. Here, the strain in the relation is minimized so magpublic assistance na lang. But of
course, there are non-negotiable cases diba, especially if it is a crime involving public funds or property,
you cannot mediate that.
So you can just walk-in or write, or you can call or text or e-mail. Yung text na yan kasi I remember
very well because, hindi naman sa.. actually ako nag-suggest nito noon noon pa bago pa na-uso ang text.
Kasi nga you can file in any form or manner but now, because of the loads of complaints through text or email, sabi ko di na maganda ito. For one, diba we need sufficiency in form so pwede natin diyan muna,
initiatory or something, itext muna then we will answer please file a complaint parang ganon. Pero
magandang tulong siya sa public.
Filed in any form or manner, so pwede anonymous letter. But the public officer meron din rights,
magsabi siya what happened to my right to confront the witness or the complainant? What happened to
my right to cross-examine the witnesses against me? nga anonymous man kaha nah. That is why this is
important, when we receive all these anonymous complaints or those complaints not sufficient in form and
substance as long as there are verifiable leads then we will investigate that, we will take cognizance of
that. What we do is check the lead or check the information provided. Ang importante lang naman diyan is
pwede ma-verify ang information. Ang simplest example I can give you there is back when we had this
operation red plate. You know what red plate means? When you see a red plate it means that the
vehicle is owned by the government. When you see the red plate didto sa sabungan, naa sa simbahan, naa
sa siga-palong ala-una, ngano naa man ni diri. Pwede nimo nah ireport, anonymously, ganyan. If you give
us verifiable information, we can look into that like plate number, model ng sasakyan, color, time,
where,etc. as long as it is verifiable.
Either we ourselves conduct or in some cases where there are security concerns, ibigay naming sa
NBI or sa police. Or if the complaint involves financial transactions, ihatag nato ni sa COA. The COA will
conduct a special audit which they will submit to us with their recommendation. Ang Ombudsman pa rin
ang last say whether to file a case or not although there seems to be a well-grounded position to that
because nga, sino ba ang mas may expertise on financial matters, COA or Ombudsman? Although meron
din kaming say, like as to the audit itself.
Now, preliminary investigation. In the Ombudsman investigation, this does not only include criminal
investigation but also administrative investigation. Now, if you remember Article 100, it says that a person
criminally liable is also civilly liable. When the person is a public officer also, there is the so-called TRIPLELIABILITY RULE. Why triple-liability, because a public officer is also administratively liable, NOT JUST
criminally and civilly but also administratively, so tatlo yan.
A single act or transaction may give rise to two or more cases. Sabihin natin may give rise to two
cases na lang. Why? Because it can be docketed into a criminal case and another administrative case. Ang
iba magtanong, bakit dalawa ang kaso ko? There is no violation of the rule there because one is
administrative and the other is criminal liability, iba yan. Plus, remember, the quantum of evidence is
different. Ano ang quantum of evidence required? in admin: SUBSTANTIAL, civil: PREPONDERANCE,
criminal: PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
But then, if you use the.. kumbaga, hindi siya magmatch ba. Because while the quantum of
evidence in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of evidence required for filing of
information in court is what? Sa P.I. stage diba, you only need to determine PROBABLE CAUSE. So
kumbaga, may imbalance na doon. Kung probable cause ka lang dito sa P.I. unya i-file nimo didto, pag-abot
nimo sa korte kaubo ka kay kutob ra pud probable cause imong evidence. You see the dilemma there? That
is why, we are now exerting efforts na kahit sa P.I. stage pa lang, make sure that it can stand in court. That
it can stand the test of demurrer, dili siya ma-dismiss dayon. Mabuti pa na as early as the fact-finding
stage, you look for evidence that will stand up in court para the same quantum of evidence na lahat yan
from fact-finding stage to P.I. up to prosecution.
In P.I. you need probable cause and once you find probable cause, parang crimpro na ito, where do
you file? MTC, RTC or the SandiganBayan. SandiganBayan (SB) jurisdiction, if you remember are those
with salary grade 27 and up. As a general rule yan ha, kasi kung ano nakalagay dun sa SandiganBayan
law, even if they are below salary grade 27 if they are EXPRESSLY MENTIONED there, then SB has
jurisdiction. Well anyway, pag ganyan sa SB ka, ibig sabihin kuyaw ka, you are HRO or High-ranking officer,
bigtime so happy ka dapat.

Page 93 of 125

Anyway, ito maraming nababadtrip, IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. Ano ang nangyari sa right to MR
(Motion for Reconsideration)? Or the right to appeal? I-execute mo naman pala eh. Anyway, walang
problema, you just file the MR, you just file the appeal, meanwhile we will implement the execution,
anyway pwede ka naman bumalik if it is reversed and you will be considered as under preventive
suspension.
Etong OSP (Office of the Special Prosecutor), exclusive sila sa SB lang. What about other cases? Yun
na yung binibigay namin, like other cases we deputize the DOJ prosecutors to prosecute our cases. Yung
iba rin nababadtrip, ang dami-dami naming trabaho tapos bibigyan niyo pa kami, parang COA lang ba.
Anyway, thats life. Although we also have our own bureau to prosecute cases. Ang bureau kasi, parang
field investigation (OMB) ko lang dati, for the whole of Mindanao we have 6 investigators. Eto sila (OSP or
SB) mas malala, they only have 4 investigators for the whole of Mindanao.
Ok, lets go to public officers. Art.203 gives us the definition of public officers. Anong nakalagay
diyan sa 203? Tatlo lang yan:
1.) By direct provision of law;
2.) By Popular Election, or;
3.) By appointment.
Please take note of yung phrase sa gitna ng provision, because our Jurisprudence rely on that aspect of a
public officer: If a person takes part in the performance of public functions or performs public
duties, he shall be deemed to be a PUBLIC OFFICER. Thats why it is NOT necessary really that you have
been elected, or appointed or by virtue of a direct provision of law, as long as you are performing public
functions under 203 ha. Take note 203 is under the RPC, so as far as our penal law or criminal laws are
concerned, a person is considered a public officer if he takes part in the performance of a public function or
if he performs public duties, yun lang yun. It does not matter if wala kang compensation or your
compensation is merely nominal. It does not matter if your appointment is temporary, ganun din yun. Yung
temporary is sa Civil Service lang yun, but as far as criminal laws are concerned, public officer ka.
Desierto vs Laurel or baka baliktad Laurel vs Desierto, anyway silang dalawa. Remember Laurel
dati, vice president yan siya. Ngayon, nung tapos na siya, hindi na siya VP, he was subsequently appointed
or designated to head the Centennial Commission or Expo. To make the long story short, gubot2x yun, it
resulted to the filing of cases against him in the OMB which subsequently was filed before the SB. One of
the defenses raised was that, hindi naman ako public officer kasi hindi naman ako VP, so why am I charged
by the OMB and before the SB. Ang Supreme Court, eto ang ginamit, taking part in the performance of
public functions or performing public duties is sufficient to make you a public officer.
Now, Bribery. Eto yung isa sa mga sikat na crime. Take note that there are 3 kinds of Bribery:
Direct, Indirect and Qualified.
The Direct Bribery under 210 also have 3 modes. This is the 1st mode, By agreeing to perform
or by performing an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official
duties, in consideration of any offer promise gift or present. Now the important phrase to
remember there is an act constituting a crime. Pag sinabing bribery kasi parang X-deal yan, you do for
me, I do for you, parang ganun. I give you money, you do something. The usual example there is when a
person approaches a stenographer, oh I have 100K here for you, ang gagawin mo lang, naalala mo yung
hearing kanina? May witness, instead of YES kanyang answer, gawin mong NO diyan sa transcript. Sabi
niya, ok sige tomorrow na lang, tomorrow mo na lang din ibigay sa akin ang pera, so umuwi siya. Now
while sleeping, he had a dream, sabi ng kanyang guardian angel, bad yan oi! Do not do that oi! Anyway,
nung next na kita nila, sabi niya ngayon Im sorry I cannot push through kasi ang guardian angel ko strict.
Now, question: has a crime been committed? You look at the elements. Nakalagay diyan agreeing to
perform, so even if you do not perform what you said you would do in exchange for something, the crime
has already been consummated. By the way if you alter the TSN which is a public document, that is
falsification. So therefore here, you are being asked to perform an act which constitutes a crime. And
always always always class, here in Title 7, the crime is always in relation to your public function. Yan ang
underlying trend diyan. Actually, if you falsify the document, not only will you be liable for bribery but also
for the falsification. But if hindi natuloy yung bigayan but you agreed, then it is still direct bribery because
you agreed to perform, it is already consummated.
Now, etong 2nd mode is different, there really must be ACCEPTANCE, it is NOT enough that you
agree or that you conspire. Yung kanina (sa 1 st mode) parang conspiracy pa lang, punishable na siya
because the act that you are asked to perform constitutes a crime. In the 2nd mode, the act that you are
being asked to perform DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME. Example is sa Bids and Awards Committee,

Page 94 of 125

now all the bidders are eligible, nagsubmit sila requirements na kumpleto. But one of them. naghatag sa
imoha in consideration of the awarding of the contract. Take note that these bidders are all eligible, so per
se it is not a crime to award the contract to him. Technically, there is no crime really. It becomes a crime
only because you ACCEPTED something in consideration for the award of the contract.
And the 3rd mode is refraining to do something which you are supposed to do because it is
your official duty to do. Ang best example is yung mga naga-inspect, sanitary inspectors yung mga
ganyan. You have a restaurant, pasok sila ngayon, ang may-ari ng restaurant says oh Mr. Inspector sit
down, welcome, order lang kahit ano, on the house, ayaw lang adto sa among CR, sa amoang kusina, etc.
In other words, do not do your job. This time, it falls under this mode, refraining to do something which you
are supposed to do in consideration of a gift. But please take note that if what you are being asked to
perform or NOT to perform constitutes a crime, it should NOT fall under this 3 rd mode. Because if what you
are being asked to perform or NOT TO PERFORM amounts to a crime, you go back to the 1 st mode.
Example is Prevaricacion or Failure to Prosecute where prosecutors or policemen who do not arrest
someone who has committed a crime or does not prosecute a case that is Prevaricacion or failure to
prosecute and it is a crime. So here, a public officer did not do what he is supposed to do diba? So will we
charge him under the 3rd mode? NO, because in exchange for a gift or money is a CRIME and it falls under
the 1st mode.
The difference between this at yung sinasabi kong Prevaricacion. In Prevaricacion kasi or the failure
to prosecute, it DOES NOT need as an element that you ACCEPT something. If you do not accept
something and there is failure to prosecute, doon ka. But if you accept something, diyan yan sa BRIBERY. In
fact, if you look at Qualified Bribery, if any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he
refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by RP and/or
death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense
which was not prosecuted. So ito, talks about parang Prevaricacion or failure to prosecute but take note of
the elements here, if the failure to prosecute involves a crime punishable by RP or death, then dito ka sa
qualified bribery. One other thing is sa failure to prosecute, walang perahan dun, hindi kelangan ng pera,
you dont have to prove acceptance of a bribe as an element. So if there is a bribe, either mapunta ka sa
210-Direct Bribery, but if the crime that was committed is punishable with RP and/or death and you do not
prosecute, dito ka sa qualified bribery. Ang matindi dito if you look at the penalty, the penalty of the public
officer would be the same as the criminal for the crime which was not prosecuted, which is RP and/or
death. Kahadlok pud ba anah ui. Again, this is supposed to be a deterrent.
Criminal Law TSN 9.29.2014
Elements of Article 211:
1. Officer receives gifts by reason of his office;
2. No agreement between the giver and the receiver; and
3. Even if there is an agreement, provided it is more on performing an official conduct.
Maraming issue dito. Bakit? Kasi when can you say that the gift was given by reason of office? The offender
here is a public officer and when you are in public office, you gain a lot of friends. Automatic! Kaning mga
friends manghatag, unya kung imohang gidawat, didto mag-away. The public officer will say, hindi man
yan binigay by virtue of my office but because we are friends! For example new lawyers na pumasok sa
PAO, magbilin sa ilahang opisina ug manok, isa ka sipi nga saging.. Binigay man yan sa iyo. That is a gift, it
is not covered by indirect bribery. Mao na akoang tubag ana, yan lang talaga ang elements. If the gift is
given by reason of your office, then that is indirect bribery.
The test here is that if the gift will be given to you even if you are not in that office. Thats why, gifts given
to us by our parents and relatives, hindi yan pwede given by reason of your office. But if the only reason
why the gift is given to you is because you are the Mayor, then that would constitute indirect bribery.
Because we have an indigenous culture. Social structure yan. For the longest time nasasanay tayo na
nagabigay and tanggap and magpasalamat, kung hindi mo rin tanggapin manluod tong naghatag. Yan ang
sa ating indigenous culture, then now here comes a law that says that it is a crime.
Ang problema diyan, sa ating indigenous culture, we like to give something in gratitude. Kasama yan
manghatag ug ice cream, ibilin sa imohang opisina and it is given to you precisely because of your office

Page 95 of 125

dahil natulungan mo siya. Indirect bribery ba yan? Yes! Kasi klaro diba gibigay yan sa iyo precisely because
of your office!
Take note of this as distinguished from direct bribery, diba ang direct bribery ex-deal always in
consideration for something. Here there is nothing required, as long as you accept the gift offered to you,
tapos ang storya!
Anyway, it is a very short article, pero madaming question.
Qualified bribery diba tapos na ito discuss? This is the third mode of direct bribery.
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains
from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the
offense which was not prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death. (As
added by Sec. 4, RA No. 7659).
In qualified bribery, ang penalty mo the same, when you fail to do your job arresting or prosecuting an
offender. But remember agreeing to refrain from arresting a criminal is a crime itself. It is a crime under
Article 208- prevaricacion. Therefore,he should not be liable for the third type of bribery but should be held
liable for the first type because he agreed to refrain from doing an act which amounts to a crime. But if the
penalty is RP to death it should not be under 210 par. 1 but under 211-A. yan ang distinction jan although
similar.
In prevaricacion naman, hindi kailangan na may consideration, as long as the offender fails to prosecute or
fails the commission of offenses, that will fall under prevaricacion.
Now what is corruption of public officials?
Article 212. Corruption of public officials. - The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted,
except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made
the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.
It is really just, when there is bribery there is a giver and receiver. In other words there is a conspiracy. Now
in a conspiracy, the rule is the act of one is the act of all. But with respect to bribery, the crime of one is
not the crime of another. There maybe a conspiracy, meaning all of you are liable but it does not translate
to the same offense because in bribery, the one who accepts, the public officer is guilty of bribery while
the one who gives is not guilty of bribery but is guilty under Article 212, corruption of public officials.
Instead of bribery, the giver is liable for corruption of public officers.
The related law is PD 46. It is a Decree making it punishable for a public official and employees to receive
and for private persons to give gifts on any occasion including Christmas. This is related to indirect
bribery.
Also take note of this, although this does not appear in indirect bribery but the reason in this is either by
reason of office, regardless whether the same is in consideration for a past favor or the giver expects to
receive or given in expectation or preparation for a future favor. This is also included under the Article of
indirect bribery because there is nothing required in indirect bribery na ex-deal. Whether it is in pasalamat
for a past favor or investment, nothing asked (yet). I am giving this to you not because of your office,
although every month nalang may gift ka sa kanya. That may not be for a past favor but thats why it is
really prohibited because it might be an anticipation of future favors. Kaya sabi ko investment. Pila ra man
panlibre every sweldo, tapos next year or the next two years, may kaso pala ako diyan sa opisina niyo,

Page 96 of 125

pakitingnan-tingnan naman. O diba tingin lang man kaya? Well you know what happens next. Ito ang
reason niyan.
Next prohibition under PD 46, prohibition in hosting a party or throwing of parties or entertainment in
honor of an official or employee or his immediate relatives. Kasi marami na rin tayong ganito. Example
nagpareserve ng ballroom for the birthday of the director, pero tingnan niyo ang nagbayad is ang
contractor. Kasama yan sa prohibition under PD 46.
Now PD 749 is the law which grants immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts, and
their accomplices, in bribery and other graft cases against public officers.
Ang bribery kasi usually are done in secret or under the table bah, so only a few people witness it. Thats
one constraint that the state has in prosecuting bribery cases. Now PD 749 was issued exactly to tilt the
balance somehow. To grant the giver immunity so as to **** the receiver. Now why exempt the giver?
Because for some people, mas malala yung ginawa ng giver dahil he corrupted the public officer. Hindi
naman sana corrupt yung public officer kung hindi sige offer ang giver. Why arent we exempting the
receiver instead of the giver? Go back again to the basic principle in Public Accountability. Public Office is a
Public Trust. Between a public officer and a private individual, in the eyes of the law, the Public officer is
more guilty because of that constitutional provision. Now between these two people, who will you exempt
from criminal prosecution? To whom will you grant immunity? It is to the giver because we are after public
officers.
What are the requisites in order that the briber giver will be entitled to immunity? The requisites are found
in Section 1
(1) The information must refer to consummated violations;
(2) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;
(3) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State:
(4) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(5) Such informant or the witness has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Remember I
told you about these requirement, even if you have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, if
there are no other evidence for the state, then this can be waived.
Now next is MALVERSATION.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer
who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the
same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit
any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of
the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved
in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more
than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period,
if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.

Page 97 of 125

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is
more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount
exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification
and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property
embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).
This is an important crime or felony. What you should remember when Malversation is brought up is that:
(1) It can only be committed by a public officer
(2) Not just any public officer but he has to be an accountable public officer.
When you say accountable, ang trabaho niya is he has custody and control of the public funds in question.
That is what accountable public officer means.
Take note that it is not so much about your position that is important, but it is the nature of your job that is
controlling. If you say accountable public officers, these are the bonded officers the treasurer or cashier,
those who have custody of the money. Suppose in a municipality, where the mayor designated somebody
else other than the bonded officer to act in the meantime as the treasurer, is he an accountable public
officer? Yes because the nature of his job is he has custody and control and so he is accountable for the
public funds. In fact even if job order yan, accountable public officer yan as far as the criminal law is
concerned because of the nature of the functions entrusted to him. If the nature of the function is that you
have custody and control of the public funds, then you will meet the qualification and you may be held
accountable and liable for Malversation even if you are not a regular public officer.
When you say Malversation, it does not only involve public funds but also includes property. In the
complaint, the name of the felony is Malversation of public funds or property. For example military or
pulis na gi-issue-han ug baril tapos gibaligya or giprenda, tapos pagsinglan wala na ang pulis. Yan, that can
be Malversation Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through
abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or
partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property
Usually crimes involving dolo and culpa, they are treated differently when it comes to penalty. The penalty
for culpa (negligence) is relatively lower than that of dolo(intent). But here it does not matter! Regardless if
it is through your negligence or abandonment or it is intentional, you are meted out with the same penalty.
In one case, nag file ng intentional Malversation, tapos ang na prove is Malversation because of
negligence. Pwede ba yan? The court said yes because these are only modalities, but it refers to the same
crime whether it be committed with fault or negligence or intent. So in Malversation, the one who took the
money does not have to be the offender. E.g. abandonment or negligence, gibiyaan niya ang vault nga
abre, sige siya ug panigarilyo, pagbalik niya hurot na ang kwarta sa sulod. Klaro na dili siya ang nagkuha,
but he is the one who will be held liable for Malversation.
There is a presumption of guilt in Malversation.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to personal use.

Page 98 of 125

Well happy ang mga prosecutor dito, kasi you do not have to establish ***, once it is shown that you failed
to come up with the fund or property, it is presumed that you appropriated it. In fact, hindi kailangan ng
demand. Demand is not an element for Malversation. Ito lang ang requirements:
(1) The offender is a public officer;
(2) The offender had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duty of his office;
(3) The funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and
(4) The offender appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment, negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
Note that although there is a presumption, this is but a disputable presumption. The accused can present
evidence to overcome the presumption of guilt. For example may audit tapos you come up short and you
werent able to explain satisfactorily so pasok na yan sa presumption that you converted it to your own
personal benefit. So the rule is, if you werent able to present the funds or property, then there is a
presumption that you converted it into your own personal use.
What is the effect of reimbursement? When you reimburse, it is like a voluntary surrender. It is taken as
mitigating circumstance and therefore operates to mitigate, although it is not a defense because the crime
has already been consummated. For example mangalot nalang ka ug ulo and explain sa imohang bosses
na pasensya na gyud kaayo, enrolment man gud last week tapos nagsakit pa jod akoang anak, nagamit
nako ang kwarta pero bayaran nako na siya. Pwede bay an? Pwede mo bayaran but then the crime has
already been consummated.
The question now is, if I pay will I still be guilty of Malversation? Yes exactly because the crime has already
been consummated. So kung ing-ana dili nalang diay nako ibalik, kay dili man gihapon diay defense. Now it
might not be a defense but it is a mitigating circumstance and payment will extinguish civil liability. So
kumbaga, it still will be to your advantage kay ma extinguish ang civil liability tapos ma mitigate pa to the
minimum period.
Sometimes the difficulty is as to the determination of the nature of the funds. Ano ang examples ng public
funds? red cross, bsp, pcso funds or Money deposited by the judgment creditor to the sheriff, properties
seized from violators of laws etc. When you say public funds these includes which partake the nature of
public funds or property which are impressed with public attributes or character. That is why it includes
deposited properties.
Take note of Article 222 kasi this will also apply to Malversation. The provisions of this chapter shall apply
to private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal
funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized
or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
So this Article will show you that these properties when misappropriated will fall under Malversation and
take note that private individuals under the circumstances in Article 222 may also be held liable for the
crime of Malversation. Otherwise, accountable public official lang talaga ang pwede ma liable.
Remember that this may also be a transitory offense, meaning it can be prosecuted anywhere where any
of the elements have taken place. In the case of **** even if there is no evidence that the defendant has
appropriated the property there is still malversation, provided that there is evidence that the property or
fund as the case may be has disappeared through his negligence.
In another case, Rodiz, where the audit clerk has failed to verify the figures in the payroll has made the
Malversation possible, it was held that the failure to verify amounted to cooperation in the falsification and
****.

Page 99 of 125

Going back to presumption of guilt, where the court held in a couple of cases that the presumption is good,
but it really must be shown that there exists public funds that has been misappropriated. Ang iba kasi,
hindi klaro sa COA report. Ang sabi ng court is that kung klaro talaga sa COA report that there is a public
fund that is missing, the presumption then will apply. A condition sine qua non only is that there is existing
public fund and it is missing and it cannot be accounted for. So nagyawyaw ang Supreme Court sa COA na
iklaro niyo yan kung may nawawala or wala, kung hindi kayo sure, siguraduhin niyo muna because if there
is no existing public fund, this cannot be applied.
Now again demand is not an element. It is merely a rule on evidence, procedural rule.
All that is needed for the presumption to arise are:
(1) the defendant received in his possession a public fund or property; and
(2) he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession; and
(3) he could not give a reasonable excuse for its disappearance
Cavello vs. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 94
An accountable officer may be liable for Malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation. Failure to explain shortage of funds is sufficient for conviction.
Last now on private persons, as to the question whether a private person can commit Malversation? A
private individual can be held liable for Malversation in two instances:
(1) when the private individual has been charged of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or
property or (Art.222)
(2) Such private person takes direct participation in the commission of Malversation of public funds or
properties with any public officers or cooperates extensively in the commission of the same (meaning co
principal or conspiracy, pwede ang private person)
Now know that a person charged under an information for Malversation can also be convicted of estafa, if
the facts turned out to be private. Bakit pwedeng Estafa even if what is charged is Malversation? That is
because Estafa is included as a lesser component offense in relation to Malversation. Actually related yan,
Estafa, qualified theft and Malversation. In Malversation, accountable public officer, pag hindi ka
accountable public officer tapos public funds pa rin, that can fall under the elements of Estafa plus you
were given the money in trust or in commission with an obligation to return, that is Estafa, kasi akala mo
public fund tapos private fund pala, that will be Estafa. Or the offender is not a public accountable officer
so Estafa yan. Now theft if there is no deceit, then it can be theft because in Estafa, the elements can just
be brought down into two despite the length of the provision:
(1) deceit
(2) abuse of confidence and
Damages in either case.
Kung wala naman deceit tapos it still involves public funds which are lost or taken then that can be theft.
Abuse of confidence, then qualified theft na yan. Just take note of that. But primarily maging Malversation
if accountable public officer and it involves public funds.
Also please remember the rule on complex crimes kasi usually this is complexed with or by falsification of
documents. Malversation through falsification so remember the rules. If the falsification is committed in

Page 100 of 125

order to facilitate or commit the Malversation then you have a complex crime under Art. 48 because the
falsification is a necessary means to commit the Malversation. But if the falsification is resorted to in order
to conceal or hide the Malversation, then you will have separate offenses of Malversation AND falsification.
Ito Article 218 hindi masyadong sikat sa gobeyrno, pero dapat sikat ito when it comes to public office.
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. - Any public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render
account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or
by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
You have to be familiar with this because ang sabi nila dati is kung nag-file kana ng Malversation wag na
ito. I say naman, bakit hindi? These are two separate crimes! Hindi man pareho ang elements niyan! In
Article 218, you are supposed to render an account by law to COA and you failed to account, yan ang
failure to render account, kalayo ra ana sa Malversation. Although the more famous crime is malveresation
of course! But this Article, every public officer should know this because should you fail to render account
within 2 months from the time the rendering of account should have been made pwede ka na file-an ng
kaso!
The best example of this crime is when you are employed in public office and when you travel you are
given a certain amount or what you call per diems as your allowance. You are given the same but should
liquidate this amount and that liquidation is what you call rendering of an account. Now binigyan ka ng
allowance pagbalik mo sa opisina, you should present evidence that you have spent this money which you
had. Public funds yan eh, so you should liquidate. That is what you call rendering an account, tapos Isubmit yan sa opisina then i-submit yan sa COA. Failure to do that will make you liable for failure to render
an account and in fact, the COA, may issue an instruction na tanan na unliquidated allowances, file-an niyo
na yan ng kaso kasi yang mga unliquidated aabot na ng billions, kasi madami ang hindi naga liquidate.
Ang problema diyan is ang iba diyan is matagal na masyado, how can they liquidate that? Through the use
of evidence, what evidence? REsibo! Now hindi mo nga na liquidate in two months, how much more after 1
or 2 years?
Now next Art. 220.
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or
property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a
fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any
damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also
suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50
per cent of the sum misapplied.
Now this Article is known by its more famous name technical Malversation.
Ano naman ito? Common question here is why are you charging me with technical Malversation when in
fact I havent gained a single centavo? Now look at the provision for technical Malversation. Hindi man
sinabi diyan na gibulsa mo. Because kung binulsa mo, Malversation ang i-file naming, not technical
Malversation. What is prohibited in technical Malversation is spending of public funds for purpose other
than what is provided in the appropriations by law. E.g. public funds for School building, you cannot used
that money a farm to market road even if it is also for the good of your constituents. In fact it is the
element of technical Malversation:
(1) You use the public fund for another public purpose.

Page 101 of 125

Pero kasi, dapat ang fund is for that purpose already appropriated by law. If you do that you will be
charged for technical Malversation although the penalty will be much lower because pareho lang na ang
pinag gamitan ng pera is for public purpose.
e.g. Red plate (for public use only) tama man kay official ang nigamit! :D
-end-

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

September 30, 2014
Transcribed by: Ela Velarde
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. Any public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render
account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months
after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period,
or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. Any public
officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from
the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto
mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
So there is another kind of failure to render account and that is 219 which obliges the public to officer to
render an account before leaving the country.
Lets take up one of the important laws on Crimes Committed by Public Officers. Its a special law.
RA 3019: ANTI-GRAFT ANG CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Usually, when cases are filed against a public officer or employee, more often than not, kasali ang violation
ng RA 3019 and particularly of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. That is considered to be the catch ombudsman,all
provision. For every charge or case filed sa office of the ombudsman eh kasama talaga ang RA 3019
because of the nature of the violation and it is very easy to charge under Section 3(e) but it is so difficult to
convict. That is why that provision is sought to be amended.
SECTION 3(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
The commission of that paragraph is with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and gross inexcusable
negligence. Bad faith in itself is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Now, here comes a law saying
that the bad faith must not only be just that but it must be evident. Same with partiality. Partial na nga eh
then it has to be manifest. Tapos negligence. Negligence na sya eh gross and inexcusable pa!
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit such violation or offense.

Page 102 of 125

Here, you are persuading, inducing or influencing a public officer to violate the law or a regulation. If it is
established that you, a public officer,is persuading another public officer to violate the law, then, it falls
under paragraph (a).
Take note that the offender here is not just the public officer who persuades, but also the one that was
persuaded. So duha sila. In the usual course of things, there is a conspiracy: the one who persuades or
induces and the other who is persuaded or induced. So both of them are liable under this paragraph.
And it is always in connection his official duties.
What you can observe in these special laws, especially in special laws where the crimes are committed by
public officers is that whenever there is a conflict of interest there would be a violation. It does not matter
what paragraph.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law.
Here, kailangan mo ang pirma nya pero bago moo makuha ang pirma para sa contrata eh kailangan
may pampadulas. You request or you receive any gift and in consideration of that you will do some
activity in respect to a transaction that is before you which you have to determine in your official
capacity.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or
capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
This paragraph is similar with the previous one but, this time, its specific to licenses or permits. Again,
requesting or receiving a gift etc. Also, kasama pa din yan that the gift is for or has something to do
with your office always.
Example nyan is ang drivers license. Hatagan lang nimo gamay tapos naa na kay lisensya. Pati gani ng
mga walay till, pero nganong naa man silay lisensya?! Pati buta naay lisensya?!
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
Take note that this prohibition is similar todiba yung mga nagtakbo ng election tapos natalo..eh hindi
sila pwd maging employee ng government within 1 year.
You are the head of a government agency which is regulating these companies tapos ang anak mo
nagatrabaho sa isa dun sa company which you are rregulating. Hindi yan pwde.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
Now this is the catch all. Take note na ito ang pinakacommon charge among all these paragraphs.
Actually, these are 2 modes of committing or violating (e).
1. Causing undue injury;
2. Giving of any unwarranted benefits.
Any of these 2 will constitute the offense. Either you cause undue injury or you give unwarranted benefits.
They are separate modes of committing or violating (e).

Page 103 of 125

When you say undue injury, please take note that the requirement of the law is that the damage must be
actual. But this does not include damage to honor or damage to reputation(?). Kailangan actual which can
be quantified. That is laid down in jurisprudence. Naghahanap ka ng amount because what is mean here
by undue injury is actual damage or injury.
That he is giving any unwarranted benefits, advantaghe or preference to any party, including the
government. So to the government or any other party.
Here, modes also. But these are the modes of committing the injury: through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within
a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.
Ito yung inuupuan ang documents. That does not necessarily fall under (f). to fall under (f), dapat for the
purposes of obtaining a benefit or advantage. So you are waiting for something or for purposes of favoring
your own interest.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
The usual price here would be overpricing. When you enter into a contract on behalf of the government
that is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to itself, then, that is the crime. Take note that it doesnt
matter whether or not the offender has profited or will profitfrom the transaction. The offender public
officer here cannot raise as a defense that he did not gain anything or that he did not profit from the
transaction. That is not a defense. As long as you can prove or establish hat he entered into a contract or
transaction in behalf of the government that in manifestly or grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Here, this manifestly and grossly is much easier to prove.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which
he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
There is conflict of interest. That is why part of this law, as well as, RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and ethical
Standards for Public Officials) that a public officer must divest his interest in a corporation where there
would be a possible conflict of interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they
belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized
release date.

Page 104 of 125

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c);
or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the
divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section
shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be
permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any
form with the Government.
Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan 131 SCRA 184: This involves paragraph (b). We are talking about a contract or
transaction here.
According to the SC, a contract or transaction must involve monetary consideration or credit transaction.
Preliminary investigation is not a contract or transaction because there is no monetary consideration
involved.So if there is a request or there is a receipt of money with respect to preliminary investigation, it
will not fall under paragraph (b). so a preliminary investigation is not a contract or transaction within the
meaning of this praragraph.
Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116: There is no attempted, frustrated stages in violations of Section
3(e). There is no attempted and frustrated because you cannot determine the penalty. Kapag attempted or
frustrated, that could either be 2 degrees or 1 degree lower from the penalty of the consummated offense.
Kapag consummated offense, ang penalty ng 3019 is 6 years 1 month to 15 years. Unsaon man nimo
pagkuha ug 1 degree lower ana?
Because the principles in the RPC cannot be applied to special laws in general. You cannot determine the
penalty of the stages of the offense. That is why, if the special law provides for a penalty, that penalty is
the penalty for the consummated offense, for the principal in the consummated offense. In the same
manner, wala din accomplices or accessories. Kasi dba ang penalty ng accessory is 1 degree lower. Eh ano
man ngayon ang iimpose mo na penalty na 1 degree lower of 6 years 1 month to 15 years? Hindi mo
makuha yan!
Here, the offender was convicted of estafa through falsification. As you can notice, the charge was under a
special law (RA 3019) but he was convicted of estafa through falsification under the RPC. Basta kay
masulod didto ang crime, apparently, pwde(?) na sya!
Ambil vs. Sandiganbayan and Apellado vs. SB (January 6, 2011): this involves the governor and the
provincial warden for violation of Section 3(e). They gave unwarranted benefits to a mayor who is a party
mate of the governor. The mayor was arrested for murder and he was transferred from the jail to the home
of the governor. That is obviously giving unwarranted benefits; that is preference.
The SC said: Although as governor he has authority to supervise or administer the jail, the function of
taking custody of a prisoner is not part of his duties or functions.
Respicio vs. People (June 6, 2011): He was convicted for authorizing the release of the offender. Authorizing
the release of an offender (Indians) facing drug charges without bail. That is giving unwarranted benefits
because the Indianswere able to leave the country to avoid prosecution. He was convicted as it was
shown(?) that he knew that the agents(?) were under PI when he authorized their release and
deportation(?). Under the Board of Immigration and Deportation Rules, when there is a complaint charging
a crime against foreigners, the deportation case shall be provisionally dismissed.
Respicio vs. People (June 6, 2011)

RESPECTING THE CHARGE OF VIOLATING 3(E) OF

RA 3019, the elements which must be
indubitably proved are whether petitioner acted
with manifest partiality or evident bad faith, and
whether such action caused undue injury to any
party including the Government, or gave any
party unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions. Both

Page 105 of 125

elements are present in this case.

Partiality is differentiated from bad faith in this

wise:

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which

"excites a disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are."
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud." 39

The presence of manifest partiality and evident

bad faith on the part of petitioner is gathered
from his hardsell stance that he never was aware
of a case filed in court. Even if indeed that were
true, he had priorly been informed by Usec.
Esguerras 3rd Indorsement of July 27, 1994 that
the Indians were undergoing preliminary
investigation. In fact, at the witness stand, after
vacillating, he finally admitted that the criminal
charges against the Indians were "under
preliminary investigation."

That petitioners approval of the Order caused

injury to the government, more particularly to its
right and duty to prosecute a heinous crime,
over and above the supposed "costs to our
government" in having a "protracted court
investigation as to [the Indians] culpability," is
without question. Needless to state, the
deportation benefitted the Indians who would
otherwise have stood trial.
Caunan vs. People and Marquez vs SB, 597 SCRA 538: SC said that the lack of public bidding alone is not
automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. Because the law requires
that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross. Thus, Mayor Joey Marques ____ defeated in his alleged
overprice of the walis tingting because said overprice cannot be based from the market price of the walis
tingting in Las Pinas which is different from the price of the walis tingting in Makati.
Caunan vs. People and Marquez vs. SB, 597
SCRA 538

For a charge under Section 3(g) to prosper, the

following elements must be present: (1) that the
accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered
into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and (3) that such contract or
transaction
is
grossly
and
manifestly

Page 106 of 125

disadvantageous to the government.17

The presence of the first two elements of the

crime is not disputed. Hence, the threshold
question we should resolve is whether the walis
tingting purchase contracts were grossly and
manifestly injurious or disadvantageous to the
government.

We agree with petitioners that the fact of

overpricing is embedded in the third criminal
element of Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given
the factual milieu of this case, the subject
contracts would be grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous
to
the
government
if
characterized by an overpriced procurement.
However, the gross and manifest disadvantage
to the government was not sufficiently shown
because the conclusion of overpricing was
erroneous since it was not also adequately
proven. Thus, we grant the petitions.

In criminal cases, to justify a conviction, the

culpability of an accused must be established by
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.18 The burden
of proof is on the prosecution, as the accused
enjoys a constitutionally enshrined disputable
presumption of innocence.19 The court, in
ascertaining the guilt of an accused, must, after
having marshaled the facts and circumstances,
reach a moral certainty as to the accuseds guilt.
Moral certainty is that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.20
Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, the
accused must be acquitted.

In finding that the walis tingting purchase

contracts
were
grossly
and
manifestly
disadvantageous to the government, the
Sandiganbayan relied on the COAs finding of
overpricing which was, in turn, based on the
special audit teams report. The audit teams
conclusion on the standard price of a walis
tingting was pegged on the basis of the following
documentary and object evidence: (1) samples
of walis tingting without handle actually used by
the street sweepers; (2) survey forms on the
walis tingting accomplished by the street
sweepers; (3) invoices from six merchandising
stores where the audit team purchased walis
tingting; (4) price listing of the DBM Procurement
Service; and (5) documents relative to the walis
tingting purchases of Las Pias City. These
documents were then compared with the
documents furnished by petitioners and the

Page 107 of 125

other accused relative to Paraaque Citys walis

tingting transactions.

Notably, however, and this the petitioners have

consistently pointed out, the evidence of the
prosecution did not include a signed price
quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of
Paraaque City. In fact, even the walis tingting
furnished the audit team by petitioners and the
other accused was different from the walis
tingting actually utilized by the Paraaque City
street sweepers at the time of ocular inspection
by the audit team. At the barest minimum, the
evidence presented by the prosecution, in order
to substantiate the allegation of overpricing,
should have been identical to the walis tingting
purchased in 1996-1998. Only then could it be
concluded that the walis tingting purchases were
disadvantageous to the government because
only then could a determination have been
made to show that the disadvantage was so
manifest and gross as to make a public official
liable under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
Llorente vs. SB (March 11, 1998): Unlike in action for torts, undue injury must be specified and not merely
speculative. Most importantly, it cannot be presumed even after a violation of a right has been established.
Its existence must be proven as one of the elements of the crime.
Llorente vs. SB (March 11, 1998)

The solicitor general, in his manifestation, points

out that undue injury requires proof of actual
injury or damage, citing our ruling in Alejandro
vs. People and Jacinto vs. Sandiganbayan.
Inasmuch as complainant was actually paid all
her claims, there was thus no undue injury
established.

This point is well-taken. Unlike in actions for

torts, undue injury in Sec. 3[e] cannot be
presumed even after a wrong or a violation of a
right has been established. Its existence must
be proven as one of the elements of the crime.
In fact, the causing of undue injury, or the giving
of any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
constitutes the very act punished under this
section. Thus, it is required that the undue
injury be specified, quantified and proven to the
point of moral certainty.
People vs. Atienza (June 18, 2012): Second Element provides for the different modes by which the crime is
committed.

Page 108 of 125

People vs. Atienza (June 18, 2012)

The second element provides the different

modes by which the crime may be committed,
that is, through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. In
Uriarte v. People, this Court explained that
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed
either by dolo, as when the accused acted with
evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by
culpa, as when the accused committed gross
inexcusable negligence. There is manifest
partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or
plain inclination or predilection to favor one side
or person rather than another. Evident bad
faith connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious
wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
Evident bad faith contemplates a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design or
with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for
ulterior
purposes.
Gross
inexcusable
negligence refers to negligence characterized
by the want of even the slightest care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and
intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected.
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution
under a valid information under this Act (RA 3019) or under the Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code
or for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or
complex offense under whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall
be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings
have been filed against him.
In the event that such convicted officer, who may have already been separated from the service,
has already received such benefits he shall be liable to restore the same to the government.
Section 13 talks about suspension pendent lite meaning suspension pending litigation. Suspension
pendent lite under section 13, you must distinguish thatkasi sabi ko public officer diba are suspended.
But there are 2 kinds. Kasi dito sa Section 13 is suspension under a criminal case. The usual suspension is
yung suspension sa administrative in which there are 2 kinds: preventive suspension and suspension as a
penalty.
There is also suspension of the same nature in criminal cases. It is preventive suspension in criminal cases
and its called suspension pendent lite or suspension pending litigation. Bakit preventive? It is preventive
because the suspension is not imposed as a consequence of a judicial proceeding na human na. it is issued
even while the proceedings are ongoing. There is no determination of the guilt or innocence of the person
nyan.
. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act (RA
3019) or under the Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon the

Page 109 of 125

government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or complex offense under whatever stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.
The word there is shall be susoended meaning, it is mandatory. One issue raised is whether the
suspension is automatic because of the word shall. If you look again at the first line, any incumbent
official against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid information under RA 3019, Title VII Book II of
the RP or any offense involving fraud shall be suspended from office.
In other cases, the SC said that this suspension is mandatory but not automatic. The SC said in the case of
People vs. Albano (163 SCRA 511) that the suspension is not automatic as the validity of the information
must first be determined.
Remember under the first line any incumbent official against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid
information. So, in other words, the validity of the information must first be determined before the
mandatory character of the suspension shall issue(?). Hence, there will be a pre-suspension hearing for
that purpose of determining whether the information filed is valid. Does it have a cause of action, are the
elements present, etc.
Once the information is determined valid, then, the suspension shall be mandatory. Wla ng discretion
there. If there is discretion, doon ka sa determination of the validity of the information. Once the
information is determined to be valid, the suspension should come as a matter of course.
Luciano vs. Marciano (40 SCRA 187): According to the SC, upon the filing of such information the trial court
should issue an order with proper notice directing the accused to show cause on a specific date why he
should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to the mandatory provisions at that.
Libanan vs. SB and Bolastig vs. SB, 235 SCRA 103: While not automatic, suspension is mandatory provided
2 requisites are present:
1. Validity of the information
2. The covered offenses
Remember that the offenses covered are those under RA 3019 or under the Title VII, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public
funds or property.
So you are not really limited to 3019, kasali din yung sa RPC. So kung magfile ka ng malversation, meron
din motion for suspension pendent lite of the public officer. Ang basis ko is Section 13 kasi kasama doon
ang offenses under Title VII, Book 2 and even offenses which involve fraud on government funds or
property.
The next sentence says: Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings
have been filed against him.
So hurot iyang benefits. But you know na hindi kasali dyan ang accrued leave credits kasi iyo nay an eh,
na-earn mo na yan. The state cannot get that from you.
How long is this suspension? Under the law, the suspension is for 90 days, no more no less. Take note that
judges in cases in the RTC or the justices of the SB, they have no discretion to shorten the duration
because the law says 90 days. Because if they had the discretion eh hindi na yan mandatory.
The usual purpose for suspending somebody from office: so that he cannot destroy or conceal the
evidence which he may have custody of or may have constructive control over or to prevent the
interference or harassment of prosecution witnesses.
The purpose is to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or to frustrate the
prosecution or to continue committing malfeasance while in office. The presumption is that, unless the
accused is suspended, he may frustrate the prosecution or to continue committing malfeasance while in
office.

Page 110 of 125

Socrates vs. SB (253 SCRA 773): the accused may be suspended even if the validity of the information is
pending review by the SC. So parang suspension pending appeal. Even if you appeal the validity of the
information, you can still be suspended.
Segovia vs. SB (288 SCRA 328) and Gonzaga vs. SB (201 SCRA 417): Suspension applies to all kinds(?) of
employees, either appointive or elective, permanent or temporary, career or non-career.
Kasi diba there is a definition of who are public officer under Article 203 of the RPC. So even if you are an
employee, agent or subordinate official, in the eyes of the law, you are deemed a public officer under
Article 203 of the RPC.
Can you be suspendedkasi diba all these started from a complaint filed against a public officer. Let us
suppose na..in the case of Bayot vs. SB (128 SCRA 382), when the information was already filed in court he
was already the mayor. But at the time of the commission of the crime of which he was being charged, he
was the auditor of that municipality. He is being prosecuted for acts he committed wghile he was an
auditor. So matagal ang criminal prosecution siguro tapos takbo sya ng mayor and nidaog sya. Karon,
preliminary investigation found probable cause and then filed an information. Kasi mayor na sya eh didto
sya sa SB gi-file and information. And because this is mandatory, after the information was filed the motion
for the suspension pendent lite. Ana sya nga unsa man na? I am being prosecuted for acts when I was an
auditor, alangan naman isuspend mo ako nga mayor man ako. So, can he be suspended?
According to the SC, suspension applies to any office being presently held by the accused even if it is not
the same office for which he was charged.
Bayot vs. SB (128 SCRA 382)

Further, the claim of petitioner that he cannot be

suspended because he is presently occupying a
position different from that under which he is
charged is untenable. The amendatory provision
clearly states that any incumbent public officer
against whom any criminal prosecution under a
valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for
any
offense
involving
fraud
upon
the
government or public funds or property whether
as a simple or as a complex offense and in
whatever stage of execution and mode of
participation, is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office. Thus, by the use of the
word "office" the same applies to any office
which the officer charged may be holding, and
not only the particular office under which he was
charged.
In another case, this time mayor sya or his acts while he was a mayor and now he was a governor. The
same this as the SC said, you can be suspended.
Presuspension applies or may be imposed against senators or congressmen because the law does not
exempt them. The provision in the constitution that the senate may suspend or expel members isfor
misbehavior. That is for misbehavior, but this (referring to Section 13 suspension) is for a crime.
Suspension applies even if the accused is on leave. Otherwise, that would be tantamount to circumvention
of this provision. Thus, the leave of absence is not a bar to suspension.
In the case of Bolastic(?)..let me rephrase what I (sir Buena) said earlier. Like I said, 9o days is mandatory.
But actually, it could be less but it is not a discretion of the court. It could be less if the case is finished
within or before 90 days. Unless the case is sooner terminated, the court cannot impose a period less than

Page 111 of 125

90 days because it will mean that the court has the discretion to suspend or not. Therefore, it runs counter
to the mandatory character of suspension pendente lite.
In the case of Layko(?) vs. SB: The SC said that indefinite period is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional and
indefinite period of suspension, dapat 90 days.
Garcia vs. Executive Secretary (63 SCRA 1) Itong Garcia eh 7 months was imposed. 7 months suspension is
also unconstitutional.
ACT 7080 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
Plunder is the big brother of graft and corruption or the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
"Sec. 2.
Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination
or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value
of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission
of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall
declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the
properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the
State." (as amended by RA 7659)
You cannot commit plunder by a single act because (tanawa ang definition) it refers to a series or a
combination of overt criminal acts. So you have to have plenty or several crimes here for plunder to exist.
You falsify, you malverse, etc.
Take note of the threshold. The threshold now is 50M. RA 7659 lowered it to 50M. Originally, it was 75M. It
was lowered and the penalty was increased. Accumulation na yan.
There is another law, RA 1379 (UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY LAW). This talks about forfeiture of illgotten wealth. That RA is merely a petition for forfeiture. So it is not really, technically a criminal case.
Ang plunder involves or is a crime..there is a corresponding penalty plus forfeiture. Sa 1379, forfeiture
lang.
This is the acquisition of property manifestly out of proportion to the legitimate income.
RA 1379 UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY LAW
Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency
an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or
employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property , said
property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. The Solicitor General,
upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal who shall conduct a previous inquiry similar
to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and shall certify to the Solicitor General that there is
reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a violation of this Act and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, shall file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the Court
of First Instance of the city or province where said public officer or employee resides or holds office, a
petition for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any
part thereof, should not be declared property of the State: Provided, That no such petition shall be filed
within one year before any general election or within three months before any special election.
The resignation, dismissal or separation of the officer or employee from his office or employment in the
Government or in the Government-owned or controlled corporation shall not be a bar to the filing of the
petition: Provided, however, That the right to file such petition shall prescribe after four years from the
date of the resignation, dismissal or separation or expiration of the term of the office or employee

Page 112 of 125

concerned, except as to those who have ceased to hold office within ten years prior to the approval of this
Act, in which case the proceedings shall prescribe after four years from the approval hereof.
Pareho actually ang concept nila. The same with plunder that your property is manifestly out ofd
proportion to your legitimate salary or income. Pereho sila kaya lang dito sa 1379 is a petition. Yung kanina
(7080) eh crime yun where there is a penalty for plunder plus forfeiture. Here, it is simply a petition and
there is a difference with a petition for forfeiture. You are asking the court to forfeit the properties of this
guy which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary or legitimate income.
Take note of the presumption that if there is an imbalance, if your properties are manifestly out of
proportion to your income, they will be deemed to be unlawfully acquired. Why is there such a
presumption? Because there is no other logical conclusion to that.
With respect to public officers, madali yan. Aside from income tax, you are supposed to file a SALN or
Statement of Assests, Liabilities and Net Worth. Youa re supposed to file that, first, upon appointment.
Pagpasok mo sa public office, within 30 days, you are supposed to submit a SALN. Tapos every year
thereafter, on or before April 30. Kung aalis ka naman, within 30 days from separation of service eh submit
ka nanaman. For non-filing of SALN is a crime, for under declarationis another offense.
October 1--crim 2
Let's

backtrack

little

to

204.

Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall
knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision,
shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Well 204 and 205, I noticed, the defender is the judge. Only a judge can be a defender here. 204,
knowingly rendering an unjust judgement and of course in a case there is a winner and there is a loser. It
does not follow that there is an unjust judgement when a party loses. there is not a sufficient ground to
file a case under this article. When you say an unjust judgement , it is one which is not supported by the
facts as well as the evidence plus the unjustness of the judgement is culpable. Meaning any ordinary man
in the street can say that there is injustice here. that is the ruling in Pabalan vs Guevarra.As well as Sta
Maria vs Rubai (?) In order that the judge may be held liable for rendering an unjust judgement it must be
shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgement is unjust being contrary to law or is not supported by
the evidence as the same was rendered with conscious and deliberate attempt to do an injustice.
becausedibaminsanmagkamali man talagaang judge, kaya nga may mga modes of appeal. Kung malisa
baba i.appealmo, pero that is not synonymous to an unjust judgement. the crime here, the judge here
must know that the judgement that he is rendering is unjust.It is in good faith, or nagakamalilang, that is
not the crime contemplated in 204. Note that phrase, conscious and deliberate intent.
In this case of US vs Gadutan (?) is an old case. kasimerong complainant unya nagstorya2 didtosa judge,
gibigyanniyangacarabao, the judge himself requested several things before the trial. anywayangginawwa
ng judge kasi, the judge ruled in favor of the other party, anyway, the important thing in the ruling is
that ...well the judge here decided daw the case regardless of the evidence, that there is no showing that
the decision was unjust. Anyway, just to underscore the point that there must be that conscious and
deliberate intent to do injustice. the decision that is loaded with mistakes in not enough. although of
course the judge can be subject of other liabilities like administrative.
In the case of Valdez vs Valera, the court said that judges cannot be subject to any liability for any of their
official act
no matter how erroneous as long as they are in good faith. it is only when they act
fraudulently or corruptly or with gross ignorance that they may be criminally or administratively liable.
Now the question here, is will this apply...well the defender here is a judge right? What about a decision
where the complainant feels is an unjust decision coming from a the court of appeals for example or the
Supreme Court itself or the labor arbiter. Anyway the rule is: This is not applicable to collegiate courts,
because here the offender is a judge, itonamang collegiate, they are only one of some.

Page 113 of 125

Respondents should likewise know that said penal article has no application to the members of a collegiate
court such as this Court or its Divisions who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render
their collective judgment after due deliberation. It also follows, consequently, that a charge of violation of
the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is "unjust" cannot
prosper. this statement is taken from In re: disciplinary action Of Atty. WenceslaoLaureta.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Any judge who, by reason
of inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto
mayor and temporary special disqualification

the next article well again judgement this time was rendered thru negligence. Also the judgement must be
manifestly unjust but it is issued by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance. butagaint he same
principle applies, kung good faith , hindiyanano... in excusable dapat. What is a manifestly unjust
judgement? It is a judgement which cannot be explained with the reasonable interpretation or is a clear
incontrovertible or notorious violation of legal precept must be patently contrary to law rendered in due to
ignorance or inexcusable negligence.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. Any judge who shall knowingly render an
unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be
manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.
And the next is when you talk about interlocutory order that is distinguished from a final order.
Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. The penalty of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge
guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.c
Also again the offender is a judge. Maliciously delays the administration of justice.
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. The penalty of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed
upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of
his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the
punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
What are the acts punished here?
(1) Maliciously refraining from institution of prosecution or the punishment of violators
(2) tolerating the commission of offenses
So here again, specific angmagiging offender modito.those who are charged to institute or those who are
charged to prosecute and those who prevent the commission of offenses, were are talking about law
enforcement officers as well as those prosecutors of the state and of course that being said they are the
persons liable under 208. Now take note that malice is an integral element here, katamaran is not. if you
say failure to prosecute, it should arise from intent, malice, dolo. those who lack zeal in the performance
of their duties, hindiyan magsuffice, there must be bad faith. Also remember to connect this to
accessories because the accessories if you harbor or conceal, if you are a public officer charged with
prosecuting offenses and you fail or you do not prosecute because the offender is your relative, unsa man
na? you might be harboring an accessory but under 208 you are not being accused as an accessory, you
are a principal. Also, another law connected to that is obstruction of justice.
Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. Revelation of secrets.

Page 114 of 125

In
addition
to
the
proper
administrative
action,
the
penalty
of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor
( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of
the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor
(procurador judicial) who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the
defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client.
Also take note that this is also contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility. It appears that you can
undertake the defense of the opponent of your former client. if you have the consent of the client
pwedepala, this is included in the code of professional responsibility, which should be in writing.
sometimesparangmali man talagayankahitnakalagaydyan but nakalagaypwede.
Also take note the first line there, "in addition to the proper administrative action" so this is without
prejudice to the filing of a disbarment case for example.
Chapter Three
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. The penalty
of prisioncorreccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the
Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other
imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following acts or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise
things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or
the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be
applied.

Just take note of these rules. Most of the cases when you talk about biddings and transactions with the
government more often than not they fall under what we discussed already under 3019. Itong number 2
talagaitoyungtinatawagnilana illegal exactions. what are these?
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law.
Dibamaramingganyan
you
demand
something
for
a
bigger
amount
unyaangibutangsa
resibokadtonggamay but you received mas malaki. yungiba mas malalawalatalaganggibigaynaresibo, that

Page 115 of 125

is also covered under this article, non issuance of receipts kasi of course when you do not issue receipts
san pupuntayungpera? walasa record napumasokangperasa government.
Other frauds 214. basahinnyonalangyan.
Art. 214. Other frauds. In addition to the penalties prescribed in the
provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book Two, of this Code, the penalty of
temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage
of his official position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in
said provisions.
Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
maximum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall
directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or
speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.

Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. The penalty of

arresto mayor in its medium period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum
period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any
contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants
who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which
they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or estate.

215 also 216 remember itong possession of prohibited interest meron din yansa constitution. likei told you
last time, whenever there is a conflict of interest there is really an offense there. that is similar to 3019.
Now lets go to chapter 5.
Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section One. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners

Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. Any public officer who shall
consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary
special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty.
2. By prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but
only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.

Page 116 of 125

First how do you distinguish this from delivering prisoners from jail? You must be able to distinguish this
from delivering persons from jail. kasi under 156, the offender there is a private individual or may be a
public officer also but the public officer there must not have custody of the prisoner. and he helps in the
escape of the prisoner. when you say infidelity in the custody of prisoners, the public officer who has
committed infidelity who has failed to do his duties in guarding the prisoner must have custody. he must
be the custodian of the prisoner. ibigsabihannyan warden. If you are a jail guard but you are not on duty
dunkasa 156 because at that time you were not in charge or you do not have custody of the prisoner. here
when you say infidelity, the offender must have custody of the prisoner and having custody of the
prisoner you connives of consents. he doesn't have to have an active participation if he consenting to
halasigelakaw. ingonangpresonga: "pwedemo-escape?" ingonra pod xag "o sigegora". Anyway, just know
the distinction.

Kasi here if there is no connivance, hindiyanmagpasokdito. the public officer here must act with knowledge
that the prisoner is escaping. the escape must be with his tolerance at least, that is what connivance
means. When the custodian of the prisoner maliciously fails to perform the duties of his office and
conniving with the prisoner permits him to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment and to escape the
punishment of being deprived of his liberty thus making the penalty ineffectual there is real and actual
evasion of service of sentence even if the convict may not have fled. It has not _____ prisoner leaving the
prison and this evasion of service of sentence were effected thru the tolerance of the guards or rather by
agreement with him. So you see, tolerance lang, and even if mubalik because that is relaxation of his
imprisonment, this will still apply. Lumambas "uwimunaako" pinauwi. "baliklangako". balik. that is
relaxation of his imprisonment equivalent to evasion or escape.

In the case of Bandino 25 Phil 459, the policeman allowed the prisoner to buy cigarettes and the prisoner
took advantage of the confusion of the crowd and fled. this is an old case with the distinction of the
evasion thru negligence of the guard mentioned in the next article.

More on relaxation. Strictly speaking, evasion or escape of prisoner is not essential. the act of permitting
the prisoner to leave the jail during the time of his service of sentence is constitutive of the offense. thus
the case where the guard who allowed the prisoner who is serving a 6-day sentence to the jail to sleep in
his house and eat there because sabinungtaga jail, gamay man among budget para
sapagkaonpaulionnalangnixadaghanmangpagkaonsailangbalay.
that
is
what
happened,
kasidawwwalasilang budget for the food of the prisoner. there might be no evasion or escape there was
connivance or consent to the evasion or relation of imprisonment. soapilnaxa.
Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. If the evasion of the prisoner shall have
taken place through the negligence of the officer charged with the conveyance
or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualification.

but take note that there was also a decision that not every mistake is punishable. not every little mistake
or distraction constitutes negligence. and the example there is yungkaso ng policeman who was guarding
four prisoners, nasalabassila. sabinungisa, "pwedemangihisako" may delapedatedanodyannangihididto.
naaxaytatlogibantayanunyadelapedatedlageang structure, angpresodidtosalikod, giguba and didtoniagi.
sabi ng court, not every little mistake or distraction constitutes negligence although the policeman there
may be subject to administrative proceedings. butditodawsa criminal, wala.

Compare that to this another case in Reyes (book) where the policeman ordered the prisoners to catch a
carabao, may nakawalanacarabaosabukidsiguro. nadinaganayangpreso. kadugayan, tan-aw tan-awlangxa,
anyway balikangmgapresodalaangcarabaopero and isa missing. and he was re-arrested or recaptured
three days after. 27:26
Oct 1 2nd half

Page 117 of 125

And he was rearrested or recaptured 3 days after. SC ruled that this is not an exculpatory circumstance. So
negligence pa rinyunganonya. Although the policeman went immediately to pursuit and did not rest until
captured 3 days later, this is not an exculpatory circumstance.
When you say NEGLIGENCE, this is definite laxity amounting to deliberate non-performance of duty. Under
this definition would fall those guards who sleep during their shift, so thats evasion through negligence.
Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. Any private person to
whom the conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall
commit any of the offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed for the public officer.
Take note also that under Art 225, a private person may have custody over the prisoner and be held liable
under Art 225. But the penalty is next lower in degree.
Section Two. Infidelity in the custody of document
Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. Any public officer who shall remove,
destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall
have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual disqualification shall be imposed.
Same concept yan.Kasipagsinabimokasing infidelity of the prisoner diba you are charged of the custody of
the prisoner, when you say infidelity in the custody of the documents, same thing, you must have charge
or custody of the documents in your official capacity. Bale, the documents are entrusted to you because of
your office or your position.
And what do you do? You remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers.
When you say REMOVAL that presupposes appropriation of the official documents and it must be for an
illicit purpose. You distinguish that from destroying or concealing. Kasiang removal, you want to show that
the removal was for an illicit purpose. What about DESTRUCTION or CONCEALMENT
hindinakailanganyunkasi its obvious.
You DESTROY a document that is really for an illicit purpose. Although when you say destruction, it doesnt
mean that the documents must be completely destroyed. Complete destruction is not necessary.
Ang CONCEALMENT is not forwarding the documents to their destination. Concealment man kasi there is
this concept nataguannimo somewhere they cannot find it. Even not forwarding the documents to their
proper destination would fall under concealment.
Take note that there is a disjunctive word there. The word OR there is used. So any of the three: remove,
destroy or conceal would constitute the crime.
Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed
by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next
preceding article who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers,
documents or objects entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor, temporary
special disqualification and a fine of not exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Anoang rationale?Bastasirado, ayawablihi! Of course if you are the authorized officer, pwedenimoablihan.
But take note that Art 228 and 227 talks about documents. Art 228 talks about closed documents. If the
documents is sealed?Asa man ka?didtokasa Art 227, breaking seal.

Page 118 of 125

Kung giablihanang document taposgi-obstruct and document? Unsa man na? Duhana: mahulogxasa (1)
theft; plus (2) opening of closed documents.
Section Three. Revelation of secrets
Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him
by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may
have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prisioncorreccional in its
medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if
the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the
public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.
Sec 3 talks about secrets again. Yung kanina, sabiko, saabugadoyun. As lawyers you cant divulge the
secrets of your clients.
If you have information from you client, regarding a future commission of a crime or offense that he is
planning to commit, apil ban nasa privilege character of the communication? Diba the future crime that is
to be committed that is not covered, only those already committed.
Now in Art 229, talks about any public office who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his
official capacity. So in his official capacity or public character, must prejudice public interest. Take note
nadiliapildiriangkatongsa espionage, katong military secrets, insallations, mgaganyan. It would properly fall
under espionage.
Here, DAMAGE is not an element, although a higher penalty is imposed if the act causes serious damage to
the public interest.
Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. Any public officer to whom the secrets of
any private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer
the penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Secrets again of private individual. The secrets here need not be revealed publicly. Katongganina,
public.The crime is committed if the same are communicated to another even if those __.
So when you say revelation of secrets, there are several articles: Art 209 yungsa lawyer; Art 117
military secrets; Art 229 and 230 when committed by public officer; Art 290-292 if revelation is done by
a private individual.
Chapter ThreeDISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private
individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the
contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor
to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the
secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or
workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall
reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
Art 290 - Eto private individual eto. Art 291- Revealing secrets with abuse of officemga manager,
employees, etc, again private. Art 292 - Revelation of industrial secrets, again by private. So when you say

Page 119 of 125

revelation of secrets of a private individual you go to Art 290-292, if military Art 117; public officer Art 229230, or abugado Art 209.
Chapter Six OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Art. 231. Open disobedience. Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter
and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a
fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
So first line pa lang, kinsaman ang sad-an diri? Walanapuylabotang legislative. Walajudniytarongning
legislative. The offender is any judicial or executive officerwho shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision or order of any superior authority. OPENLY meaning renowned reservation. The refusal
must be clear, manifest, and decisive or a repeated refusal or disobedience of an order. Must be intentional
and must not be confused with omission arising from oversight, mistake, or erroneous interpretation of the
order.
Art. 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer.
Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall
disobey such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of
prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.
Art 232 is the Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer.
So here he was ordered to do something by a superior, hindinyaginawa. The superior again gave an order.
Yung sa first palangna failure to obey the order, hindi pa yun crime. The crime arises when after the
superior have disapproved the suspension, he shall still suspend the execution of the order.
Of course, the order must be legal or issued within the authority of the superior. What is punished here is
insubordination for the act of defying the authorities which is detrimental to the public interest.
Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to
lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall result
in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Of course all public officers are supposed to lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or
other public service. If he doesnt do that, he can be held liable for refusal of assistance.
Art. 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.
Etong Art 234 sometimes amuses me. 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. Nag
pinatyanannamangani tag dagan for political office taposnidaognaka, dilinimo gusto idischarge! Anyway,
you refuse to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office, yan Art 234.
Merongkasoditonanidaganxapagka barangay kagawad, tapospagkadaogniya,
Walaxaga attend ug session, miskingginotifynaxa. Yan, refusal.Nidagan pa ka!

nyawalananagpakita!

Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage
caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishment not
authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the
prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused.

Page 120 of 125

Here, again, please take note that the offender must have custody or charge of the prisoner
taposiyanggimaltrato. Also take not that this is a separate offense if the public officer would also torture
the prisoner under the Anti-Torture Law.
This is specific, the prisoner here may be a convicted prisoner or a detention prisoner. It does not matter. If
you are the officer having charge and you overdo yourself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner by imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner, that will fall under maltreatment.
So
anoyung
cruel
and
humiliating
manner?
Imonghubuanangprisotaposimongpadagandaganondidtosaprisohan. MAG JOGGING KA! hahahaha! Paak! Or
pakantahonnimougBayangMagiliw (yes baying magiliwangingonni sir diliLupangHiniranghahahaha!)
napina-bali!
Take note that the offense is aggravated if the purpose is to extort a confession or obtain some information
from the prisoner. Yan ang similar to torture, If the torture is used to extract illicit information or confession.
When I said earlier that this will apply to convicted and detention prisoner, the premise there is that these
prisoners are held in prison, the detention under preventive imprisonment, ang convicted prisoner while
serving sentence. So if a person is maltreated while on the way to jail, or bagolang arrest before they are
actually taken to jail, hindi pa xa under detention. Hindi pa xa under preventive imprisonment. This article
will still not apply. So meaning hindi pa to xa mag apply. The premise is that you have been detained
already referring to detention prisoner or you have been convicted already referring to convicted prisoner.
Anongmangyari dun kunggikulatanasa police? Dun kasa physical injuries.
Section Two. Anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office.
Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. Any person who shall assume the performance of the
duties and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the
bond required by law, shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied
with the respective formalities and shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
Ditonamanbaliktadsakaninana refusal to serve. Art 236 nag unauna, wala pa na sworn, hes already
performing the duties of the office. Angmagadadito, tingnanmoang penalty, shall be suspended from such
office or employment. So wala pa ganixakasugod, nasuspendnadayonxakay nag anticipate man ug
duties! Haha!
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. Any public officer shall continue to exercise the
duties and powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulation
or special provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prisioncorreccional in its minimum
period, special temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
This time (unless you are in a hold over capacity) If you prolong or continue to exercise the duties and
powers of his office then it is Art 237.
Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book
Two of this Code, the offender shall be punished by prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium
periods, and by arresto mayor if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any other crime.
Kasidiba when you no longer want to serve or perform the functions of your office, you being in public
office, you are supposed to resign dili man napwedena boss muresignnako then muulika. The
resignation should be in writing not just that, the resignation MUST BE ACCEPTED. Just like a donation
nakailangannimoiaccept. You cannot just resign or retire pagayawmona, otherwise you can be charged for
abandonment of your office or position.
You have to distinguish that from prolonged absences which is subject to an administrative action which
may justify a dismissal but it cannot be a subject for a criminal action.

Page 121 of 125

Take note of these circumstances here: if the purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of
preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other crime that is what you call qualified abandonment.
Art 239, 240 taposnatayojan, interdepartmental usurpation. Also Art 241 to Art 243 just read that.
Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. Any executive officer who
shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos.
You can also relate this to yung requesting a public officer saArt 3019 Sec 3 Par 8(?), similar import.
Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
The keyword there is KNOWINGLY. Muanaxana wala man kokabalona he did not have legal qualification.
Sa administrative law pa nitoangtawagdito nepotism or you relate it to that, but here its unlawful
appointment because he did not have the qualifications.
Section Four. Abuses against chastity
Art. 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. The penalties of prisioncorreccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested
in matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a
report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.
If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any
person in the custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prisioncorreccional in its minimum
and medium periods and temporary special disqualification.
This may be consummated by mere solicitation. So meaning proposal pa lang consummated naang
offense. who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before such officer for decision - so the mere solicitation, the mere proposal is sufficient to
consummate the offense. And of course the person you shall solicit should be a WOMAN.
Walaylabotkunglalake.
Also If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity so
this extends not only to the prisoner or the female prisoner in custody but also to the female relatives.
Then WALAY MOTHER of the prisoner! Hahaha like eeew!
Last, saRA6713 is more on the administrative. Just take note that Section 7,8,and 9 have penal sections or
sections with penal character because the penalty there is imprisonment. So etoyungmga criminal law
provisions on the rule of conduct and ethical standards of public officials and employees. Section 7 talks
about prohibited acts and transactions engaging in your profession without the authority
needed,yungmgaganyan. Section 8 talks about yungsa SALN. Sec 9 talks about divestment. Even if it is
only a potential conflict of interest between your office and whatever interest you have in a company or a
corporation, you are supposed to divest yourself of the interest you have in those corporation before you
assume office. Otherwise it is not just an administrative infraction but it is a criminal violation under RA
6713. Because under Sec 11 talks about the penalties Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000), or both. That the basis why it is a penal provision. Also take note that private individuals that
conspire, same thing with RA 3019, are also liable. here in ARA 6713 it is not just co-principals, private
individuals may also be accomplices or accessories.
Section 7.Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

Page 122 of 125

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have
any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending
official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or
separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be
with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees shall not use or
divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not
made available to the public, either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly
or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person
in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered
and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship
grant or medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or expenses for travel taking
place entirely outside the Philippine (such as allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than
nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and
permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which he belongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this
subsection, including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any educational, scientific or cultural
exchange programs subject to national security requirements.
Section 8.Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and
submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth
and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under
eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees,
except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under
oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age
living in their households.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:

Page 123 of 125

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
(b) personal property and acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and financial connections.
The documents must be filed:
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall also
execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor
of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests
and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any
office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required statements jointly or
separately.
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator;
and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective
regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the
President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the
Civil Service Commission.
(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to
identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the
form, manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for
inspection at reasonable hours.
(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days
from the time they are filed as required by law.
(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the
cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification.
(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after
receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing
investigation.
(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this Act
for:
(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or

Page 124 of 125

(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the
general public.
Section 9.Divestment. - A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a
conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty
(30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty
(60) days from such assumption.
The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.
The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those who serve the Government in an honorary capacity
nor to laborers and casual or temporary workers.
Section 11.Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or
employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of
this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension
not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and
hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under
another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall
be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold
public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against
him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with
public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the
public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a
report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought
may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand pesos
(P25,000). If another sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Page 125 of 125