R.
A 9165
Note: Intent to perpetrate the prohibited acts such as
intent to donate in the crime of giving away dangerous
drugs or animus possidendi in possession of dangerous
drugs presupposes knowledge that the accused was
dealing with dangerous drugs.
I: Importation of Prohibited Drugs
Note: In order establish the crime of importation of
dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show that the
vessel from which the drugs are landed or on which it
arrived in Philippine waters came from a foreign port. (If
the point of origin is unknown, the drug trafficker may
be convicted of Transportation of Dangerous Drugs or
Possession of Dangerous Drugs)
Consummation: The importation of prohibited drugs is
complete the moment the vessel enters the waters of
the country provided that the entry is with the intent to
import it. Without intent to unload, the crime
committed is transportation of dangerous drugs. (Intent
to unload is established if the vessel carrying the
dangerous drugs is already anchored in a local port)
II: Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
Note: It is committed when a person carry or convey
dangerous drugs from one place to another. In
transportation of dangerous drugs, the place of origin,
place of destination or ownership is not material.
Quantity: The fact that the quantity of drugs
confiscated is not considerable or commercial indicates
that the accused possessed the same for consumption
purpose. Hence, he shall be convicted of possession of
dangerous drugs and not the graver crime of
transportation of dangerous drugs.
Attempted: Discovery of dangerous drugs in the
possession of the accused at the departure area of the
airport. (The penalty for attempted transportation is the
same as that for consummated transportation of
dangerous drugs.
Car is not in transit: Possession only. The theory of
transportation is merely speculative.
III: Selling
Sell: Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for
money or any other consideration.
Consummation: The crime of sale is consummated by
mere delivery of the drug purchased for money. Actual
payment is not an element of selling dangerous drugs.
The crime committed is not sale of dangerous drugs but
attempted sale of dangerous drugs if the accused is
arrested prior to the actual or constructive delivery of
the dangerous drugs. (Showing sample is an overt act of
selling dangerous drugs because it reveals the intention
of the offender to sell it to the poseur-buyer- the crime
is not consummated because of a cause other than his
own spontaneous desistance)
Buyer: Liable for possession of dangerous drugs.
Chain of Custody: To establish the chain of custody, the
prosecution must show the movements of the
dangerous drugs from its confiscation up to its
presentation in court. The purpose of the chain of
custody is to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Links that must be established:
a. The seizure and marking if practicable, of the
illegal drugs recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
b. The turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
c. The turnover of the illegal drugs by the
investigating officer to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination;
d. The turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court.
Sec. 21, R.A 9165: Establishing the first link in the chain
of custody: The apprehending officer after the
confiscation of drug must immediately make physical
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person from whom the items were
confiscated, or his counsel; a representative from media
and the DOJ; and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and given a
copy thereof and within 24 hours upon such
confiscation, the drug shall be submitted to the PDEA
forensic laboratory.
Note: Settled is the rule that failure to strictly comply
with section 21 of R.A 9165 does not necessarily render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or
1
confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item. (Cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal)
Decoy-Solicitation: The sale of contraband is a kind of
offense habitually committed, and the solicitation
simply furnishes evidence of the criminal’s course of
conduct. It is not tantamount to inducement or
instigation.
Non-presentation of the informant: A confidential
informant need not be presented in court. Police
informants work incognito; to parade them in court
would destroy their usefulness. However, if the
informant acted as poseur-buyer or assisted the poseur-
buyer in the transaction with the pusher, his identity is
not confidential.
Confiscation receipt: Confiscation receipt signed by the
accused cannot be accepted as proof that dangerous
drugs and marked money were seized from him. It is
inadmissible in evidence as there is no showing that he
was assited by counsel when he signed them.
Nevertheless, the accused cannot be acquitted if his
criminal act of selling dangerous drugs has been
sufficiently proven by other evidence.
………………>>>
R.A 3019
No double jeopardy: R.A 3019 penalizes corrupt and
practices f public officers in addition to acts or
omissions already penalized by existing law. Thus, one
may be concurrently charged with violation of R.A 3019
and a felony under the RPC.
I: Sec. 3 (E), R.A 3019: The act must be connection with
the discharge of the public officers official, judicial or
administrative function and it must be performed
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
a. First mode: By causing undue injury to any
party, including the government: It is required
that the damage must be specified, quantified
and proven to the point of moral certainty.
b. Second mode: By giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit or advantage or
preference.
Arias principle: Heads of offices can rely to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates on preparation of bids,
purchase of supplies, or negotiations. To sustain a
conspiracy charge and conviction, evidence must be
presented other than his signature on the voucher. This
principle is not applicable in the following cases:
a. Circumstances show evident bad faith, or
manifest partiality;
b. Gross inexcusable negligence;
c. The officers from whom he relied is of an equal
rank;
d. The document involving the release is not
voluminous.
II: Sec. 3 (A) of R.A 3019:
a. Committed by a public officer, who shall
persuade, induce or influence another public
officer;
b. To perform an act constituting an offense or
violation of rules and regulation in connection
with his official duties.
c. The persuasion or inducement is done by
means of consideration, reward, payment or
remuneration.
d. The public officer, who shall allow himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit
such violation or offense is also liable.
Formal crime: The public officer is liable for inducing,
persuading or influencing another public officer even
though the latter refused to allow himself to be
induced, persuaded or influenced. This crime has no
attempted stage.
Distinction from direct bribery: (1) The act agreed upon
does not constitute a crime; (2) The person corrupting
the public officer is a private individual; (3) The private
individual who corrupted the public officer is liable for
corruption of public officer; (4) There is attempted
stage.
III: Section 4 (B), R.A 3019: It shall be unlawful for any
person knowingly to induce or cause any public official
to commit any of the offenses defined under Section 3
of R.A 3019.
IV: Section 3 (B) of R.A 3019:
a. Committed by a public officer, who shall directly
or indirectly request or receive any gift, present,
share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
other person;
b. In connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other party;
c. Wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
2
Consummation of the crime: Requesting gifts
consummates the crime; hence failure to receive the
gifts is not a defense. On the other hand, receiving gifts
consummates the crime; hence, lack of demand or
request is not a defense.
Contract or transaction: Preliminary investigation,
quasi-judicial proceeding or a judicial proceeding is not
considered as a “transaction” contemplated under
section 3 (B). (assessing tax liability is a transaction)
Intervention: intervention in the contract or transaction
must be part of the officer’s duty.
Direct Bribery and Violation of section 3(B): The officer
may be charged with violation of Section 3(B) of R.A
3019 in addition to charge for direct bribery under the
RPC. Direct bribery or indirect bribery is malum in se,
while violation of R.A 3019 partakes the nature of
malum prohibitum. No double jeopardy.
V: Section 3 (C) of R.A 3019:
a. Committed by any public officer, who shall
directly or indirectly request or receive any gift,
present or other pecuniary benefit, for himself
or for another;
b. From any person for whom the public officer, in
any manner or capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will obtain or secure, any
government permit or license;
c. In consideration of the help given or to be
given.
Note on IV-section 3(b) and V-section 3(C): For
purposes of prosecution, the value of the gift or present
need not be alleged in the information or proven by
evidence since it is not an element of the crime. Section
3(B) or (C) applies regardless of whether the gift’s value
is manifestly excessive or not, regardless of the
occasion. But for purposes of defense, the value of the
gift or present is important; if the value of the gift or
present is not manifestly excessive, the officer is not
liable. (gift must be given by a person other than the
officer’s immediate family)
VI: Section 4, R.A 3019:
a. Committee by any person who shall capitalize
or exploit or take advantage of his family or
close relation with any public official; (up to 3
degree of consanguinity or affinity)
b. By directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present, gift or material or pecuniary
advantage;
c. From any other person having some business,
application, request or contract with the
government, in which the public official has to
intervene.
VII: Section 3(J) of R.A 3019: Committed by any person,
who shall knowingly approve or grant any license,
permit, privilege or benefit to a person, who is not
qualified for or entitled to it, or a mere dummy of such
unqualified person. (Good faith is a defense)
VIII: Section 3(F) of R.A 3019
a. Committed by a public officer, who shall neglect
or refuse without sufficient justification to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him after due demand or request;
b. For the purpose of (1) obtaining directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage; (2) favoring his own interest; (3)
giving undue advantage in favor of other
interested party; or (4) discriminating against
other interested party.
IX: Section 3(D) of R.A 3019: Committed by a public
officer, who shall accept or have any member of his
family accept employment in private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
X: Section 3(G), R.A 3019: Committed by a public
officer, who shall enter on behalf of the government
into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same. (sample: granting behest
loan)
Section 3(E) and section 3(G): Payment of overpriced
property bought by the government or entering into a
contract involving an overpriced project constitutes
violation of Section 3(e) since the responsible officer
give unwarranted advantage and preference or benefit
to a private individual through manifest partiality or
evident bad faith; and a violation of section 3(g) since
the contract is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government. No double jeopardy because the
essential elements of each are not included among or
do not form part of those enumerated in the other.
XI: Section3(H) of R.A 3019:
a. Committed by a public officer, who directly or
indirectly shall have financing or pecuniary
3
 interest in any business contract or transaction;
(indirect: ex. Conjugal fund)
b. 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. (actual intervention is
an element of the crime)
Note: Defense: failure to have an interest; it does not
admit attempted stage because R.A 3019 did no adopt
the technical nomenclature of penalties under the RPC.
Note: The section punishes a public officer for having an
interest prohibited by law or constitution and not a
mere administrative rules.
XII: Section 5 of R.A 3019:
a. Committed by spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within 3rd civil degree,
of the President, VP, Senate President, or the
Speaker of the House;
b. To intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business transaction with the government.
Exceptions:
a. Already dealing with the government prior to
the assumption of office;
b. Contract or transaction is already existing;
c. No discretion in the approval; approval depends
upon compliance with law;
d. Lawful performance of official capacity or in the
exercise of profession;
XIII: Section 6 of R.A 3019: committed by any member
of the congress who recommended the initiation in the
congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or
resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest
during his incumbency. (continue to retain interest for
30 days after approval; also punishable)
XIV: Section 3(I): Committed by any public officer, who
shall directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board or
panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval.
CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS: Prohibits having direct or indirect
financial or material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of the office of the public official.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Malversation:
Preliminary notes:
a. Public Property or Funds: Private property,
which is under custodial egis, is impressed with
the character of public property. Moreover,
under the RPC, the provisions on Malversation
shall apply to any administrator or depositary of
funds or property attached, seized or deposited
by public authority, even if such property
belongs to a private individual. A public officer,
who is not responsible for public funds or
property and without authority to safeguard
the same, cannot be convicted of Malversation.
b. Cash advance: (1) A cash advance for travel
expenses is not a public fund since the public
officer received it in the form of loan. Hence,
there is transfer of ownership from the
government to the public officer making the
cash advance a private property. (2) However,
cash advance for livelihood program or cash
advance to buy working tools for provincial
project is public property. There is no transfer
of ownership since the public officer did not
receive the cash advance in the form of loan.
The public officer is required to use the money
not for his personal benefit but for a specific
public purpose. Hence, failure to liquidate upon
demand gives the presumption of Malversation.
c. Confiscated Dangerous Drugs: The crime
committed is misappropriation or failure to
render accounts under section 27 of R.A 9165.
d. Accountable Officer: An accountable officer is
one, who has custody or control of public
property by reason of his public office. Under
the LGC, local officers, who have participated in
the use or application local government funds
are also accountable officers because they have
control and responsibility over the said funds.
Note: Even though the public officer could not
disburse public funds without the order from
superior authority, he is still an accountable
officer if he received money belonging to the
government for which he is bound to account or
has the authority to receive money pertaining
to the government.
e. Non-accountable officer: A person without
authority to receive money pertaining to the
government and disburse public funds is not an
accountable officer. If the public officer is not
an accountable officer, as a rule, the crime
4
 committed is not Malversation, but qualified
theft. (it can be estafa also)
f. Private individual: A non-accountable officer or
private individual can be held liable for
Malversation if he conspires with an
accountable officer in committing the crime.
Moreover, under the RPC, the provisions on
Malversation shall apply to any administrator or
depositary of funds or property attached, seized
or deposited by public authority, even if such
property belongs to a private individual.
MODES OF COMMITTING MALVERSATION
I: Malversation through Misappropriation: Committed
by a public officer, who being accountable for public
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
appropriates or misappropriates the same.
Note: Performing an act of ownership over a property
by one who is not the owner thereof without the
authority is misappropriation. [Ex: lending, disbursing in
violation of regulation, “vale” system (in the form of
loan)]
II: Malversation through taking: Committed by a public
officer, who being accountable for public funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office takes or
consent to the taking of the said funds/property by
other person or permits to take it through
abandonment or negligence.
Intentional Malversation: Malversation through taking
is committed by means of dolo, if the public property
was taken by the accountable officer, or by another
person with the consent of the public officer.
Passive Malversation: Malversation through taking is
committed by means of culpa, if the public property or
fund was taken by another person and the accountable
officer permitted the taking through negligence or
abandonment. In Malversation, the penalty is the same
regardless of whether the offense is committed with
intent or through criminal negligence. (ex: failure to
exercise strict supervision)
Note: Dolo or culpa is just a mode of committing the
crime of Malversation. Even if the mode charged differs
from the mode proved, accused can still be convicted of
Malversation.
OTHER NOTES TO REMEMBER
Presumption of Malversation: In the crime of
Malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is
sufficient proof that the accountable officer had
received public funds/property, that he did not have
them in possession when demand therefor was made,
and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to
do so. Failure of an accountable officer to explain the
missing funds/property shall be prima facie evidence of
misappropriation. However, this presumption is
disputable by evidence showing that he had fully
accounted for the alleged cash shortage. Note: Demand
is not an element of the crime of Malversation. It is only
a requisite for the application of the presumption of
Malversation. Without this presumption, the accused
may still be proved guilty based on direct evidence of
Malversation.
Payment in Good Faith: Where the payment of public
funds has been made in good faith, and there is
reasonable ground to believe that the officer to whom
the fund had been paid was entitled thereto, he is
deemed to have acted in good faith, there is no criminal
intent, and the payment, if it turns out to be
unauthorized, renders him only civilly but not criminally
liable. (justifying circumstance of obedience to a lawful
order)
Restitution:
a. Rule 1: Not a defense: Under the law, the
refund of the sum misappropriated, even
before the commencement of the criminal
prosecution, does not exempt the guilty person
from liability for the crime. This is because
damage is not an element of Malversation, and
payment, after the consummation of the crime
of Malversation, is not one of the modes of
extinguishing criminal liability. Restitution
affects only the civil liability.
b. Rule 2: Defense: Restitution if coupled with
other circumstance may be considered as a
defense either because t negates dolo or in
rebuts the presumption of Malversation. Thus,
immediately refunding the missing money upon
demand will negate the presumption of
Malversation. Further, if the funds were not
used for personal interest and restitution is
made within a reasonable period of time, the
presumption of guilt is successfully overthrown.
c. Mitigating: Restitution is a mitigating
circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender
if it was immediately and voluntarily made
before the case was instituted. Although
restitution is akin to voluntary surrender, both
5
 shall be considered as separate mitigating
circumstance.

Failure to Render an accounting: If an accountable

officer did not misappropriate the cash advance since
he was able to account the same, but accounting was
delayed for more than two months after such accounts
should be rendered, the crime committed is failure to
render an accounting.

TECHNICAL MALVERSATION

Illegal use of public funds or property is committed by a

public officer who applies a public fund under his
administration to any public purpose other than that for
which such fund or property were appropriated by law
or ordinance.

Intent: Criminal intent is not an element of technical

Malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a
particular public purpose to another purpose. The
offense is malum prohibitum, meaning that the
prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a
criminal offense because positive law forbids its
commission based on consideration of public policy,
order and convenience.

Variance Rule: The accused acquitted of Malversation

cannot be convicted of technical Malversation since the
latter does not include, or is not necessarily included in
the former charged in the information because they are
distinctively different from each other. Moreover,
acquittal or conviction for Malversation is not a bar in
prosecuting the accused for Malversation. There is no
double jeopardy because the crimes are different and
distinct from each other.