Special Law

A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAW OF NATIONS (ARTS. 114-

123)
1. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (PD 532)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 2]
b. Punishable Acts [Sec. 4]
2. Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (RA 11479, See ATA ruling in Calleja v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 252578, et al.)
a. Terrorism [Secs. 4-12]
b. Who are Liable [Secs. 3 (l) & (m), 14]
c. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications [Sec. 16]
d. Detention Without Judicial Warrant [Sec. 29]
e. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and Interrogation [Sec. 33]

B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE (ARTS. 124-

133)
1. Anti-Torture Act of 2009
a. Acts of Torture [Sec. 4]
b. Who Are Criminally Liable [Sec. 13]
C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER (ARTS. 134-160)
1. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (RA 10591)

D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (ARTS. 161-187)

E. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS

1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 [RA 9165, as amended by
RA 10640; Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) only]

F. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS (ARTS. 200-202)

1. Anti-Gambling Act (PD 1602, as amended by RA 9287)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 2, RA 9287]
b. Punishable Acts [Sec. 3, RA 9287]

G. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS (ARTS. 203-245)

1. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 2]
b. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers [Sec. 3]
c. Prohibition on Private Individuals [Sec. 4]
d. Prohibition on Certain Relatives [Sec. 5]
e. Exceptions [Sec. 14]
2. Anti-Plunder Act (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 1, RA 7080]
b. Definition of Crime of Plunder [Sec. 2, amended by RA 7659]
c. Series and Combination
d. Pattern
3. Prohibition of Child Marriage Law (RA 11596)
a. Facilitation of Child Marriage by Public Officer [Sec. 4]

H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (ARTS. 246- 266)

1. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208, as amended by RA
11862)
a. Acts of Trafficking in Persons [Sec. 4, RA 11862]
b. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons [Sec. 5, RA 11862]
c. Qualified Trafficking in Persons [Sec. 6, RA 11862]
2. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 3]
b. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children [Sec. 5]
c. Protection Orders [Secs. 8-16]
d. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense [Sec. 26]
3. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA 9775)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 3]
b. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts [Sec. 4]
4. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation,
and Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 3, RA 7610]
b. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse [Sec. 5, RA 7610, as amended
by RA 11648]
c. Attempt to Commit Child Prostitution [Sec. 6, RA 7610)
d. Child Trafficking [Sec. 7, RA 7610, as amended by RA 11648]
e. Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking [Sec. 8, RA 7610]
f. Obscene Publication and Indecent Shows [Sec. 9, RA 7610, as amended
by RA 11648]
g. Employment of Children [Sec. 12, RA 7610 as amended by RA 9231]
5. Prohibition of Child Marriage Law (RA 11596)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 3]
b. Unlawful Acts [Sec. 4]
c. Public Crimes [Sec. 5]
6. An Act Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of
Statutory Rape (RA 11648)
a. Amendment on Rape [Sec. 1]
b. Amendment on Qualified Seduction [Sec. 2]
I. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY (ARTS. 267-292)
1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)
a. Cybercrime Offenses [Sec. 4]
b. Other Offenses [Sec. 5]

J. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (ARTS. 293- 332)

1. Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612)
a. Fencing
(1) Definition [Sec. 2]
(2) Presumption of Fencing [Sec. 5]
b. Exception
(1) With clearance or permit to sell [Sec. 6]

K. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY (ARTS. 333- 334)

1. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 3]
b. Prohibited Acts [Sec. 4]
2. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended)
a. Child Prostitution and Other Acts of Abuse [Sec. 5, RA 7610, as amended
by RA 11648]
(1) Compare Prosecution for Acts of Lasciviousness Under Art. 366, RPC, and
RA 7610, as amended

L. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS (ARTS. 347-352)

M. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR (ARTS. 353-364)

1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 [RA 10175]
a. Libel [Sec. 4(c)(4)]

N. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (ART. 365)

Art. 114 Treason - Treason is a breach of
allegiance to a government committed by a
person who owes allegiance to it.

Elements:
1. that the offender (a Filipino citizen or a
Resident Alien) owes allegiance to the
Government of the Philippines
2. the offender either:
a. Levies war against the Government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies by giving them aid or
comfort
3. that there is a War in which the Philippines is
involved
the government under which they live or to their sovereign, in
return for protection they receive. (Laurel v Misa, GR No. L-409,
January 30, 1947)
Can treason committed in a foreign country be prosecuted
in the Philippines?
Yes. Treason committed in a foreign country may be prosecuted
in the Philippines. (Art. 2, RPC)
Place of commission of crime
1. Filipino citizen: anywhere since he owes permanent
allegiance which consists in the obligation of fidelity and
obedience which a citizen or subject owes to his government or
sovereign;
2. Alien: only in the Philippines except in case of conspiracy.
An alien owes only temporary allegiance to the country where he
resides. Temporary allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and
obedience which a resident alien owes to the Philippine
Government.
a. An actual assembling of men; and
b. For the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force;
2. Adherence to enemies – requires concurrence of:
a. Actual adherence to the enemies; and
b. Giving aid or comfort to them.
Notes on Treason by Levying War Intent to Overthrow
Government
Levying war must be with intent to overthrow the government, not merely
to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular officer. It matters not
how vain and futile the attempt was and how impossible its
accomplishment.

Not necessary that there be a Formal Declaration of

War
In treason by levying war, it is not necessary that there be a formal
declaration of the existence of a state of war. Actual hostilities may
determine the date of the commencement of war. (Concurring Opinion of
Justice Perfecto, Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947)
If the levying of war is done in collaboration with a foreign enemy
but is merely a civil uprising without any intention of helping an
external enemy, the crime is not treason. The offenders may be held
liable for rebellion. (LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK
TWO p. 6, 2017)

Notes on Treason by Adherence to Enemies

Intent to betray; when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors

the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his
country’s policy or interest. (Cramer v US, 65 Sup. Ct. 918, April 23,
1945)

Adherence without Physical Manifestations

Mere adherence without its physical manifestation through the
giving of aid or comfort to the enemy does not suffice. They must
concur. (People v Tan, PC, 42 O.G. 1263)
Enemy
The term enemy should refer to a foreign country (US v
Lagnayon, 3 Phil 478). It applies only to the subjects of a foreign
power in a State of hostility with the traitor’s country because
this Article treats of circumstances of war. It does not embrace
rebels in insurrection against their own country, for in that case
the crime would be rebellion. (REYES, BOOK TWO).

Aid or Comfort
Act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the
conduct of war against the traitor’s country and an act which
weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor’s country
to resist or to attack the enemy. (Cramer v US, 65 Sup. Ct. 918,
April 23, 1945)
the enemy.
Mere acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the
enemy do not constitute the felony of treason. But when the position is
policy- determining, the acceptance of public office and the discharge of
official duties constitute treason.
Circumstances inherent in Treason: (EAT)
1. Evident premeditation;
2. Abuse of Superior Strength; and
3. Treachery (People v. Adlawan, 83 Phil 195;
People v. Racaza, 82 Phil 623)
Aggravating circumstances in Treason: (ICAG)
1. Ignominy;
2. Cruelty;
3. Amount or degree of aid; and
4. Gravity or seriousness of the acts of treason.
Treason is a continuous offense
Treason is a continuous offense. (People v. Victoria, G.R. No. L-369 March
13, 1947)
DEFENSES IN TREASON

Treason cannot be complexed with other crimes There is no complex

crime of treason with murder or physical injuries. (People v. Prieto 80
Phil. 138) This is because, when the deed is charged as an element of
treason, it becomes identified with the latter crime and cannot be the
subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination with treason
to increase the penalty which Art.48 of the RPC provides. (People v
Hernandez, GR No. L-6025, July 18, 1956)
Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason

Elements:
1. Proposal to Commit Treason
a. In times of war;
b. A person who has decided to levy war against the
government, or to Adhere to the enemies and to give
them aid or comfort; and
c. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.
2. Conspiracy to Commit Treason
a. In times of war;
b. Two or more persons come to an Agreement to -
i. Levy war against the government; or
ii. Adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or
comfort; and
c. They decide to commit it.
As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
are not punishable. (Art. 8) Art. 115 is an exception as it
specifically penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason.

Proposal if accepted
Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable. If the
person proposed to accepts, it amounts to conspiracy.

Effect when the acts of Treason are committed after

Conspiracy or Proposal
If acts of treason are committed after the conspiracy or
proposal, the crime committed will be treason, and the
conspiracy or proposal is considered as a means in the
commission thereof. The act of conspiracy and proposal are
absorbed therein.
Can a resident alien commit the crime of misprision?
No. A resident alien cannot commit misprision of misprision. Art.
116 expressly provides “without being a foreigner”.
When misprision not applicable
Art. 116 does not apply when treason is already committed by
someone and the accused does not report its commission.
(REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 20)

Offender as accessory to treason, but a principal in the

crime of misprision
The offender under Article 116 is punished as an accessory to
the crime of treason, which is two degrees lower than the
penalty for treason, but is a principal offender in the crime of
misprision of treason. Misprision is a separate and distinct
offense from the crime of treason (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 21)
Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing
information with respect to the national defense, with intent or
reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury
of the Republic of the Philippines or the advantage of a foreign
nation.
Punishable Acts (modes of committing Espionage):
1. Entering, without authority, upon a warship, fort, or
military or naval establishment or reservation to obtain
any information, plans, photographs or other data of
confidential nature relative to the defense of the
Philippines
2. Disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation
the contents of the articles, data or information referred
to in the preceding paragraph, which he had in his
possession by reason of the public office he holds
Is wiretapping considered espionage?
Wiretapping is not espionage if the purpose is not connected with defense.
Otherwise, it is.
Art. 118. Inciting To War or Giving Motives for Reprisals
Unlawful or unauthorized acts of an individual which provoke or
give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines or expose Filipinos to reprisals on their persons or
property.
Elements:
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts; and
2. Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or
liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or property

When crime committed

The crime is committed only in times of peace.
Is intent of offender material?
No, it isn’t
Art. 119. Violation of Neutrality.
This refers to an any act which violates any regulation
issued by competent authority for the purpose of
enforcing neutrality
Elements:
1. War in which the Philippines is not Involved;
2. For the purpose of enforcing neutrality, a regulation
is issued by competent authority; and
3. That the offender violates such

Neutrality
It is the condition of a nation that, in times of war, takes no part
in the dispute but continues peaceful dealings with the
belligerents. There must be a regulation issued by competent
authority for the enforcement of 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, in any
of the modes of commission indicated in Art. 120.
Elements:
1. A war in which the Philippines is Involved;
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either –
a. Prohibited by the government,
b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
c. containing notice or information which might be
useful to the enemy.
flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent
authority.
Persons liable:
1. Filipino citizen; and
2. Alien residing in the Philippines

Elements:
1. A war in which the Philippines is Involved;
2. Offender owes allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; and
4. Going to enemy country is prohibited by competent
authority

When crime consummated

Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country consummates the
crime.
1. ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI- HIGHWAY ROBBERY (PD 532)

a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 2]

Art. 122. Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas or In

Philippine Waters
1. Piracy: 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 the vessel, its
equipment or personal belongings of the complement or passengers

2. Mutiny: The unlawful resistance to a superior, or the raising of

commotions and disturbances on board a ship against the authority
of its commander
Note: Under P.D. 532, piracy may be committed even by a
passenger or member of the complement of the vessel.
Philippine waters
All bodies of water and all waters belonging to the Philippines
by historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the sea-
bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which
the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, P.D. No.
532)

High seas
Any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries
of the low water mark although such waters may be in the
jurisdictional limits of a foreign government; parts of the sea
that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the
territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the
archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state. (United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)
Rule on Jurisdiction
1. Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction of any court where offenders are
found or arrested
2. Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction of Philippine courts
Art. 123. Qualified Piracy
Elements:

A. Qualifying Circumstances (Piracy):

1. Seizure of the vessel by boarding or firing upon the
same;
2. Abandonment by pirates of victims without means
of saving themselves; or
3. Crime was accompanied by murder, homicide,
physical injuries, or rape.

Qualified Piracy is a special complex crime punishable

by reclusion perpetua to death, regardless of the
number of victims.
2. ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
(RA 11479)

a. Punishable Acts of Terrorism [Secs. 4-12]

(5) ACTS: Engagement in any of the following acts,

regardless of the stage of execution:
Acts intended Death or serious bodily injury to
to cause: any person, or endangers a
person’s life

Extensive Government
d amage or
destruction to:
Public
Facility

Public Place

Private
Property

Extensive interference with,

damage or destruction, to critical
infrastructure

Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires,

transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or
of biological nuclear, radiological or chemical
weapons

Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire,

floods, or explosions
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. There is
conspiracy when 2 or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of terrorism and
decide to commit the same. (Sec. 7)

Proposal to Commit Terrorism. Any person who

proposes to commit terrorism as defined in §4. (Sec. 8)

Inciting to Commit Terrorism. Any person who,

without taking any direct part in the commission of
terrorism, shall incite others to the execution of any of
the acts in §4 by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, banners, or other representations
tending to the same end.(Sec. 9)
c. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications [Sec. 16]
Enforcement agent or military personnel may secretly wiretap,
overhear, and listen to, intercept, screen, read, survey, record or
collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic,
mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now known
or may hereafter be known to science or with the use of any other
suitable ways and means for the above purposes, any private
communications, conversation, discussion/s, data, information,
messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words:
1. Between members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization, as provided for in §26 of this Act;
2. Between members of a designated person as defined in
§3(e) of RA 10168;
3. Any person charged with or suspected of committing
any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions
of this Act
EXEMPTIONS
Surveillance, interception, and recording of communications
shall not be authorized between:
1. Lawyers and clients;
2. Doctors and patients;
3. Journalists and their sources;
4. Confidential business correspondence.

PROCEDURE
The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall be obligated to:
1. File an ex-parte application with the Court of Appeals for the
issuance of an order, to compel telecommunications service providers
(TSP) and internet service providers (ISP) to produce all customer
information and identification records as well as call and text data records,
content and other cellular or internet metadata of any person suspected of
any of the crimes defined and penalized under the provisions of this Act;
and
2. Furnish the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) a copy of said application.

d. Detention Without Judicial Warrant [Sec.

29]

Any law enforcement agent or military personal, having

been duly authorized in writing by the ATC, has taken
custody of a person suspected of committing any of the
acts defined and penalized under §4-12 of this Act,
shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in
the delivery of the detained persons under Article 125
of the RPC
1. Deliver said suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within a period of 14 calendar days counted from the
moment said suspected person has been apprehended or
arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the law
enforcement agent or military personnel;
2. The period of detention may be extended to a maximum of
10 calendar days if it is established that:
a. Further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve
evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation
b. Further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent
the commission of another terrorism; and
c. The investigation is being conducted properly and without
delay
of committing terrorism or any member of a group of
persons, organization or association proscribed under
§26 hereof, the law enforcement agent or military
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court
nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the
following facts:

a. The time, date, and manner of arrest;

b. The location or locations of the detained suspect/s,
and
c. The physical and mental condition of the detained
suspect/s.

The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall

likewise furnish the ATC and the Commission on Human
Rights of the written notice given to the judge.
ensure that the detained suspect is
informed of his/her rights as a detainee and
shall ensure access to the detainee by
his/her counsel or agencies and entities
authorized by law to exercise visitorial
powers over detention facilities.

The penalty of imprisonment of 10 years

shall be imposed upon the police or law
enforcement agent or military personnel
who fails to notify any judge as provided in
the preceding paragraph.
e. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and
Interrogation [Sec. 33]

Use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading

treatment or punishment at any time during the
investigation or interrogation of a detained suspected
terrorist is absolutely prohibited.

Any evidence obtained from said detained person

resulting from such treatment shall be, in its
entirely, inadmissible and cannot be used as
evidence. (Sec. 33)
B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
STATE (Arts. 124-133)
Art. 124. Arbitrary Detention
Any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
(whose official duties include the authority to make an
arrest and detain persons);
2. That he detains a person; and
3. That the detention is without legal grounds

Detention
Actual confinement of a person in an enclosure or in any
manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty (People v
Flores, GR no. 116488, May 31, 2001)
Legal grounds for detention:
1. Commission of a crime; and
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital
Note: This list of legal grounds is not exclusive. So long
as the ground is considered legal (e.g. in contempt of
court, under quarantine, or a foreigner to be deported),
there is no arbitrary detention.

Offender is a public officer or employee

The public officers liable for arbitrary detention must be vested
with authority to detain or order the detention of persons
accused of a crime. Such public officers are the policemen and
other agents of the law, the judges or mayors and barangay
captains. (Milo v. Salanga, GR No. L-37007, July 20, 1987)
or order the detention of persons accused of a crime or
exceed their authority may be liable for illegal (not
arbitrary) detention because they are acting in their
private capacities.

Private individual offender

If the offender is a private individual, the act of detaining
another is Illegal Detention. (Art. 267 or Art. 268).

Private individual offender who conspires with

public officers
However, privateindividuals who conspire with public
officers can be liable as principals in the crime of
Arbitrary Detention.
Detention through Imprudence
Arbitrary detention can be committed through
imprudence. [People v. Misa, G.R. No. 93485, June 27,
1994. Here, a chief of police rearrested a woman who
had been released by a verbal order of the justice of
peace. The officer acted without malice, but should
have verified the order of release before proceeding to
make the re-arrest. The officer was convicted of
arbitrary detention though simple imprudence.]
Usual cause of Arbitrary Detention
Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of
arbitrary detention, unless it is a valid
warrantless arrest (under Sec. 5, Rule 113,
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).
detention)
The law does not fix any minimum period of detention.
Offenders have been convicted of arbitrary detention even
when the offended party was detained for only an hour (US v.
Agravante, G.R. No. L-3947, January 28, 1908) or even less than
half an hour (US v. Braganza, G.R. No. L-3971, February 3,
1908).
Any public officer or employee who shall detain any person for
some legal ground and shall fail to deliver the same to the
proper judicial authorities within the period provided by law.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has detained a person for some legal
ground; and
3. That he FAILS to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authority within:
a. 12 hours, if detained for crimes punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent;
b. 18 hours, if detained for crimes punishable by
correctional penalties, or their equivalent; or
c. 36 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable
by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their
equivalent
Computation of periods
The article includes Sundays, holidays and election days in the
computation of the periods prescribed within which public
officers should deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial
authorities, as the law does not except such days in the
computation. (Soria v Desierto, GR No. 153524, January 31,
2005)

Circumstances considered in determining the liability of

the officer-offender:
1. Means of communication;
2. Hour of arrest; and
3. Other circumstances such as the time of surrender and the
material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and
timely file the necessary information. (Sayo v. Chief of Police of
Manila, G.R. No. L-2128, May 12, 1948)
There must be legal ground to arrest
Art. 125 contemplates an arrest without warrant by virtue
of some legal ground (a valid warrantless arrest)

When arrest made by virtue of warrant

If arrest is made by virtue of an arrest warrant, person may
be detained indefinitely until:
1. His case is decided, or
2. He posts bail.

Delay in filing necessary information

The felony consists in the delay in filing, in court, the
necessary information charging the person detained. It
does not contemplate actual physical delivery.
SPECIAL CASE:
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, if person taken
custody of is suspected of committing any of the acts
defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, and 12 of this Act, the duly authorized law enforcement
agent or military personnel shall, without incurring any
criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained
persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said
suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a
period of fourteen (14) calendar days counted from the
moment the said suspected person has been apprehended
or arrested, detained, and taking into custody by the law
enforcement agent or military personnel.
The period of detention may be extended to a
maximum period of ten (10) calendar days if it is
established that (1) further detention of the person/s
is necessary to preserve evidence related to
terrorism or complete the investigation; (2) further
detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the
commission of another terrorism; and (3) the
investigation is being conducted properly and
without delay (RA No. 11479, Sec.29). The 3-day
period under Sec. 18 of the Human Security Act has
been repealed.
waivers.
To prevent committing this felony, officers usually ask those
detained to execute a waiver of the rights provided them under
Art. 125, which should be under oath and with assistance of
counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the constitutional right
of the accused.
Waiver of Article 125
The rights provided a detained person under Article
125 may be waived by him if he asks for a preliminary
investigation.

Length of waiver
Even when a waiver is signed, a detainee cannot be held
indefinitely. Upon signing of the waiver, a preliminary
investigation must be conducted and terminated within 15
days. (Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No.182677, August 3, 2010)
Who are proper judicial authorities?
They are the courts of justice or judges of said courts,
vested with judicial power to order the temporary
detention or confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense. (Agbay v Deputy
Ombubdsman, GR No. 134503, July 2, 1999)

Reason for Article 125

It is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from
confining a person without informing him of his offense
and without permitting him to go on bail. (Laurel v Misa,
GR No. L-409, January 30, 1947)
Art. 126. Delaying Release
Any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time
specified 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, or the proceedings upon
any petition for the liberation of such person.

Punishable Acts:
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order
for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to
said prisoner; and
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the
liberation of such person. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 62)
Note: Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to
violate this provision
Art. 127. Expulsion
Any public officer or employee who, not being
authorized by law, shall expel any person from the
Philippines or shall compel such person to change his
residence.
Punishable Acts:
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. Compelling a person to change his residence.

Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He expels any person from the Philippines, or
compels a person to change his residence; and
3. The offender is NOT authorized by law to do so
Against whom the crime may be committed
Legal expulsion may only be committed against an alien on
grounds provided by law and with observanceof due process
in deportation proceedings; hence, criminal expulsion
may be committed also only against aliens. The second
punishable act (compelling change of residence) may be
committed against aliens or Filipino citizens. (1 AMURAO, Book
Two)
Crime absorbs grave coercion
Crime of expulsion absorbs grave coercion. If done by a private
person, act will amount to Grave Coercion.

Can a person be compelled to change his residence?

Yes. However, only a court, by a final judgment, can order a
person to change his residence, while the Chief Executive has
the power to deport undesirable aliens.
If a Filipino, after voluntarily leaving the country, is
illegally refused re-entry, he is considered a victim of
being forced to change his address.

Section 2. – Violation of Domicile

Art. 128. Violation of Domicile

Any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by
judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the
owner and search papers or other effects found therein without
the consent of the owner, or having surreptitiously entered the
dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, refuses to
do so
Punishable Acts:
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
2. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner; and
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he is NOT authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling
and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects; and
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
a. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner;
c. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the
same.
If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner
is a private individual, the crime committed is Trespass to Dwelling.
Public officer searching, without warrant, outside of
dwelling
When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling”
without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for
an offense, the crime committed by the public officer is either:
1. Grave Coercion if violence or intimidation is used (Art. 286), or
2. Unjust Vexation if there is no violence or intimidation (Art.
287).
Silence of owner during search
Silence of the owner of the dwelling before and during the search,
without search warrant, by a public officer, may show implied
waiver. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 66) However, if such silence/non-
objection is a function of the searchers’ being armed and using
threats and intimidation, there is no implied waiver. (Rojas v Spouses
Matillano, GR No. 141176, May 27, 2004)
Search must be the examination of a person’s body or
property or other area that a person would reasonably
expect to consider as private, conducted by a law
enforcement officer for the purpose of finding evidence of a
crime. Thus, the mere fact of ‘looking at’ cannot strictly be
considered as the search of papers and other effects. (El
Pueblo de Filipinas v. Ella, GR No. 8716-r. February 26,
1953)

Refusal to leave
Under the 3rd mode, even if the entrance is only without
the consent of its owner, the crime is committed when
there is a refusal to leave the premises when required to do
so.
order when he is not armed with a search warrant duly
issued by the Court. If the offender is a private
individual or if the public officer is one whose functions
do not include the duty to effect search and seizure, the
crime committed is trespass to dwelling. (BOADO, RPC
and SPL).
When unconsented entry is not violation of
domicile
When a policeman, who got angry, forcibly entered the
house of another and attacked the latter, the policeman
is not liable for violation of domicile because he was not
acting in an official capacity. He is liable instead for
physical injuries with the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling.
Art. 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and
Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained.
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.
Punishable Acts:
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause
2. Exceeding authority or by using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant legally procured.
Elements:
1. Procure search warrant without just cause
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he procures a search warrant; and
c. That there is no just cause for the procurement
2. Exceed Authority in Execution
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
b. That he has legally procured a search warrant; and
c. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity
in executing the same
Search Warrant
An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and to bring it before the court
When search warrant procured without just cause
A search warrant is said to have been procured without just cause
when it appears, on the face of the affidavits filed in support of
the application therefor, or through other evidence, that the
applicant had every reason to believe that the search warrant
sought for was unjustified. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p.70).
Effect when warrant secured through false affidavit
The crime punished by the article cannot be complexed but will
be a separate crime from perjury.

Requisites of valid search warrant

1. It must be issued upon Probable Cause
2. Probable cause must be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person;
3. In the determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce;
4. It should be issued in connection with one specific offense;
5. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to
be searched and persons or things to be seized.
Effect when the Judge who issued the search warrant is
convicted of an administrative charge.
While the imposition of administrative penalties operates to
divest the Judge of his authority to act as Vice Executive Judge,
the abstraction of such authority would not, by itself result in
the invalidity of the search warrant, considering that said Judge
may be considered to have made the issuance as a de facto
officer. (Retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud v People, GR No.
199032, November 19, 2014)

Search and seizure without warrant as incident to a

lawful arrest
A person lawfully arrested may be searched, without a search
warrant, for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense. (Sec. 12, Rule
126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Art. 130. Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
Any public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is
proper, shall search the domicile, papers or 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
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings
of any person; and
4. That the owner or any member of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality is/are not present
Order of those who must witness the search:
1. Homeowner;
2. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion; or
3. Responsible members of the community.
Section 3. – Prohibition, Interruption and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings

Art. 131. Prohibition, Interruption and

Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
Any public officer or employee who, without legal
ground, shall prohibit, dissolve or interrupt the holding
of a peaceful meeting; shall hinder any person from
joining any lawful association or from attending its
meetings; or 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.
without legal ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting;
2. Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association or from attending any of
its meetings;
3. Prohibiting or hindering any person
from addressing, either alone or together
with others, any petition to the authorities
for the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal
ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in
arbitrary manner);
b. Hindering any person from joining any lawful
association or from attending any of its
meetings; or
c. Prohibiting or hindering any person from
addressing, either alone or together with others,
any petition to the authorities for the correction
of abuses or redress of grievances
Private individual offender
If the offender is a private individual, the crime is
Disturbance of Public Order (Art. 153).

Offender must not be a participant in the meeting

Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful
meeting; otherwise, the offense is Unjust Vexation.

Meeting must be peaceful

Meeting must be peaceful and there must be no legal ground
for prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting that meeting.
Interrupting meeting of municipal council Interrupting and
dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer
is a crime against the legislative body (Art. 143) and is not
punishable under this article.
Section 4. – Crimes Against Religious Worship
Art. 132. Interruption of Religious Worship
Any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the
ceremonies or manifestations of any religion
Elements:
1. That the officer is a public officer or employee;
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion are about to take place or are going on; and
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.

Qualifying circumstance: With violence or threats.

Reading of bible
Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public
plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion but only a
meeting of a religious sect; hence, only Art. 131 was violated.
Worship includes religious rites
Religious worship includes performance of religious rites for a
religious ceremony or a manifestation of religion. Examples:
Mass, baptism, marriage

X, a private person, punched a priest while the priest

was giving a homily and maligning a relative of X. Is X
liable?
X may be liable under Art. 133 (Offending religious feelings)
because X is a private person.
Note: There must actually be a religious ceremony being
conducted on that occasion, either by itself or in
conjunction with some other activity of the religious
denomination. If the offense was committed only in a
meeting or rally of a sect, it would be punishable under
Art.131. (People v Reyes, GR No. 13633, July 27, 1955)
the celebration of any religious ceremony, shall perform acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
Elements:
1. Acts complained of were performed
2. In a place devoted to religious worship, or
3. During the celebration of any religious
ceremony;
4. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of
the faithful
Nature of places
The phrase ‘in a place devoted to religious worship’ does not
necessarily require that a religious ceremony is going on. The
phrase ‘during the celebration’ is separated by the word ‘or’
from the phase ‘place devoted to religious worship’ which
indicates that the ‘religious ceremony’ need not be celebrated
in a place of worship
Religious ceremony
Religious acts performed outside of a church, such as
processions and special prayers for burying dead persons, are
covered. Examples of religious ceremonies, (acts performed
outside the church): processions and special prayers for burying
dead persons but NOT prayer rallies

Nature of acts notoriously offensive to feelings

Acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful must be
directed against religious practice, dogma or ritual for the
purpose of ridicule, such as mocking or scoffing or attempting
to damage an object of religious veneration

Deliberate intent to hurt feelings

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the
faithful. Mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough.
a. Acts of Torture [Sec. 4]

Elements of the crime of torture

1. Any act by which severe physical or mental pain or
suffering;
2. Is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or his
agent;
3. Intentionally inflicted on a person;
4. For the purpose of:
a. Obtaining information or a confession;
b. Punishment for an act he or a third person has
committed, or is suspected of having committed;
c. Intimidation or coercion; and
d. Any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(Sec. 3)
person in authority or agent of a person in authority
upon another in his/her custody that causes severe pain,
exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:
1. Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking,
striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects, and
jumping on the stomach;
2. Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food,
animal or human excreta and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten;
3. Electric shock;
4. Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot
oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances
on mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly on the
wound(s);
5. The submersion of the head in water or water polluted
with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation;
6. Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful
bodily position;
7. Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of
foreign objects into the sex organ or rectum, or electrical
torture of the genitals;
8. Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the
body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
9. Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
10. Pulling out of fingernails;
11. Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and
extreme cold;
12. The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the
head to the point of asphyxiation;
13. The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception,
memory, alertness or will of a person, such as:
a. The administration of drugs to induce confession and/or
reduce mental competency; or
b. The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or
14. Other analogous acts of physical torture. (Sec. 4)

Mental/ Psychological Torture

It refers to acts committed by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority which are calculated to
affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person’s
dignity and morale, such as:
1. Blindfolding;
2. Threatening a person(s) or his/her relative(s) with bodily
harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
3. Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;
4. Prolonged interrogation;
5. Preparing a prisoner for a “show trial”, public display or
public humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;
6. Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of
liberty from one place to another, creating the belief that
he/she shall be summarily executed;
7. Maltreating a member/s of a person’s family;
8. Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the
person’s family, relatives or any third party;
9. Denial of sleep/rest;
putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
11. Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with
any member of his/her family; and
12. Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.
(Sec. 4)

Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or

Punishment
It refers to a deliberate and aggravated treatment or
punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act,
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody, which attains a
level of severity sufficient to cause suffering, gross humiliation
or debasement to the latter.
circumstances of the case, including the duration of the
treatment or punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in
some cases, the sex, religion, age and state of health of the
victim. (Sec. 5)
c. Who Are Criminally Liable [Sec. 13]

The following shall be held criminally liable for the crime

of torture:
1. Liable as principals –
a. Any person who actually participated or induced another
in the commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the
execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment by previous or
simultaneous acts
officer or senior government official who issued an order
to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for
whatever purpose
c. The immediate commanding officer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public
official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies
for any act or omission, or negligence committed by
him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or
allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission
thereof by his/her subordinates.
2. Liable as accessory – Any public officer or employee
shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment is being committed and without having participated
therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:
a. By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment;
b. By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and/or
destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to
prevent its discovery; or
c. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape
of the principals in the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

The accessory acts should be done with the abuse of the

official’s public functions. (Sec. 13)
C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER (Arts. 134-160)

Art. 134. Rebellion and Insurrection

The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising
publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing, from the allegiance to said Government or
its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any
part thereof, or 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.
Rebellion
It is more frequently used where the object of the movement is
to completely overthrow and supersede the existing
government. (REYES, BOOK TWO) By its nature, rebellion, is a
crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd action done
in furtherance of a political end.
Insurrection
It is more commonly employed in reference to a movement
which seeks merely to effect some change of relatively minor
importance, or to prevent the exercise of governmental
authority with respect to particular matters or subjects.
REBELLION INSURRECTION

Purpose is to Purpose is to effect a change of

overthrow or supersede the minor importance, or to prevent
existing government the exercise of government
authority with respect to
particular matters
1
Absorption of ordinary crimes performed for and
during a rebellion (Political Offense Doctrine)
1. People v. Hernandez: Rebellion cannot be complexed
with ordinary (common) crimes done pursuant to it. (G.R.
Nos. L-6025-26, 1956).
2. People v. Geronimo: Crimes done for private
purposes without political motivation should be
separately punished. (G.R. No. L-8936, 1956).
3. Enrile v. Salazar: Hernandez ruling remains binding
doctrine, operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion
with any other offensecommitted on the occasion thereof,
either as a means to its commission or as an unintended
effect of any activity that constitutes rebellion. (G.R. No.
92164, 1990).
If other common crimes were done in pursuance of the
rebellious purpose, these crimes are absorbed and the
person is liable only for rebellion.

Absorption not automatic

Absorption is not automatic. One has to show that
common crimes were done pursuant to rebellious
purposes, even if one was a member of a rebellious
group.

Crimes done for personal or other purposes

If other common crimes are done for personal
purposes, even while the person is in rebellion, the
person will be held separately liable.
The crime of coup d’état 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 networks, 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
Elements:
1. Offender: member of the military, police force, or any
public officer or employee, and any possible civilian supporters
2. Means: swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth;
of the Philippines; any military camp/installation,
communication networks, public utilities, or
other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power; and
4. Purpose: to seize or diminish state power

No frustrated stage
There is no frustrated stage for coup d’ etat. The mere
attack directed against the duly-constituted authorities
of the PH, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power, consummates the crime
Art. 135. Penalty For Coup D’état, Rebellion And
Insurrection
Who shall be deemed the leader of the rebellion,
insurrection or coup d’etat in case he is unknown?
Any person who in fact:
1. Directed the others;
2. Spoke for them;
3. Signed receipts and other documents issued in their
names; or
4. Performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels

Membership in rebel organizations

Membership in a rebel organization does not automatically
qualify as a criminal act absorbed in rebellion. It must be
conclusively demonstrated that criminal acts were
committed in furtherance of rebellion. (People v Lovedioro,
GR No. 112235, November 29, 1995)
Art. 136. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
Coup D’état, Rebellion, or Insurrection

Crimes Penalized under Article 136

1. Conspiracy to commit rebellion;
2. Proposal to commit rebellion
3. Conspiracy to commit coup d’état
4. Proposal to commit coup d’état

Conspiracy to commit rebellion

When two (2) or more persons come to an agreement
to rise publicly and take arms against the Government
for any of the purposes of rebellion and decide to
commit it.
Art. 137. Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees
Any public officer or employee who failed to resist a rebellion by all
the means in his/her power or shall continue to discharge the duties
of his/her office under the control of the rebels or shall accept
appointment to office under them.
Punishable Acts:
1. Failing to resist rebellion by all means;
2. Continuing to discharge duties under the rule of rebels; or
3. Accepting appointment under the rule of rebels
Elements:
1. Public officers or employees
2. who:
a. fail to resist a rebellion by all means in their power;
b. shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the
control of the rebels; or
c. accept appointment to office under them
Art. 138. Inciting To Rebellion Or Insurrection
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 under Art.134, by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or
other representations tending to the same end
Elements:
1. The offender does not take up arms or is not in
open hostility against the Government
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end
rebellion/insurrection)
Elements:
1. Offender rises publicly and tumultuously
2. Means: force, intimidation and “outside” (extra- legal)
methods
3. Objectives:
a. Prevent promulgation/execution of law or holding of
popular election;
b. Prevent government or officer thereof from freely
exercising functions;
c. Inflict act of hate or revenge upon public officer or
employee or his property;
d. Commit, for political or social ends, any act of hate or
revenge on any person or social class; or
e. Despoil, for any political or social end, any person, the
Government, or any division thereof of all or some of their
property
SEDITION IN GENERAL
1. Sedition is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the State.
2. It can be committed by both private and public persons.
3. Its object is generally a violation of public peace
4. It is committed tumultuously; it cannot be committed by
one person alone.
a. Something is considered tumultuous if it involves at least
four (4) men with weapons or other means of violence.
b. Multiple people with no arms or means of violence at all
cannot commit sedition.
5. Common crimes are not absorbed in sedition.

Note: Concurrence of public uprising and purpose of

sedition is required. When one is absent, it is not
sedition.
There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and
tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition in order to
constitute the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition.

(N.B. There is no independent felony of proposal to commit

sedition.)

Art. 142. Inciting To Sedition Punishable Acts

Any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of
sedition, should commit any of the punishable acts indicated
below

Punishable Acts:
1. Inciting others to sedition by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banner or other
representations tending to the same end;
disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels
against Government or any of its duly constituted
authorities;
4. Knowingly concealing such evil practices

Elements: Inciting Others to Sedition

1. That the offender Does not take a direct part
in the crime of sedition;
2. That he Incites others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition; and
3. That the inciting is done by means of Speeches,
Proclamations, Writing, Emblems, Cartoons,
Banners, or other representations tending to the
same end.
1. When they tend to disturb or obstruct any
public officer in executing the functions of his
office;
2. When they tend to instigate others to cabal
and meet together for unlawful purposes;
3. When they suggest or incite rebellious
conspiracies or riots; or
4. When they lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to disturb the
peace of the community, the safety and order of
the government
Two rules relative to seditious words
1. Clear and present danger rule
a. Danger should be both clear and imminent;
b. Reasonable ground to believe that the danger
apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be
prevented is a serious one to the State; and
c. Present time element: not only probable but very
likely inevitable
2. Dangerous tendency rule
a. Tends to create a danger of public uprising;
b. Easily produces disaffection; and
c. Produces state of feelings incompatible with a
disposition to remain loyal to the government
Section 1. – Crimes against Legislative Bodies and
Similar Bodies

Art. 143. Acts Tending To Prevent the Meeting of the

Assembly and Similar Bodies
Any person who by force or fraud prevents the meeting of
either the Congress or any provincial board or municipal
council

Art. 144. Disturbance of Proceedings

Any person who disturbs the meetings of either the
Congress or any provincial board or city or municipal
council; or in the presence of any such bodies should
behave in such manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to
impair the respect due it
When disturbance created by participant
The crime can only be committed by a non- participant.
Disturbances created by a participant in the meeting are not
covered by Art.144. It could however amount to unjust
vexation.
Section 2. – Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
Art. 145. Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
1. Any person who shall use force, intimidation, threats or
fraud to prevent any member of either House of the Legislature
from attending the meetings thereof, from expressing his
opinions, or casting his vote
2. Any public officer or employee who shall, while the
Legislature is in session, knowingly arrest or search any
member thereof, except in case such member has committed a
crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than
Prisión Mayor
Punishable Acts:
1. Using force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent
attendance, expression of opinion, or casting of vote, by any
member of Congress;
2. Arresting or searching a member of Congress while in
regular or special session;
a. Unless the member is charged with a crime with a penalty
higher than Prision mayor;
b. However, to harmonize with the 1987 Constitution, the
RPC provision should be read as “a penalty of Prision mayor or
higher”
Parliamentary Immunity
1. Protects from civil and criminal liability
2. Does not protect a member of Congress from responsibility before
the legislative body itself whenever that member’s conduct is
considered inappropriate or unbecoming
3. Other members may, by votation, opt to suspend, imprison, or
expel unruly or otherwise erring members of Congress
Note:

Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that; “A

Senator or Member of the House shall in all
offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
Congress is in session” while Art.145 of the RPC
states penalty higher than prision mayor. To be
consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution
should prevail over Art.145, and the Constitution
says “6 years”, not prision mayor.
Chapter 3: Illegal Assemblies and Associations
Art. 146. Illegal Assemblies
Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of
committing any of the crimes punishable under this Code, or
any meeting in which the audience is incited to the commission
of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
assault upon a person in authority or his agents.

Persons liable for illegal assembly

1. Organizers or leaders of the meeting; and

2. Persons merely present at the meeting [except when
presence is merely out of curiosity – not liable since they do not
have the intent to illegally assemble
Meeting
The word 'meeting' includes a gathering or group, whether in a
fixed place or moving.

Note: Not all the persons present at the meeting of the

first form of illegal assembly must be armed, it is
sufficient that at least two persons are armed. If none of
the persons present in the meeting are armed, there is
no crime of illegal assembly.

Effect when Audience incited

If the audience is incited to commit rebellion or sedition, the
crimes committed are illegal assembly as regards the
organizers or leaders and persons merely present (but with
intent to illegally assemble) and inciting to rebellion or sedition
insofar as the one inciting them is concerned.
Art. 147. Illegal Associations
Associations totally or partially organized for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable
under this Code or for some purpose contrary to public
morals.
Kinds of Illegal Associations:
1. Those totally or partially organized for the purpose
of committing a felony; and
2. Those totally or partially organized for purposes
contrary to public morals
Persons liable:
1. Founders and Presidents; and
2. Members
Public Morals
Refers to matters which affect the interest of society and public
convenience and is not limited to good customs.
Chapter 4: Assault Upon, and Resistance and
Disobedience to, Persons in Authority and Their Agents

Art. 148. Direct Assault

Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purposes 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.
Two forms of Direct Assault
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation
for attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining
the crimes of rebellion and sedition (1st Form);
Elements:
a. Offender employs Force or Intimidation;
b. AIM of offender is to attain any of the purposes of the
crime of rebellion or sedition; and
c. There is NO Public Uprising.

Note: Offended party here may be a private person

2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing

force (against), or by seriously intimidating or by
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. (2nd
form)
a. Offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force,
(c) makes a serious intimidation, or
(d) makes a serious resistance;
b. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent;
c. At the time of the assault, the person in authority
or his agent
i. is engaged in the actual performance of official
duties (motive is not essential); or
ii. is assaulted by reason of the past performance of
official duties (motive is essential);
d. The offender knows that the one he is assaulting
is a person in authority or his agent and intends to
offend, injure or assault; and
e. No public uprising.
Notes:
1. The offended party is either a person in authority or an
agent of a person in authority.
2. When the offended party is no longer a person in authority
(e.g. retired judge), the offender cannot be held liable for direct
assault even if the attack is by reason of the former’s past
performance of official duties..

GENERAL RULE
Direct assault is always complexed with the material
consequence of the act (Ex. Direct Assault with Murder).

EXCEPTION
If resulting in slight physical injuries, the consequent crime is
absorbed.
1. Resistance to the person in authority or his agent must
be active (as it must be serious or grave) to constitute a
crime under this article. It cannot be passive, as when one
throws himself on the ground and refuses to follow orders
given by a person in authority to move.
2. If the use of physical force against agents of persons in
authority is not serious, the offense is not direct assault, but
resistance or disobedience. In this case where X grabbed the
shirt of Officer Y then slapped and kicked him several times,
it was held that the exerted force is not dangerous, grave, or
severe enough to warrant the penalties attached to the crime
of direct assault. (Mallari v. People, G.R. No. 224679, February
12, 2020).
3. Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees
to fight, direct assault is still committed.
4. Even another person in authority can be guilty of
assault upon a person in authority or his agent.
However, there can be no assault upon or disobedience
to one’s authority by another person in authority or his
agent when they both contend that they were in the
exercise of their respective duties.
5. A person in authority or his agent is not in the
actual performance of official duties when he:
a. Exceeds his powers,
b. Uses unnecessary force or violence, or
c. Descends into matters, which are private in nature.
6. Knowledge of the accused that the victim is a
person in authority or his agent is essential and such
knowledge must be alleged in the information.
when the person in authority or his agent who is
attacked or seriously intimidated is not in the actual
performance of his official duty.
8. Direct assault may be committed upon a private
person who comes to the aid of a person in authority
since he is then considered an agent of a person in
authority.
9. Direct assault cannot be committed during
rebellion. Crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed in
direct assault.
10. The exercise of one’s right to resist unreasonable
searches attempted to be conducted in the middle of
the night, when the officers are limited to “plain view
search”, cannot be equated with disobedience.
Qualifying circumstances:
1. When the assault is committed with a weapon;
2. When the offender is a public officer or employee; or
3. When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority
DIRECT ASSAULT REBELLION
(FIRST FORM)
1. There is no 1. There must be a public uprising
public uprising;
2. There must be taking of arms against the government; and
2. Offender
i. Removal, from allegiance to the Government or its laws, the
employs force or
territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or of any body of
intimidation; and
land, naval or other armed forces,
3. Aim of or
offender is to ii. to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
attain any of the partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives
purposes of the
crime of
rebellion or
sedition
Art. 149. Indirect Assault
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 (Direct Assault)

Elements:
1. A Person in Authority or Agent is the victim of any
of the forms of direct assault in the previous article;
2. A Person comes to the Aid of such victim; and
3. Offender makes use of Force or Intimidation against
such person coming to the aid of the victim of direct
assault
Offended party
1. May be a private person
2. A private person who comes to the rescue of an
authority or his agent enjoys the privileges of the latter

Notes:
Direct assault must have been committed first or is
being committed for this article to be applicable.
Subcommittees, or Divisions.
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.
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.
1. Refusal, without legal excuse, to obey summons issued
by the Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, Constitutional committees or by any
commission or committee chairman or member authorized
to summon witnesses;
2. Refusal of any person present before a legislative or
constitutional body or official to be sworn or placed under
affirmation;
3. Refusal to answer any legal inquiry; or to produce
books, documents, records, etc., when required to do so by
the said bodies in the exercise of their functions;
4. Restraining another from attending as witness in such
body; or
5. Inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be
sworn
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.
Elements of Resistance or Serious
Disobedience:
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in
performance of official duties;
2. The offender resists or seriously disobeys; and
3. Acts of the offender are not included in Arts. 148-
150
Note: There can be no resistance and serious disobedience
when done against a PiA/Agent only on occasion of the latter’s
past performance of official duties. There always has to be an
actual performance of duties when the resistance or serious
disobedience is made.
gives a lawful order; Offender disobeys such duty; and
Disobedience is not of a serious nature.

Note: Only agents can be the victims of simple

disobedience.

Disobedience
1. The disobedience must be a failure to comply with orders
directly issued by authorities to the person, in the exercise of
official functions.
2. The disobedience contemplated under this article is not
disobedience to a law or a failure to comply with some legal
provision.
3. The word “serious” in this article refers only to
disobedience, and not to resistance. Serious resistance is
punished under Art. 148.
force
1. If an attack is not deliberate, it is only
resistance or serious disobedience.
2. A non-deliberate attack shows a lack of intent
to ignore, disregard, or defy authority.

Notes: No crime
1. When accused did not have knowledge that
the person arresting him was a peace officer and
he resisted; and
2. When person in authority or agent exceeds
his rights and duties.
 RESISTANCE OR DIRECT ASSAULT
SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE
Authority/agent must be in actual
Authority/agent must be in
performance of his duties
performance of official duties or was
assaulted by reason

thereof
Committed only by (non-seriously) Committed in four ways:
resisting or seriously disobeying 1) attacking,
2) employing force,
3) seriously intimidating,
4) seriously resisting

No force is employed, or if person Attack or employment of force must be

resisted is only an agent, only slight serious and deliberate
Authority — Who Shall Be Deemed As Such.
Persons in authority
1. Those directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual, or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation board or commission
2. One who has the power or authority to govern and execute
laws

(Not every public officer is a person in authority.)

Agents
1. Those who, by direct provision of law, or by election, or
appointment by competent authority, are charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life
2. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
Note: In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of
the RPC, 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. (P.D. No. 299, and B.P. Blg. 873)

The foregoing does not, however, apply to cases

of Indirect Assault (Art. 149).
Art. 153. Tumults and Other Disturbances of Public Order
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
Punishable Acts:
1. Causing any 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 Arts. 131 and 132;
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any
meeting, association, or public place;
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of
public order in such place; and
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally
executed.
Qualifying circumstance
1. If the 1st or 2nd act above is tumultuous in character, the
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
2. Tumultuous – caused by more than three persons who are
armed or provided with means of violence.

Notes:
1. Serious disturbance must be planned or intended.
2. If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious
worship is committed by a private individual, or even by a public
officer who is a participant in the meeting or religious worship which
he disturbs or interrupts, this article is applicable.
3. This crime will be prosecuted separately with physical injuries
if, in the course of causing a disturbance, offenders injure other
people. (People v. Bacolod, 89 Phil. 621 as cited in, REYES, BOOK
TWO, p.164)
4. Burying with pomp means ostentatious display of a burial.
Art. 154. Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and
Unlawful Utterances
Punishable Acts:
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing,
lithography or any other means of publication, as news any false
news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the
interest or credit of the State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted
authorities or praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by
law, by the same means or by words, utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official
resolution or document without proper authority, or before they
have been published officially; and
4. Printing, publishing or distributing or (causing the same) books,
pamphlets, periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the real
printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous
Punishable Acts:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or
other explosive within any town or public place,
“calculated to cause” (which produces) alarm or
danger;
2. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari
or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering
about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusement; and
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public
places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided the
act is not covered by Art. 153 (tumults).
1. Charivari – mock serenade or discordant
noises made with kettles, tin horns etc.,
designed to deride, insult or annoy
2. Firearm must not be pointed at a
person, otherwise, it is illegal discharge of
firearm (Art. 254).
3. For discharging any firearm, etc., the
act must produce alarm or danger as a
consequence. It is the result, not the intent,
that counts
4. Using firecrackers during fiestas are not
punishable under this article.
Any person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein or shall help the
escape of such person

Elements:
1. Person is confined in jail or penal establishment;
and
2. Offender removes such person therefrom or
helps the escape of such person.

Applicability of article
1. Applicable even if escapee is merely a detention
prisoner
2. Applicable if escapee came from a hospital or asylum,
as these are considered extensions of the penal institution
1. This crime is usually committed by an outsider.
2. It may be committed by an employee, provided that
he does not have custody or charge of such a person, or is
otherwise off-duty.

Violence, intimidation, or bribery

1. These are not necessary elements of the offense. The
offense can be committed by employing “other means.”
2. But the offender is penalized with a higher penalty if
he commits the crime using violence, intimidation, or
bribery.
3. Bribery as contemplated in this article: the act of
bribing someone (as in corruption, under Art. 212) as a
means to remove prisoner from jail, not the act of
accepting a bribe.
Liability:
1. Person delivering detainee from jail may be held
liable as an accessory if the person helped has
committed treason, murder, or parricide, because the
person delivering assists in the escape of the principal.
2. A prisoner who voluntarily leaves jail/penal
establishment cannot be held liable under this article.
a. If he is a prisoner by final judgement, he may be
liable under Art. 157.
b. If he is merely a detention prisoner, he is not liable
since he has no sentence to be evaded.
Art. 157. Evasion of Service of Sentence
Any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final
judgment
Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in
deprivation of liberty (destierro included); and
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence
Notes:
1. This is a continuing offense.
2. This article does not apply to minor delinquents, detention
prisoners, or deportees.
3. If the offender escaped within the 15- day appeal period,
the crime is not evasion because the judgment is not yet final.
sentence was done through:
1. Unlawful entry (by “scaling”);
2. Breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors;
3. Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
intimidation; or
4. Connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal
institution

Art. 158. Evasion of Service of Sentence on the Occasion

of Disorders, 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
Elements:
1. Offender is convict by final judgment confined in a
penal institution;
2. There is a disorder resulting from conflagration,
earthquake, explosion, similar catastrophes, or a mutiny
in which the offender did not participate;
3. The offender subsequently evades the service of his
sentence by leaving the penal institution; and
4. Offender fails to give himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of
such calamity.
Notes:
1. Applicable only to convicts by final judgment
2. What is punished is not the leaving of the penal institution,
but the failure of the convict to give himself up.
3. If the offender fails to give himself up, the offender
shall suffer an increase of 1/5 of the time still remaining
to be served under the original sentence, which will not
exceed six months.
- Correlate with Art. 98 (Book One, RPC), as amended
by RA No. 10592: a convict who does not leave the
penal institution on such occasions is entitled to a
deduction of 2/5 of the time still remaining to be served
under the original sentence
4. Mutiny – an organized and unlawful resistance to a
superior officer.
a. There is no mutiny if the prisoners disarmed the
guards and escaped, because the guards are not their
superior officers.
conditions of such pardon
Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict (he had been
convicted);
2. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive; and
3. That he violated any of the conditions of such
pardon.
Notes:
1. Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent
offense (through which he violated his conditional pardon)
before he can be prosecuted under this Article.
2. But under the Revised Administrative Code, no trial and
conviction is necessary for the exercise by the President of the
power to authorize arrest and reincarceration of violator of
pardon.
Art. 160. Commission of Another Crime during Service of
Penalty Imposed for another Previous Offense
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
Elements:
1. That the offender was already convicted by final judgment
and sentenced for one offense; and
2. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve
such sentence or while serving the same

Quasi-recidivism
1. This is not a felony but a special aggravating
circumstance. The effect is to impose the maximum period of
the penalty applicable for the subsequent felony.
only privileged ones, such as minority
3. Quasi recidivism involves two crimes.
a. The 1st one may be any crime, whether punished under the
RPC or special laws.
b. The 2nd one, which is committed before serving sentence for
the first one, or while serving the same, should be a felony.
(This is because Art. 160 speaks of “the maximum period” of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Penalties prescribed
by special laws have no periods, unlike felonies in the RPC.)
c. Not required that both crimes are embraced in the same
titles of the RPC
4. Different from recidivism, where the first and second
offenses must be embraced in the same title of the RPC
5. Different from reiteracion, which requires that the offender
first finishes serving out his sentence before committing another
crime.
1. When a quasi-recidivist reaches the age of 70
and he has served out his original sentence, he
may be pardoned.
2. He may also be pardoned if hefinishes
serving the original sentence only after he
reaches 70.
Reasons for not pardoning such a 70-year
old convict
1. He is a habitual criminal; or
2. If his conduct or other circumstances shows
he is not worthy of such clemency
1. COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION
ACT (RA 10591)
Definitions
Arms Smuggling
It refers to the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery,
movement or transfer of firearms, their parts and components
and ammunition, from or across the territory of one country to
that of another country which has not been authorized in
accordance with domestic law in either or both countries.
Firearm
It refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small
arm or light weapon, that expels or is designed to expel a
bullet, or any projectile, which is discharged by means of
expansive force or gases from burning gunpowder or other form
of combustion or any similar instrument. For purposes of this
Act, the barrel, frame or receiver is considered a firearm.
Imitation Firearm
It refers to a replica of a firearm that is so substantially
similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing
firearm as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such
imitation is the real firearm.

NOTE: §35 An imitation firearm used in the

commission of a crime shall be considered a real
firearm and the person who committed the crime
shall be punished in accordance with this act.

Injuries caused on the occasion of conduct of competitions,

sports, games, or any recreation activities involving
imitation firearms shall not be punishable under this act.
a. Loose Firearm
It refers to a firearm that is:
1. Altered;
2. Registered but in Possession of another other than the
licensee;
3. Unregistered, or possessed with a revoked license;
4. Lost;
5. Illegally Manufactured;
6. Stolen; or
7. Obliterated.

b. Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence

It is the written authority issued to a licensed citizen by the
Chief of the PNP which entitles such person to carry their
registered or lawfully issued firearm outside of the residence for
the duration and purpose specified in the authority
c. Permit to Transport Firearm
It is the written authority issued to a licensed citizen or
entity by the Chief of the PNP or by a PNP Regional
Director which entitles such person or entity to
transport a particular firearm from an to a specific
locations within the duration and purpose in the
authority.

d. Tampered, Obliterated or Altered Firearm

It refers to any firearm whose serial number or other
identification or ballistic characteristics have been
intentionally tampered with, obliterated or altered,
without authority or in order to conceal its source,
identity or ownership.
§28 Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms and
ammunition

Important Doctrines
If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any
crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. If the other crime is homicide, illegal
possession of firearms becomes an aggravating
circumstance, not a separate offense. (People v. Ladjaalam,
G.R. No. 13149-51, 2000)

It follows that the accused can be convicted of simple illegal

possession of firearms, provided that no other crime was
committed by the person arrested. (Celino v. CA, G.R. No.
170562, 2007)
alone but also possession in general including
constructive possession or when the thing is subject to
the owner’s control. (Evangelista v. People, G.R. No.
163267)

§29 Use of loose firearm, when inherent in the

commission of a crime shall be considered an
aggravating circumstance

In connection with Crimes Against Public Order

If the violation is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in

connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, or
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed
as an element of the crime of rebellion, insurrection, or
attempted coup d’etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose
firearm, the violation shall be considered as a distinct and
separate offense.
Other Punishable Acts

1. Carrying of a registered firearm outside of residence by a

licensed person without any legal authority thereof;
2. Unlawful manufacture, importation, sale, or possession of
firearms or ammunition or instruments;
Note: The possession of any machinery or instrument used
directly in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, or major
parts thereof by any person whose business does not lawfully
deal with the possession of such article shall be prima facie
evidence that such article is intended to be used in the unlawful
manufacture of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof.
3. Unlawful taking, sale, or disposition by any laborer,
worker, or employee of a licensed firearms dealer of
parts of firearms or ammunition which the company
manufactures and sells, and other materials used by
the company in the manufacture or sale of firearms or
ammunition;

Note: The buyer or possessor of such stolen part or

material, who is aware that such part or material was
stolen is also penalized.

4. Arms smuggling;
5. Unlawful Tampering, obliteration, or alteration of
firearm’s identification;
6. Planting evidence or the willful and malicious insertion,
placing and/or attachment, directly or indirectly, though any
overt or covert act, of any firearm or ammunition or parts
thereof in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate
vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating
or incriminating the person, or imputing the commission of any
violation of the provisions of this Act to said individual;
7. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light weapon to
the FEO of the PNP within 30 days from discovery;

8. Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a licensed person’s

change of residence or office address, other than that indicated
in the license card, within 30 days from transfer;
9. Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to any person
who has not yet obtained or secured the necessary or permit
thereof.
License or Permit

The Chief of the PNP or their authorized representative may

revoke, cancel or suspend a license or permit on the following
grounds:

1. Commission of a crime or offense involving the firearm,

ammunition, or major parts thereof;
2. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or any
offense where the penalty carries an imprisonment of more
than six years;
3. Loss of the firearm, ammunition, or any parts, thereof
through negligence;
4. Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts
thereof outside of the residence or workplace without the
proper permit to carry the same;
5. Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts
thereof in prohibited places;
6. Dismissal for cause from the service in case of government
official and employee;
7. Commission of any of the acts penalized under RA 9165/
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
8. Submission of falsified documents or misrepresentation in
the application to obtain a license or permit;
9. Noncompliance of reportorial requirements; and
10. By virtue of a court order.

The perpetrators of the tanim bala scheme in airports

are liable for violating both Article 363 of RPC and
Section 38 of RA 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act). See also Section 29 of RA
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Art. 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of
the Government of the Philippine Islands,
Forging the Signature or Stamp of the Chief
Executive
1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government;
2. Forging the signature of the President; and
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
Note: When the signature of the President is
forged, it is not falsification but forging of
signature of the Chief Executive, under this
article.
counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned
in the preceding article
Elements:
1. Great seal was counterfeitedor signature/stamp
forged;
2. Offender knew of such counterfeiting or forgery;
and
3. Offender uses such fake seal, stamp, or signature.
Notes:
1. The offender in this article should not be the one who did
the counterfeiting or forgery, otherwise, he will be liable under
the previous paragraph.
2. Offender is punished under this article with a penalty one
degree lower than that provided in the next preceding article,
even if his act is that of an accessory to the crime of
counterfeiting the great seal or forging the stamp or signature.
Any person who makes, imports, or utters false coins, in
connivance with counterfeiters or importers
Elements:
1. There are false or counterfeited coins;
2. Offender made, imported, or uttered said coins; and
3. In case of uttering, offender should be in
connivance with either the counterfeiter or the importer
Notes:
1. A coin is counterfeit if it is forged, or if it is not authorized
by the government as legal tender, regardless of its intrinsic
value
2. Counterfeiting is the imitation of a legal or genuine coin
such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be
genuine.
3. To utter is to pass counterfeited coins, sell, deliver or give
away.
foreign state coins, and coins withdrawn from
circulation. This does not require that the coins
counterfeited be legal tender.
6. When a real coin is made to appear like a coin
with higher value by painting, etc. the crime is estafa
because the coin is genuine.

Art. 164 – Mutilation of Coins; Importation and

Utterance of Coins
1. Mutilating COINS of legal currency with the further
requirement that there be intent to damage or to defraud
another; and
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated COINS with the
further requirement that there must be connivance with the
mutilator or importer in case of uttering
1. Mutilation is to take off part of the metal
content of the coin, either by filing it or
substituting it for another metal of inferior
quality, to diminish by ingenious means the metal
in the coin.
2. Foreign notes and coins are not covered by
this article. Mutilation must always be of
Philippine legal tender, including coins. There
must be intention to mutilate.
3. Coins must always be real and legal tender.
4. Mutilating alone is punishable, but importing
or uttering must be concurrent with connivance.
Connivance
1. Possession, with intent to utter, COINS counterfeited or
mutilated by another; and
2. Actually uttering such COINS, while knowing them to be
false or mutilated
Elements of Act No. 1
1. Possession (in general, from actual possession to constructive
possession) of coins;
2. Intent to utter them; and
3. Knowledge that the coins are forged/mutilated.
Elements of Act No. 2
1. Actually uttering such coins; and
2. Knowledge that the coins are forged/mutilated
On being legal tender
1. This article does not require that the coin being uttered is legal
tender.
2. But if the coin being uttered or possessed is a mutilated coin, it
must be legal tender, because of Art. 165.
and Securities; Importing and Uttering False or Forged
Notes, Obligations and Securities

Art. 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes, or Other

Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and Uttering
Such False or Forged Notes or Documents
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or banking NOTES or
other documents;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or
NOTES; and
3. Uttering such in connivance with the forgers or importers.
Notes:
1. Forging here is committed by:
(a) giving a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable
to bearer or order an appearance of a true and genuine
document; or
(b) erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any
means the figures and letters, words, signs contained therein
(Art. 169)
2. Obligation or security includes bonds, certificates of
indebtedness, bills, national bank notes, coupons, treasury
notes, certificates of deposit, checks, drafts for money, and
sweepstakes money.
3. Forging PNB checks is not included under this article. That
is falsification of commercial document under Article 172.

Art. 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, or Uttering

Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
Any 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
Elements:
1. There is an instrument payable to order or other
document not payable to bearer;
2. The offender forges such document or imports or
utters such forged instrument; and
3. In case of uttering, the offender is in connivance
with the forgers or importers
Note: Applies only to cheques payable to the order of a
specific, named person

Art. 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or

Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit
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
1. Documents in the preceding articles (that is, Arts, 166
and 167) are forged or falsified by another person;
2. Offender knows them to be forged or falsified;
3. He performs any of these acts:
a. using any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
b. possessing, with intent to use any of such forged or
falsified instruments
Notes:
1. The act sought to be punished is knowingly possessing with
intent to use any of such forged treasury or bank notes, etc.
2. The accused has the burden to give a satisfactory explanation
of his possession of forged bills. Mere possession of false money
bills, without intent to use them to the damage of another, is not a
crime.
3. A person in possession of falsified documents and who makes
use of the same is presumed to be the material author of the
falsification.
Ways forgery is committed:
1. Giving any note/ document/ instrument mentioned in the
preceding articles (that is Arts. 166-168) the appearance of a
true/genuine document; and
2. Erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering what is in the
note/document/instrument.
Section 4 – Falsification of Legislative, Public, Commercial, and
Private Documents, and Wireless Telegraph and Telephone
Messages
FALSIFICATION FORGERY
The commission of any of the eight acts Used in Art 169, which refers
mentioned in Art 171 on legislative, public to the falsification and
or official, commercial, or private counterfeiting of treasury or
documents, or wireless, or telegraph bank notes or any instruments
messages payable to bearer or holder
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.

Elements:
1. There is a bill, resolution, or ordinance
enacted, approved, or pending approval by
Congress or any provincial or municipal
council/board;
2. The offender alters it;
3. He has no proper authority to do so; and
4. Alteration has changed the meaning of the
document.
2. Offender can be any person, for as long as he has no authority to
alter.
3. This article only punishes alteration which changes its meaning. Any
other tampering with legislative documents is covered under Art. 171 or
172.

Art. 171. Falsification By Public Officer or Employee, or Notary or

Ecclesiastical Minister

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, ecclesiastical minister,
or notary public;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the acts
mentioned in the article; and
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the
falsification be committed with respect to affecting the civil
status of persons.
2. He has the official custody of the document which he
falsifies
Note: Even if the offender is a public officer or employee, if the
offense was not committed with abuse of office, he will be
punished as a private citizen.
Document
1. Any written statement by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished
2. Must be complete or have the appearance of a true and
genuine document
3. Must be of apparent legal efficacy
4. Pars. 6, 8, and the second part of par. 7 of Art. 171 require a
genuine document, while the others do not
Note: Even if the document is originally a private document, if it
is in the official custody of the public officer or employee or if it
forms part of the official record when it is falsified by the public
officer or employee, then the crime committed should be
punished under this article.
Two ways under this paragraph
1. Counterfeiting – imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; and
2. Feigning – simulating a signature, handwriting, or rubric, there being no
existing, genuine one

Requisites of Counterfeiting/Imitating (2)

1. Intent or attempt to imitate; and
2. Some resemblance between the genuine and forged handwriting,
signature, or rubric

Intent
1. If there is sufficient resemblance between the genuine and the forged
signatures, it can be concluded that the accused had intention to imitate the
genuine signature.
2. There can be no “intent” to counterfeit or imitate if the person had
authority to sign.

Resemblance
1. Imitation need not be perfect.
2. Resemblance must be such that is likely to deceive an ordinary person
dealing with the document.
2nd Act: Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they in fact did not so participate.

Elements
1. Offender caused it to appear in a document that a person has
participated in an act or proceeding; and
2. The person did not in fact so participate

Notes:
1. Imitation of a signature is not required in this article.
2. If performed by a private person, as with all acts under Art. 171, Art. 172
should be applied.
3rd Act: Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them

Elements
1. Persons participated in an act or proceeding;
2. Persons made statements in that proceeding; and
3. Offender attributed to such persons statements other than those in fact
made
Facts
Elements
1. Offender makes a narration of facts;
2. There was a legal obligation to disclose the truth;
3. The facts narrated are absolutely false; and
4. Wrongful intent of injuring a third person
Narration of facts
1. Must be narration of facts, not conclusions of law; and
2. Does not include mistakes in judgment
Legal obligation
1. There is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated.
2. If the law does not require a piece of information, even if
the accused lied about that info, he is not liable.
3. Legal obligation is inherent in applying for a residence
(community tax) certificate.
Absolutely false
1. Offender must be aware of falsity
2. If the statements are not altogether false, there being
some colorable truth in such statements, the crime of
falsification is not deemed to have been committed.
Wrongful intent
1. A person is not guilty if he was not animated by a
desire to do wrong or to injure a third person.
2. Good faith is a defense. If offender believed what he
put was true, he is not liable.
Notes:
1. Even if consent to enter into a contract was obtained
by violence, it does not make facts narrated in it false.
2. There can be falsification by omission.
1. There is falsification only when the date
mentioned in the document is essential.
2. Change of date must affect the veracity of the document or
the effects/meaning thereof.

6th Act: Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine

document which changes its meaning
Elements (4)
1. Alteration (change, revision) or intercalation (insertion) on a
document;
2. Made on a genuine document;
3. Alteration or intercalation has changed its meaning; and
4. Meaning of the document becomes false
Changes its meaning
1. Changes the effects which the document would otherwise produce;
and
2. Unless that happens, there could not exist an essential element or
intention to commit a crime.
speak a language different in legal effect from what it originally spoke.
7th Act: 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
Offender
1. Committed only by a public officer or notary public who takes
advantage of his official position
2. If a private individual is in conspiracy with the offender, he is guilty
of this crime and incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer
or notary.

Intent to gain or prejudice

1. The idea of gain or intent to cause damage to a third person is not
necessary.
2. It is the official character of the offender which is mainly taken into
consideration.
3. It is the interest of the community which is intended to be protected
the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
book
Notes:
1. Contemplates the changing of entries in official records,
such as the local civil registry.
2. Malicious intent is not necessary.

Art. 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of

Falsified Documents
Punishable Acts:
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
documents by a private individual;
2. Falsification of private documents by any person;
and
3. Use of falsified documents in a judicial proceeding,
or to the prejudice of another in any other proceeding
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer not taking
advantage of his position;
2. He committed any act of falsification under Art. 171
a. Exception: Par.7, which by definition cannot be committed
by a private individual/public officer not taking advantage of
his position because the authentication of a document can be
made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and
retained a copy of the original document; and
3. It is a public/official/commercial document that is falsified.
Elements of Act No. 2
1. Offender committed any of the acts of falsification;
2. It is a private document that is falsified;
3. There is damage caused to a third party or at least intent
to cause such damage;
a. Need not be material damage;
b. Damage to one’s honor is included; and
c. Effect need not be to profit offender for as long as it
damaged another.
Art. 172; and
3. Document is introduced in evidence in a judicial
proceeding

Elements of Act No. 3 (any other proceeding)

1. Offender knew document was falsified by another;
2. Document is embraced in Art. 171, or nos. 1 or 2 of
Art. 172;
3. Document is used in a non-judicial proceeding; and
4. Such use caused damage to another or there was at
least intent to cause such damage

Damage or intent to damage a third party

1. Only necessary when falsifying private documents, or
using any falsified document in proceedings other than judicial
proceedings
2. Not necessary when falsifying a public, official, or
commercial document
3. Also not necessary when documents are used in judicial
proceedings
Four kinds of documents
1. Public document
a. Issued by public official in response to the exigencies of
public service;
b. Public official intervened in execution; and
c. Notarized by a notary public or a competent public official
with required solemnities
2. Official document
a. Issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of
his office
b. All pleadings filed with the courts are public or official
documents.
Commerce
b. Those used to promote or facilitate trade
c. Cash disbursement vouchers are not included.
They are considered private documents.
4. All other writings are private.

Private documents considered Public

1. Deed which was privately falsified, but then
presented to the notary public by the falsifier for
acknowledgment
2. Private document which becomes part of an
official record and is certified by a public officer duly
authorized by law.
Presumptions
1. Possessor and utterer of a falsified document is presumed
to be the author of the falsification.
2. Above is especially so if accused has sufficient and strong
motive to falsify.
a. “That petitioner benefitted and even profited from the
falsified notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage are strong
indications that she participated in the falsification of the same
document.” (Nierva v. People, G.R. No. 153133, 2006)

Complexed with Estafa

1. There is a complex crime of falsification of a public, official,
or commercial document with estafa.
2. There is no such complex crime if what is involved is a
private document.
need to be accompanied by damage, or intent to damage a
third person. The resulting damage from an act constituting
estafa actually merely consummates the crime of
falsification of a private document.
b. Distinguished from falsification of a public
document, which needs no damage to a third party
to be punishable: Any damage resulting from use of
the falsified public document could be attributed to
a separate crime such as estafa, because damage is
not an element of falsification of a public document.
c. If a private document is falsified to conceal the
misappropriation of money or other personal
property which has been in the possession of the
offender, the crime committed is estafa with abuse
of confidence only.
means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the
necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be
charged is estafa. (Co v. People, G.R. No. 233015, October 16,
2019)

Theft through falsification of official document Employees of a

military depot filled its blanks and placed thereon the initial RBR
of a member of the US Army in charge of approving the
issuance of the purchase orders. They made it appear that
Raymond B. Russel, the one in charge of approving the issuance
of purchase orders and to whose name correspond the initials
RBR, approved the falsified purchase order. From this, the
accused were able to obtain the goods. The falsification of the
purchase order, an official document, was a necessary means to
commit theft. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p. 282, citing People v. Sison)
A special deputy of the provincial treasurer, an accountable public officer,
who altered the duplicates of cedulas, collected the sum of P2.00 from
each of the taxpayers to whom they were issued, and misappropriated the
money collected, a public fund. He was held liable for the complex crime
of malversation through falsification of the duplicates of the cedulas,
which are public documents.
Notes:
1. Falsification is consummated the moment the genuine
document is altered or the moment the false document is executed.
2. There may be a frustrated stage if falsification is imperfect.
3. Usage, which is not an element of falsification, is punished
separately from actual falsification.
a. It cannot be deemed necessarily included in the crime of
falsification of a public document by a public officer or employee or
by a private person.
b. It may be a lesser offense.

Art. 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph, and

Telephone Messages, and Use of Falsified Messages
Punishable Acts:
1. Uttering fictitious messages;
2. Falsifying messages; and
3. Using falsified messages.
Elements of Acts No. 1 and No. 2
1. Offender is an officer or employee of Government,
or of a private corporation engaged in service of sending
or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone
messages;
2. The offender either
a. Utters a fictitious message; or
b. Falsifies a message

Elements of Act No. 3

1. Accused knew wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone messages were falsified;
2. Accused used such falsified dispatches; and
3. Such use resulted in prejudice to a third party, or
there was at least intent to prejudice.
Liability of private individual
1. Cannot commit the first two acts by direct participation,
unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in
telecommunications services
2. Can be held guilty as a principal by inducement, if he
induced a public or government employee to perform
punishable acts
3. Connection with telecommunications network is not
necessary to commit third act; any person can be held liable for
the use of falsified dispatches

Note: Current telecommunication companies like Globe, Sun,

Smart are not contemplated by this article as corporations
engaged in sending or receiving messages since no operator
actually intervenes. They merely provide the conduit to
facilitate message exchanges
Certificates of Merit, Service, and the Like

Art. 174 – False Medical Certificate, False Certificates of

Merit or Service, etc
Persons liable:
1. Physician or surgeon, for falsifying a medical
certificate;
2. Public officer, for falsifying a certificate of merit,
service, good conduct, or other similar circumstances;
and
3. Private individual, for falsifying any of the
documents mentioned in the first two acts
“Similar Circumstances”
That is, similar to merit, service, or good conduct Thus,
certificates pertaining to ownership of property are not covered.
Art. 175 – Using of False Certificates
The use of a falsified document mentioned in the
preceding article
Elements:
1. Crime in Art. 174 has been committed by
another person;
2. Offender knew of the falsified nature of the
certificate; and
3. Offender used such false certificate
Scope:
1. This article only applies to use of those
falsified documents covered by Art. 174.
2. This article applies, even if the falsified
documents were used in a judicial proceeding.
Any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements intended to be used in the commission of the
offenses of counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the
preceding sections of this chapter

Punishable Acts:
1. Making or introducing into the country
implements and instruments for
counterfeiting/falsification
2. Possessing (including constructively, whether
from actual ownership or mere control) items made
or imported by another person, with intent to use
the same
Section 1 – Usurpation of Authority, Rank, Title, and Improper Use
of Names, Uniforms, and Insignia

Art. 177. Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions

Any person who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act
pertaining to any person in authority or public officer, without being
lawfully entitled to do so,
Punishable Acts:
1. Usurpation of authority – knowingly and falsely representing
oneself to be an officer, etc.
a. Mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, etc., is sufficient.
b. It is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public
officer.
2. Usurpation of official functions – doing any act pertaining to
any public officer, etc. without being authorized to do so
a. Essential that offender should have performed an act pertaining to a
public officer
1. Must be positive, express, and explicit;
2. Must represent officers named in article, and not just
any authority figure; and
3. Representation may be shown in acts, and not just
words
Offenders
1. This article may be violated by both private and public
officers.

Note: This article does not apply to an occupant of a public

position under color of title. A usurper is “one who
introduces himself into an office that is vacant, or who,
without color of title, ousts the incumbent and assumes to
act as an officer by exercising some of the functions of the
office.” (People v. Buenaflor, et. al., CA., 72 O.G. 364)
Art. 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True Name
Any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading the execution of a judgment, or causing
damage to public interest
Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances
Punishable Acts:
1. Using fictitious name; and
2. Concealing true name and other personal circumstances.
Elements of Using fictitious name
1. Offender uses a fictitious name;
2. Such name is used publicly;
3. Purpose is:
a. Conceal a crime;
b. Evade execution of judgment; or
c. Cause damage to public interest
Note: If the purpose is for causing damage, it must be damage to public
interest. If it is damage to private interest, the crime will be Estafa under
Art. 315, subdivision 2, par. (a).
 FICTITIOUS NAME CONCEALING TRUE NAME

Element of publicity must be Publicity element not

present; and three possible necessary; and only one
purposes: conceal crime, purpose: conceal true
evade execution of a identity.
judgment, and cause
damage to
public interest

.
Note:
Instances when a Filipino citizen residing in this country can
use an alias legally (RA No. 6085):
1. As a pseudonym in cinematic and other entertainment fields
2. As a pen name in literary compositions or works
3. As a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting

Art. 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia

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
Elements:
1. Offender uses an insignia, uniform, or dress;
2. Such pertains to an office not held by offender or a
class of persons of which he is not a member; and
3. Use done publicly and improperly
be liable.
2. An exact imitation is not necessary, for as long
as there is a colorable resemblance calculated to
deceive the general public.
3. Must pertain to an actual officer or class of
persons. The person is not liable if the insignia,
uniform, or dress pertains to an imaginary office or
class.

Section 2 – False Testimony

False Testimony - committed by a person who, being under
oath (or affirmation) and required to testify as to the truth
of a certain matter at a hearing before a competent
authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to
it
Art. 180. False Testimony against a Defendant
Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant
in any criminal case
Elements:
1. That there be a criminal proceeding;
2. Offender testifies falsely therein, under oath
3. The testimony is against the defendant therein;
4. Offender knows that his testimony is false; and
5. The defendant against whom the false testimony is given is
either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment.

Notes:
1. Violation of this article requires criminal intent. Hence, it cannot be
committed through negligence.
2. The offender need not impute guilt upon the accused to be liable.
3. The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty
or a fine or must have been acquitted.
4. The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did
not consider his testimony.
5. The extent of the penalty depends upon the sentence imposed on
the defendant, except in the case of a judgment of acquittal.
6. Since Art. 180 does not prescribe the penalty where the defendant
in a criminal case is sentenced to a light penalty, false testimony in case
of a light penalty cannot be punished, considering that a penal law must
always be strictly construed.

Art. 181. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant

Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of the defendant in a
criminal case
Notes:
1. Testimony by negative statement may still be in favor of the
defendant.
2. False testimony in favor of defendant need not directly influence the
decision of acquittal nor benefit the defendant. The intent to favor the
defendant is sufficient.
4. Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgment is not
necessary), but gravity of crime in principal case should be shown.
5. The defendant who himself falsely testifies in his own behalf by
falsely imputing to some other person the commission of a grave offense
in criminal case, is guilty of false testimony favorable to the defendant.
6. Rectification made spontaneously after realizing mistake is not false
testimony.
Art. 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases
Any person found guilty of false testimony in a civil case
Punishable act
Giving false testimony in a civil case either for or against the
plaintiff or the defendant
Elements:
1. Testimony is given in a civil case;
2. Testimony is related to the issue presented;
3. The testimony is false;
4. It is given by the defendant who knows it to be false; and
5. The testimony is malicious and with intent to affect the issue
person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so
requires
Punishable acts
1. False testimony under oath in a proceeding other than
judicial; and
2. False affidavit.
Elements:
1. Statement under oath or affidavit upon material matter;
2. Made before a competent officer authorized to administer
such oath;
3. Willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the
statement;
a. Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is according to
belief or conviction as to its truth; (Judge Pimentel Notes p. 76)
b. It must appear that the accused knows his statement to be
false or is consciously ignorant of its truth (Monfort III, et. al., v.
Salvatierra, G.R. No. 168301 2007); and
4. The information given is required by law
1. Oath – any form of attestation manifesting a commitment to
perform an act faithfully and truthfully
2. Affidavit – a sworn statement in writing made before an authorized
officer
3. Material Matter – the main fact; the subject of inquiry or
circumstances which tend to prove the fact;
a. Legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies; or
b. Strengthens or corroborates testimonies
Competent officer
1. Person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to
him under his jurisdiction
2. No perjury if testimony/statement not made before non-competent
authority
Required by law
1. There is a law requiring it; OR
2. The statement or document is made for legal purposes; and
3. It is sufficient that the oath had been administered with a view of
carrying into effect a legal purpose
1. There must be competent proof of the materiality of the
false testimony.
2. The matter must not simply be pertinent (that is, relating to
collateral matters which make more or less probable the
proposition at issue). It must also be material (that is, directly
proving or disproving a fact at issue).
3. No perjury if false imputations in testimony or affidavit were
not on material matter.
The assertion must be deliberate and willful
A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a falsehood, is not
enough. It must be willfull and deliberate “Willfull” means
intentionally, with evil intent and legal malice, with the
consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false, with
the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was
true in fact. “Deliberate” implies meditated, as distinguished from
inadvertent, acts.
Subornation of perjury
1. Knowingly and willfully procuring another to swear falsely.
2. While this is not expressly punished in the Revised Penal
Code, the offender may be liable as a principal by inducement.

Art. 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
Elements:
1. False witness or testimony is offered in evidence;
2. Offender knew of falsity; and
3. Offered in judicial or official proceedings
Notes:
1. This article applies when the offender, without inducing
another but knowing him to be a false witness, presented him and
the latter testified falsely in a judicial or official proceeding.
offered in any judicial or official proceeding. Looking for a false
witness is not punished by law as that is not offering a false
witness.
3. The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. A
mere offer to present him is sufficient.

Chapter 3: Frauds

Section 1 – 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
4. Intent of the offender: reduction of price of thing
auctioned

Acts are formal crimes

1. It is not required that the person making a proposal
actually refrains from taking part in any public auction.
The crime is committed by mere solicitation.
2. It is not required that the person accept the offer or
gift. The crime is consummated by mere offering of the
gift or promise in consideration of refraining to take part.

(Art. 185 is supplemented by the Price Competition Act [RA No.

10667]. Art. 186 is repealed by the same law.)
(Arts. 188 and 189 are repealed by the Intellectual Property Code
[RA No. 8293] to the extents they are inconsistent with the same
law.)
Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or Other
Precious Metals or Alloys
Any person who shall 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 alloysElements:
1. Offender imports, sells, or disposes items;
2. The items are articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals, or their alloys;
3. The stamps, brands, or marks used by the offender
fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of ther
items; and
4. The offender knows of such failure of proper
indication
Selling, disposing, and importing
1. It is not necessary that such items are actually sold
and that the public is actually deceived, for one to be
liable under this article.
2. If one is charged with importation, there must be
proof that item was in fact imported.

Offender
1. Those who import, sell, or dispose of such items.
2. This article is not applicable to the manufacturer of
articles of gold, silver, etc. He wold be liable for Estafa.
2002
[RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640; Sec. 21 of the
IRR only]

RA 10640
§1 amended Sec 21 of RA 9165:

Chain of Custody Rule

The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
(drugs & paraphernalia, for brevity) confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:
control of the drugs & paraphernalia immediately after
seizure and confiscation shall conduct a physical inventory
and photograph the items seized in the presence of the:
a. the accused or their counsel;
b. with an elected public official; and
c. a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;
The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team,
whichever is practicable. For warrantless seizures: noncompliance
of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items;
2. Submit the seized items within 24 hours to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for examination;
3. The Forensic Laboratory shall issue a certification of their
examination within 24 hours upon the receipt of the subject
item/s;
4. When the volume of the drugs & paraphernalia does not
allow the completion of testing within 24 hours, a partial
laboratory report shall be issued, followed by a final certification
upon completion of the examination and certification.
5. File the criminal case in court;
6. Within 72 hours from filing of criminal case, an ocular
inspection shall be made
7. Within 24 hours from filing of ocular, the items seized must
be destroyed by the PDEA in the presence of:
a. the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or their counsel;
c. a representative from the DOJ;
d. a representative from a civil society group; and
e. any elected public official.
8. A representative sample in minimum quantity shall be
retained. Those that belong to lawful commerce shall be donated
or recycled for legitimate purposes.
9. Submission of the sworn certificate of destruction or burning
to court along with the retained sample.
10. The accused or representative are allowed to observe
proceedings. If the accused has no counsel within 72 hours from
written notice prior to destruction, the court shall appoint a
counsel from PAO.
11. Within 24 hours from receipt of judgment – the trial
prosecutor shall inform the Board and request for leave to turn
over the samples to PDEA for destruction.
12. The DDB shall be informed of the Termination of the case.
Rules on Procedural Lapses
1. Minor Lapses
a. Failure of the apprehending team to
strictly comply with the procedure in
§21 of RA 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the
seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid. Minor
lapses may be excused for as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved. This
applies for:
i. Arrest/Seizure via a legitimate buy-bust operation;
ii. Seizures lawfully made in air or seaports, checkpoints,
moving vehicles, local/international parcels;
iii. Terry Search
iv. Search incident to a lawful arrest
v. Application of Plain View Doctrine
(People v. Lim, G.R. No 231989, 2018)
seized items.
c. Reason: These lapses do not produce serious doubts on
the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in
allegations of a frame up.(People v. Ancheta, G.R. No.
197371, 2012)
2. Gross Lapses
In case of failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21
in a manner that compromised the identity of the items
seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes
charged, acquittal is in order. (People v. Ga-a, G.R. No.
222559, 2018)
Reason: There being “gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards” the presumption of regularity of the performance
of official duties is overturned. (People v. Otico, G.R. No.
231133, 2018)
items (People v. Cordova, 231130, 2018)
b. None of the three required witnesses were present at the time
of the arrest and the seizure of the drugs. The three required
witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the
conduct of the inventory of the seized items which, again, must be
immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation — a
requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team
considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned
activity
c. Failure of the three required witnesses to sign the inventory
receipt (People v. Doria y Perez, G.R. No. 227854, October 09, 2019)
d. Barangay tanods were present during the inventory. While two
barangay tanods were present during the preparation of the
inventory, the law requires the presence of an elected public official.
Barangay tanods are not elected; they are merely appointed by the
Sangguniang Barangay (People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725
October 16, 2019)
while in the custody of the poseur-buyer. (People v. Cabriole,
G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021)
f. Three days had passed since the items were seized from
the accused (People v. Cordova, G.R. No. 231130, 2018)
g. Two separate inventories were conducted which were
attended by different witnesses (People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No.
229826, 2018)
h. The drugs were turned over to the crime laboratory 10
days after seizure (People v. Ching, G.R. No. 223556, 2017)
j. Failure to comply with the turnover of the seized drug
paraphernalia to a forensic laboratory within 24 hours from
confiscation for examination. (Cuico v. People, G.R. No.
232293, Dec. 9, 2020)
k. There were discrepancies in the labels of the seized
items (People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 2018)
l. There was a discrepancy in the weight of the seized items
(People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, 2018)
m. There was a discrepancy in the number of the sachets
shown in the photographs and the number of sachets for which
the accused is being charged of illegally possessing (People v.
Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 2018)
n. Lack of evidence as to handling and condition of the
specimen, as well as precautions takento ensure that there was
no change in the condition of the specimen (People v. Cardenas,
G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019.)
o. Failure to correctly mark the drugs and failure to make
certificate of inventory for the items taken (People vs. Dagdag,
G.R. No. 225503, June 26, 2019)
p. No photographs of the seized items were taken (People v.
Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019)
DEFINITION OF TERMS

Den, Dive, Resort

It is a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered,
stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any
form.
Drug syndicate
It refers to any organized group of two (2) or more persons
forming or joining together with the intention of committing
any offense prescribed under this Act.
Financier
It refers to any person who pays for, raises or supplies
money for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities
prescribed under this Act.
a. Importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, regardless of
quantity or purity involved.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed when:

a. Done through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic
facilities, or any other means involving an offenders' official
status intended to facilitate unlawful entry; and
b. Acting as organizer, manager, or financier. (Sec. 4)

b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,

delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved.
school.
b. Using minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as
runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity.
c. 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.
d. Acting as organizer, manager, or financier. (Sec. 5)

The fact of sale must be sufficiently established. It must

be shown that the sale is consummated.

For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of

dangerous drugs around RA 9165, the following elements must be
proven:
1. the transaction or sale took place;
2. the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented
as evidence; and
3. the buyer and the seller were identified. (People v.
Buniag, G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019)

Elements of illegal sale

a. Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of
the sale and the consideration;
b. Delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
(People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Honrado and Romulo
Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 2012)
Delivery is any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or
without consideration.
to Section 26, of RA 9165. The PDEA received a tip
from their informant that he was being recruited by
X to transport a certain luggage to Malaysia. Acting
on the tip of the PDEA, the informant then informed
X that he found a willing recruit to transport the said
luggage to Malaysia. Z, the PDEA official who posed
as the willing recruit met up with X in a hotel in
Malate Manila. X then briefed Z on his mission in
Malaysia. Y entered the room afterwards bringing
another luggage. When Z peaked at the contents of
the luggage, he found sachets containing white
crystalline substances. A total of 4, 540.01 grams of
shabu was found inside the luggages. The conviction
of X and Y were nonetheless appealed. Was the
conviction proper?
and deliver dangerous drugs under Section 5, in relation to Section 26 of
RA 9165 were present. In Illegal Transportation of drugs, the movement of
drugs from one place to another is the essential element. There is no
definite time when an accused will transport the drugs. Hence, the mere
purpose of transportation and the fact of transportation of drugs are
sufficient to constitute a conviction. Yet, even in the absence of actual
conveyance, an attempt to transport prohibited drugs is meted the same
penalty prescribed for the commission thereof under Section 26 of R.A.
9165. The purpose to illegally transport drugs to Malaysia was established
when Z was told to go to the hotel for briefing. Z then was able to confirm
that the luggage contained white crystalline substances. At that point, the
crime of transportation of prohibited drugs is already at its attempted
stage. Under the Revised Penal Code, the attempted phase of a felony
occurs when the offender commences the commission of a felony, directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance. (People v. Lacson y Navarro, G.R. No.
229055, July 15, 2020.)
c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort. The
maximum penalty shall be imposed when:

a. Any dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to

a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a place.

b. Acting as organizer, manager, or financier. (Sec. 6)

d. Being an employee of a den, dive or resort, who is

aware of the nature of the place as such. (Sec. 7)

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.
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; or
e. Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official
or foreigner.
shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal
activities prescribed in this Section.
f. Illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors
and essential chemicals (Sec. 9)

Chemical diversion is the sale, distribution, supply or

transport of legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured
or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in
diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or
entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug,
and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling
or concealment of such transaction through fraud,
destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits
misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals. The maximum penalty shall be
imposed when any person, who uses a minor or a
mentally incapacitated individual to deliver such
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. (Sec. 10)

h. Possession of dangerous drugs, regardless of

purity of the quantities laid down in the act. (Sec. 11)

Use is presumed in possession

If person who has tested positive is also found in
possession of dangerous drugs, he should be
prosecuted under possession. Hence, USE is subsumed
by POSSESSION.
of residue, it would be more in keeping with the
intent of the law to file charges under use, and
not possession. (People v. Martinez, G.R. No.
191366, 2018

Elements of possession
a. The accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified to be prohibited or
regulated drug;
b. Such possession is not authorized by law;
and
c. The accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug. ((People v. Cañete y
Fernandez, G.R. No. 242018, July 3, 2019)
an element, but prosecution must still prove intent to
possess.
Despite the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs being
malum prohibitum, this, however, does not lessen the prosecution's
burden because it is still required to show that the prohibited act
was intentional. In cases involving the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, "the prosecution is not excused from proving that
possession of the prohibited act was done 'freely and consciously,'
which is an essential element of the crime." Hence, a critical
element of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is the
element of intent to possess or animus possidendi.

In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs, there can be no

conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly,
freely, intentionally, and consciously possessed the prohibited
articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be
present together with his possession or control of such article.
11 of R.A. No. 9165 goes beyond mere actual and
physical possession of the drug specimen. Otherwise, an
unsuspecting person who is victimized by the planting of
evidence will be unjustly prosecuted based on the sheer
fact that illegal drugs were found to be in his possession.
It must be proven that the person in whose possession
the drug specimen was found knew that he/she was
possessing illegal drugs. Therefore, to prosecute an
accused for illegally possessing illegal drugs, it is not
enough to show that the accused knowingly and
intentionally possessed the bag or receptacle that
contained illegal drugs. The prosecution must go beyond
and provide evidence that the accused knowingly, freely,
consciously, and intentionally possessed illegal drugs.
state of awareness of a fact and, therefore, courts cannot
penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its
perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is
necessary. Hence, animus possidendi, as a state of mind,
may be determined on a case-to- case basis by taking into
consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. (Luna v.
People, G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021)
Possession can be actual or constructive
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession or control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it
is found. (People v. Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019)
“The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to
exercise control and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.”
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused
had knowledge of the existence and presence of the
drug in the place under his control and dominion and
the character of the drug. (Santos y Comprado v
People, G.R. No. 242656, August 14, 2019)

i. Possession of equipment, instrument,

apparatus and other paraphernalia for fit or
intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body (Sec. 12).
social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate
company of at least two (2) persons, regardless of
quantity and purity, shall suffer maximum penalty
(Sec. 13).

k. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus

and other paraphernalia for fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the
body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or
in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons
shall suffer maximum penalty (Sec. 14).

l. Use of Dangerous Drugs, after being found

positive via a confirmatory test. (Sec. 15)
shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal
activities prescribed in this Section.
f. Illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors
and essential chemicals (Sec. 9)

Chemical diversion is the sale, distribution, supply or

transport of legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured
or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in
diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or
entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug,
and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling
or concealment of such transaction through fraud,
destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits
misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.
if the person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided
under Sec. 11.

The conviction for illegal use of drugs presupposes the

conduct of two tests: a screening test and a confirmatory
test. Screening tests are conducted to rapidly eliminate a
negative result. Where the accused was subjected to a
urine test after his apprehension but no confirmatory test
was conducted to verify the result, the accused could not
be convicted under Section 15 of RA 9165. (People v. Lopez
y Canlas, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020)

m. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as

dangerous drugs or are sources thereof (Sec. 16).
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
(Sec. 17).

o. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs

– It is the act of prescribing any dangerous drug
to any person whose physical or physiological
condition does not require the use or in the
dosage prescribed therein (Sec. 18).

p. Unlawful prescription of drugs – Any person,

who, unless authorized by law, shall make or
issue a prescription or any other writing
purporting to be a prescription for any dangerous
drug (Sec. 19)
specifically the sale and possession of dangerous
drugs, contrary to law. That the five(5) accused in
conspiracy with one another acting as a syndicate. The
RTC convicted X on the strength of the prosecution’s
claim while the CA held that non-compliance with Sec.
21 of RA 9165 does not necessarily affect the integrity
of the evidence and result in the acquittal of the
accused" and "what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items because the same will be utilized in
ascertaining the guilt or innocenceof the accused" and
the CA went on to hold that the prosecution was able
to establish the proper chain of custody. Was X’s guilt
for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 proven
beyond reasonable doubt?
with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec.
5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove the
following elements:
1. the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
the consideration; and
2. the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

On the other hand, to reach a conviction in a case involving

the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
1. the accused is in possession of an item or object which
is identified to be a prohibited drug;
2. such possession is not authorized by law; and
3. the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.
In all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of custody rule
is crucial in any prosecution that follows such an operation.
Q: What are the four links in the Chain of Custody?

The four links must be established:

a. Seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer;
b. Turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer;
c. Turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and,
d. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized by the forensic chemist to the court. (People v.
Watamama, G.R. No. 18871, 2014)
PDEA received
a report from a confidential informant regarding X’s drug
activities and thereafter conducted a buy- bust operation.
The agents were able to obtain one (1) sachet of shabu
from X, after which the agents identified themselves as
members of PDEA and X was handcuffed and searched.
PDEA claims they have properly complied with the chain of
custody. The defense pleads not guilty and poses the
following narration of facts: An unknown female and
two(2) unknown armed males approached X, pointing their
gun at him; they grabbed him and pulled his arms behind
his back and brought him inside a vehicle. Thereafter, he
was bodily searched twice by these operatives. The agents
brought X to a military camp where he was forced to sign
a document. Was X’s guilt for violation of Sections 5 of
R.A. 9165 proven beyond reasonable doubt?
with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec.
5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove the
following elements:
1. the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
the consideration; and
2. the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.

On the other hand, to reach a conviction in a case involving

the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
1. the accused is in possession of an item or object which
is identified to be a prohibited drug;
2. such possession is not authorized by law; and
3. the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.
that:
1. the seized items be inventoried and photographed
immediately after seizure or confiscation; and
2. the physical inventory and photographing must be
done in the presence of
a. the accused or his/her representative or counsel,
b. an elected public official,
c. a representative from the media,
d. a representative from the Department of Justice
(DOJ).

The provision further requires the apprehending team to

conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the
photographing of the same immediately after seizure and
confiscation.
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures and custody over said items." For this
provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must
first:
1. recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers
and
2. be able to justify the same.
In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds
for the apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid
down in Sec. 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised.
(People v. Cañete y Fernandez, G.R. No. 242018, July 3,
2019)
possession a dangerous drug,
Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride, in
violation of R.A. No 9165. The two P1,000
bills used for the purchase of the drugs were
marked with “x”. The police officers also
marked the two sachets of drugs bought and
recovered from X and Y. Since a crowd was
forming within the crime scene, X and Y were
brought to the barangay hall where the
police officers, witnessed by two barangay
tanods, prepared the inventory and took
photographs thereon. Should X and Y be
convicted of the crime charged?
A: No, X and Y should not be convicted of the crime
charged. In drug cases, the confiscated drug is the very
corpus delicti of the offense so the identity and integrity of
the seized drugs should be established with moral certainty.
The prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody
over the seized drugs from the moment of seizure until
presentation in court.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the procedure in
operations involving drugs cases: 1) the seized items
should be inventoried and photographed immediately after
seizure or confiscation; 2) the physical inventory and
photographing must be done in the presence of a) the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, b) an elected
public official, c) a representative from the media, and d) a
representative from the Department of Justice.
barangay hall to prepare the inventory and to take
photographs of the same for the reason that a crowd was
forming within the crime scene. They did not allege that
their safety was threatened or that the crowd meddled
with their operation. The inventory and photography were
therefore done not immediately after the seizure of the
drugs in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Further,
none of the three required witnesses were present at the
time of the arrest of X and Y and the seizure of the drugs.
While two barangay tanods were present during the
preparation of the inventory, the law requires the
presence of an elected public official. Barangay tanods
are not elected; they are merely appointed by the
Sangguniang Barangay.
a. their attendance was impossible because the
place of arrest was a remote area:
b. their safety was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person
acting in their behalf;
c. the elected officials themselves were involved in
the punishable act sought to be apprehended;
d. earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ
or media representative and an elected public
official prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers; or
e. time constraints and urgency prevented the
officers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses.
(People v. Lim G.R. No, 231989)
3. PLEA BARGAINING

Section 23 of the Dangerous Drugs Act declared

unconstitutional
While Section 23 of the Dangerous Drugs Act provides
that “any person charged under any provision of this
Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be
allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining,”
this provision has been stricken down as
unconstitutional in Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo (G.R.
226679, 2017) for being contrary to the rule-making
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5),
Article VIII of the Constitution.
Unbroken Chain of Custody is essential if the object is not distinct
and not identifiable
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken
chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the
item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.
The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering – without
regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not –
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of
custody rule. (People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, 2012)
that there was an inconsistency in the testimony of
police officer Y, one of the police officers present in
the search. During the trial, police officer Y affirmed
that during the conduct of the search, the barangay
captain, DOJ representative Z, a representative from
the media and one barangay kagawad were present.
He also identified a series of photographs depicting
the scenes during the implementation of the search
warrant against X, and the affidavit he executed
inconnection with the case. As a defense, X stated
that police officer Y’s affidavit neglected to
categorically mention the presence of DOJ
representative Z during the search operation and
therefore is inconsistent with his testimony during the
trial.
into the mandatory witness requirement under Section
21 of R.A. 9165. X was implying that the prosecution
failed to establish compliance with the three-witness
rule mandated by R.A. No. 9165. Should accused X’s
conviction be sustained despite the inconsistencies
between the testimonies and affidavit of the
prosecution witnesses ?

A. Yes. Aside from the overwhelming documentary evidence

establishing compliance with the procedure, the presence of
Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Z was already
admitted by police officer Y, when he stipulated on such
matter during trial. The perceived discrepancy neither affects
the truth of the testimony of the prosecution witness nor
discredits his positive identification of appellant.
Inventory and Certificate of Orderly Search, it had already
been stipulated and admitted by the parties that DOJ
Representative Z was indeed a witness in the conduct of
the search and inventory of the confiscated drugs. For
this reason, such stipulation is already a judicial
admission of the facts stipulated. X is clearly beyond his
bearings in disputing this judicially admitted fact. What is
more, photographs were offered in evidence to prove that
the necessary witnesses, including DOJ Representative Y,
had been present during the search operation. As the
records present, the prosecution has proven that there
was compliance with Section 21 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. (Concepcion y Tabor v.
People, G.R. No. 243345, March 11, 2019.)
operation
The fact that no surveillance was conducted prior to the
buy-bust operation was not crucial for X’s conviction for as
long as the evidence on record duly established the
presence of all elements of the crime. (People v. Lopez y
Canlas, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020

Grounds to Justify Failure of Arresting Team to

Secure the presence of Three Required Witnesses
1. Their attendance was impossible because the place of
arrest was a remote area;
2. Their safety during the inventory and photograph of
the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for
and in his/her behalf;
3. The elected official themselves were involved in
the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
4. Earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or
media representative and an elected public official
within the period required under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of
being charged with arbitrary detention; or
5. Time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug
operations, which often rely on tips of confidential
assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the
presence of the required witnesses even before the
offenders could escape. (People v. Quilatan y Dela Cruz,
G.R. No. 218107, September 9, 2019.)
Procedure for RA 9165 violations
The practice of eagerly ascribing the veil of regular
performance of duty in favor of the apprehending officers
- even in the face of their evident lapses in following the
prescribed procedure laid down by law
-should not be tolerated. The presumption of regularity in
the performance of duties is not a tool designed to coddle
State agents unjustifiably violating the law or an excuse
for the courts to shy away from their duty to subject the
prosecution's evidence to the crucible of severe testing to
ascertain whether it is enough to overcome the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. (People
v. Quilatan y Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 218107, September 9,
2019.)
Lone Testimony of Poseur-Buyer not Enough
In order to convict a person charged with the crime of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165, the prosecution is required to prove the
following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Sheer reliance on the lone testimony of an alleged
poseur-buyer in convicting the accused does not satisfy
the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases,
that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. . In this case, it
is not clear whether SPO1 Z and PO2 Y actually saw the
transaction or simply rushed up to arrest the accused
after a pre-arranged signal was given.
Even though SPO1 X was able to expound more
on the supposed transaction on cross-
examination, it must be emphasized that such
testimony on the specific details of the drug
transaction was left uncorroborated by the other
witnesses' testimonies. For this reason alone, as
there is reasonable doubt as to the elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, accused-
appellant XY's acquittal is warranted. (People v.
Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.)
The possession of two or more kinds of
dangerous drugs in a single occasion
constitutes only one charge of possession.
[A]n accused may only be convicted of a single
offense of possession of dangerous drugs if he or
she was caught in possession of different kinds of
dangerous drugs in a single occasion. If convicted,
the higher penalty shall be imposed, which is still
lighter if the accused is convicted of two (2) offenses
having two (2) separate penalties. This
interpretation is more in keeping with the intention
of the legislators as well as more favorable to the
accused. (David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 2011)
valid plea bargain
The conformity of the prosecutor to the proposed plea
bargaining in drugs cases is not optional nor can be
disregarded. The prosecutor has full control of the
prosecution of criminal actions, and his duty is to prosecute
the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one. An
acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is
not demandable by the accused as a matter of right, but is
a matter that is addressed entirely to the trial court’s sound
discretion. (People v. Borras, G.R. No. 250295, 2021)
Mandatory Policies for Chain of Custody
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance
with the requirements of Section 21
(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or
explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in
order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly
declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the
investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before
the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non)
existence of probable cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such
absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse
to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss
the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance
with Section 5, 40 Rule 112, Rules of Court.
F. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS (Arts. 200-202)

Art. 200. Grave Scandal

Grave Scandal consists of acts which are offensive to
decency and good customs which, having been committed
publicly, give rise to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the acts
Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act/s;
2. That such act/s be highly scandalous in terms of
offending against decency or good customs;
3. That the highly scandalous conduct does not
expressly fall within any other article of the RPC; and
4. That the act/s complained of be committed in a
public place or within the public knowledge or view
Propriety of conduct; proper observance of the requirements
of modesty, good taste, etc.

Customs
Established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition
and enforced by social disapproval of any violation thereof

Notes:
1. Actual public view is not required. It is sufficient if
committed in a public place.
2. Being committed within public knowledge includes
occurrence even in a private place; the number of people
who see it is not material, except when seen by only one
other person at night, thus negating the degree of publicity
required.
3. The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that the
acts committed are not only contrary to morals and good
customs but must likewise be of such character as to cause
public scandal to those witnessing it.

Art. 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and

Exhibitions and Indecent Shows
Persons liable:
1. Those who publicly expound or proclaim doctrines
openly contrary to public morals;
2. Authors of obscene literature, published with their
knowledge in any form;
3. Editors publishing such obscene literature;
4. Owners or operators of establishments
selling obscene literature;
acts or shows in theaters, fairs, cinemas or any other place;
and
6. Those who sell, distribute, or exhibit prints, engraving,
sculptures or literature, which are offensive to morals.
Scope of obscene literature or immoral or indecent
plays, scenes or acts:
1. Those which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
2. Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the
market for violence, lust or pornography;
3. Those which offend against any race or religion;
4. Those which tend to abet the traffic and the use of
prohibited drugs; and
5. Those that are contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts
ordinary and common sense of men as indecency. (US v.
Kottinger, 45 PHIL 352)
Obscene is something offensive to chastity, decency or
delicacy.
Notes:
1. Publicity is an essential element.
2. Mere nudity in paintings and pictures is not obscene.
3. Pictures with slight degrees of obscenity having no
artistic value and being intended for commercial purposes fall
within this article.
4. The author of obscene literature is liable only when it is
published with his knowledge. In every case, the editor
publishing it is liable.
5. Dissemination of obscene material is necessary, but the
number of times it is passed on is immaterial. Once is
enough.
Art. 202. Vagrants and Prostitutes
Women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be prostitutes.
Note:
R.A. 10158 has decriminalized vagrancy by
amending Art. 202 so as to punish prostitutes only.
Upon effectivity, all pending cases were deemed
dismissed, and all those serving time for vagrancy
were or should have be released.
Prostitutes - Women who habitually indulge in (1)
sexual intercourse or (2) lascivious conduct, for
money or profit
1. ANTI-GAMBLING ACT (PD 1602,
as amended by RA 9287)

Illegal Numbers Game

Any form of illegal gambling activity which uses
numbers or combinations thereof as factors in giving
out jackpots.

Jueteng (37-37)
An illegal numbers game that involves the combination
of 37 numbers against 37 numbers from numbers 1 to
37 or the combination of 38 numbers in some areas,
serving as a form of local lottery bets are placed and
accepted per combination, and its variants
Masiao
An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is
derived from the results of the last game of Jai Alai or the
Special Llave portion or any result thereof based on any
fictitious Jai Alai game consisting of 10 players pitted against
one another, and its variants.

Last Two
An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is
derived from the last 2 numbers of the first prize of the winning
Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the weekly draw of
the PCSO, and its variants.
Bettor
Any person who places bets for himself/herself or in behalf of
another person, or any person, other than the personnel or staff
of any illegal numbers game operation.
Operation
Any person, who acts in the interest of the maintainer, manager
or operator, such as, but not limited to, an accountant, cashier,
checker, guard, runner, table manager, usher, watcher, or any
other personnel such similar functions in a building, structure,
vessel, vehicle, or any other place where an illegal numbers
game is operated or conducted.

Collector/Agent
Any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of
his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in
possession of gambling paraphernalia.

Coordinator/Controller/Supervisor
Any person who exercises control and supervision over the
collector or agent.
Maintainer/Manager/Operator
Any person who maintains, manages or operates any
illegal numbers game in a specific area from whom the
coordinator, controller or supervisor, and collector or
agent take orders.

Financier of Capitalist
Any person who finances the operations of any illegal
numbers game.

Protector/Coddler
Any person who lends or provides protection, or
receives benefits in any manner in the operation of any
illegal numbers game.
Notes:
1. Public officers include every public servant, from the lowest
to the highest rank, provided that they exercise public functions.
2. A government laborer is not a public officer. However,
temporary performance by a laborer of public functions makes
him a public officer.

Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office

Misfeasance:
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment;
2. Rendering judgment through negligence;
3. Rendering unjust interlocutory order; and
4. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice

Nonfeasance:
Dereliction of duty in prosecution of offenses

Malfeasance:
1. Direct bribery; and
2. Indirect bribery.
Section 1. – Dereliction of Duty
Art. 204. Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment
Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Judge;
2. That he renders a Judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is Unjust; and
4. That the judge Knows that the decision is unjust
Notes:
1. A judgment is a final consideration and determination by
a court of competent jurisdiction of the issues submitted to it
in an action or proceeding.
supported by the evidence, or both.
3. No liability if judgment is based on error made in good
faith.
4. An unjust judgment may result from:
a. Error (with bad faith);
b. Ill-will or revenge (or hatred, envy, greed); or
c. Bribery.
5. There must be evidence that the decision rendered is
unjust. It cannot be presumed.
6. Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment cannot
likewise serve as bases for rendering an unjust judgment, in the
absence of proof or even an allegation of bad faith, ill motive, or
improper consideration.
7. Does not apply to members of collegiate courts who
render collective judgment (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals).
ignorance, shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Judge;
2. That he renders judgment in a Case
submitted to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is Manifestly unjust; and
4. That it is due to Inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.

Manifestly unjust judgment – Manifestly contrary to law

that even a person having meager knowledge of it cannot
doubt the injustice.
Note: Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment is not
punishable.
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law; and
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of
the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of,
or to prosecute, offenses;
2. That there is dereliction of the duties of his
office, that is, knowing the commission of the crime,
he does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or
knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he
tolerates its commission; and
3. That the offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law
of the position held by them, are duty bound to cause the
prosecution and punishment of offenders
2. Public Officer – extends to officers of the prosecution
department whose duty is to institute criminal proceedings
for felonies the perpetrations of which are made known to
them
Notes:
1. PREVARICACION is the negligence in the prosecution,
and tolerance in the commission, of an offense.
2. There must be a duty on the part of the public officer to
prosecute or move for the prosecution of the offender.
However, a fiscal is under no compulsion to file an
information based upon a complaint if he is convinced that
the evidence before him is insufficient to warrant filing an
action in court.
be convicted of dereliction of duty. If the guilt of the law-
violator is not proved, the person charged with the
dereliction of duty is not liable.
4. “Maliciously” signifies deliberate evil intent; a
dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment or honest
mistake is not punishable.
5. A public officer who harbors, conceals, or assists in
the escape of an offender, when it is his duty to
prosecute him, is liable as principal in the crime of
dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. He is
not an accessory.
6. If gift/promise is a consideration for the conduct of
the officer referred to in this article, the crime is direct
bribery under Art. 210.
Solicitor – Revelation of Secrets.
Any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to
represent and/or assist a party to a case who:
a) by any malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his
client, or
b) by any malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, reveal any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional
capacity; or
c) 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
Punishable Acts:
1. Causing damage to client either
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty, or
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance
• Damage is necessary
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty, or
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance
• Damage is NOT necessary.
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the
same case, without the consent of his first client, after
having undertaken the defense of the latter or having
received confidential information from the latter
• If the client consents to the attorney’s taking of the defense
of the other party, there is no crime.
Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of
this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift
or present received by such officer, personally or through the
mediation of another,
Punishable Acts:
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of
any offer, promise, gift or present, an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the performance of the offender’s
official duties;
Notes:
a. Acceptance of the offer or promise is enough to
consummate the crime. If the offer is not accepted, only the
person offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of a
public officer.
b. Gift must have a value or be capable of pecuniary
estimation. It could be in the form of money, property or
services.
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of the offender’s official duty; and
3. Agreeing to refrain, or refraining, from doing something
which it is the offender’s official duty to do, in consideration
of a gift or promise.
Note:
a. Prevaricacion (Art. 208) distinguished from
bribery: differs from bribery in the sense that in the latter, the
offender refrains from doing his official duty in consideration
of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary
in the crime of prevaricacion.
2. That the offender Accepts an offer or promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
3. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present
Received by the public officer -
a. With a view to committing some crime; OR
b. In consideration of an execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; OR
c. To refrain from doing something which is his official
duty to do;
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or
which he Executes be connected with the performance of
his official duties
Temporary performance of public functions make the
person a public officer
For purposes of this article, temporary performance of public
functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
1. Voluntarily offered by a private person;
2. Solicited by the public officer and
voluntarily delivered by the private person; and
3. Solicited by the public officer but the
private person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer perform
his functions.

Fourth element: The act which the public officer

agrees to perform must be connected with the
performance of his official duties. It is enough
that the act is part of the established procedure
of a governmental agency.
Any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by
reason of his office
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he Accepts gifts; and
3. That the said gifts are offered to him By reason of
his office.
Notes:
1. The article uses the words “gift” and not
“promise,” and “accept”, not just “receive”.
2. The gift is given in anticipation of future favor from the
public officer.
3. There must be clear intention on the part of the public
officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as
his own from that moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient
to convict the officer.
4. There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.
INDIRECT BRIBERY DIRECT BRIBERY
In both, a public officer receives a gift
Usually no agreement between the There is an agreement between
public officer and the giver for the the public officer and the giver
former to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection
with the
performance of this official duties
Not necessary that the officer do an Officer agrees to perform or refrain
act, as long as he accepts gifts by from doing an act
reason of his office
promises or given the gifts or presents as described in
the preceding articles.

Elements:
The offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or
presents to a public officer; and
The offers or promises are made, or the gifts or
presents are given, to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable
for direct bribery or indirect bribery
Notes:
1. The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror
of the promise. The act may or may not be
accomplished.
Art. 213. Frauds against the Public Treasury and
Similar Offenses

Frauds against Public Treasury Elements: (4)

1. The offender is a public officer;
2. He entered into an agreement with any interested
party or speculator or made use of any other scheme
with regard to (a) furnishing supplies ,(b) the making
of contracts, or (c) the adjustment or settlement of an
account relating to public property or funds
3. He should have taken advantage of his office -
that is, he intervened in the transaction in his official
capacity; and
4. The accused had intent to defraud the
government.
2. The felony is consummated by merely entering
into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or by merely making use of any scheme to
defraud the Government.

Illegal Exactions

Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
and
2. He does 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,
officially, or
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided by law.

Notes:
1. Mere demand of a larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence is
the improper collection, and damage to the
government is not required.
2. If sums are received without demanding the
same, a felony under this article is not committed.
However, if the sum is given as a sort of gift or
gratification, the crime is indirect bribery.
4. This felony may be complexed with malversation.
Ex. A tax collector who collected a sum larger than
that authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty
of two crimes, namely:
a. illegal exaction, for demanding a greater amount;
and
b. malversation for misappropriating the amount
collected.

5. Officers and employees of the BIR and the Bureau

of Customs are not covered by this article, since their
acts are covered by special laws (NIRC and the
Administrative Code, respectively).
Any public officer who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall commit any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he takes Advantage of his official position;
and
3. That he Commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Arts. 315 and 316 (Estafa, Swindling)

Note: The penalty under this Article is in addition to

the penalties prescribed in the other articles violated
(Arts. 315 and 316, RPC)
Art 215. Prohibited Transactions
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.

Elements:
1. That the offender is an Appointive public officer;
2. That he becomes Interested, directly or indirectly,
in any transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. That the transaction takes place Within the
territory subject to his jurisdiction; and
4. That he becomes interested in the transaction
during his Incumbency.
Notes:

1. The transaction must be of exchange or

speculation. Examples of transactions of exchange or
speculation are buying and selling stocks,
commodities, land, etc. wherein one hopes to take
advantage of an expected rise or fall in price for gain
or profit, and not merely as investment.

2. Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is

simple investment and not a violation of the article.
However, regularly buying securities for resale is
speculation.
Art. 216. Possession of Prohibited Interests by a Public
Officer.

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 provision
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 guardians and
executors with respect to the property belonging to
their wards or estate.
Persons liable:

1. Public officer who become interested in any

contract or business in which it is his official duty to
intervene;

2. Experts, arbitrators and private accountants who

take part in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in the approval,
distribution or adjudication of which they had acted;
and

3. Guardians and executors with respect to property

belonging to their wards or the estate
2. Intervention must be by virtue of public office
held.

3. Act is punished because of the possibility that

fraud may be committed or that the officer may place
his own interest above that of the Government or of
the party which he represents.

4. Pertinent Constitutional prohibitions:

a. Member of Congress cannot personally appear as
counsel; cannot be interested financially in any
franchise or special privilege granted by government;
cannot intervene in any matter before any office of
Government;
hold any other office, or engage in practice of
profession or management of business, or be
financially interested in a contract with, or
franchise/privilege by, the government .
Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds or Property
Art. 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer (or private
person, if entrusted with public funds or if in
connivance with public officers);
2. That he has the custody or control of funds or
property (if not accountable for the funds, crime
committed is theft or qualified theft);
3. That those funds or property are public funds or
property (even if private funds, they become public if
attached, seized, deposited or commingled with public
funds); and
4. That he:
a. Appropriated the funds or property;
b. Took or misappropriated them; or Consented or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted any
other person to take them.
different from that agreed upon. (Ceniza- Manatan v
People, GR No. 156248)
Notes:
1. It is not necessary that the offender profited by
his malversation. His being remiss in the duty of
safekeeping public funds violates the trust
reposed in him.
2. Public funds taken need not be
misappropriated.
3.It can be committed either with malice or
through negligence or imprudence, although the
penalty is the same. Negligence of the
accountable public officer must be positively and
clearly shown to be inexcusable
who receives money or property from government for
which he is bound to account, and which he has
authority to collect or receive
5. The funds or property must be received in an
official capacity. Otherwise, the crime committed is
estafa.

Circumstances which make private individuals liable

1. When they are in conspiracy with public officers;
2. When they have charge of national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenues or property in any capacity;
3. Those who are accessories or accomplices of an
erring public officer; and
4. Depositories or administrators of public funds or
property
defense.
2. The failure of a public officer to have any duly-
forthcoming public funds or property upon demand, by
any authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that
he has put such missing funds or property to personal
use.
3. Returning embezzled funds is not an exempting
circumstance but only mitigating. However, the return of
the malversed funds should be “prompt.”
4. A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation by another can be held
liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
5. Malversation may be committed either through a
positive act of misappropriation of public funds or
property or passively through negligence, by allowing
another to commit such misappropriation.
collections of the City Treasurer's Office is not covered
by appellant's official job description is of no legal
consequence in a prosecution for Malversation. What
is essential is that appellant had custody or control of
public funds by reason of the duties of his office.
[People v. Hipol, 454 Phil. 679 (2003)]

7. See Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 116033,

Feb. 26, 1997] where the Sandiganayan ruled it had no
jurisdiction over a person who was given custody of
distrained property. The Court said, “It is evident that
the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual
when he agreed to act as a depositary of the
garnished dumptruck.”
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer, whether in the
service or separated therefrom;
2. That he must be an Accountable officer for public funds
or property;
3. That he is Required by law or regulation to render
accounts to the Commission on Audit or to a provincial
auditor; and
4. That he Fails to do so for a period of two months after
such accounts should be rendered
Note: Demand and misappropriation are not necessary.
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he must be an Accountable officer for public
funds or property; and
3. That he must have Unlawfully left (or be on the
point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from
the Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his
accounts have been finally settled
Note:The act of leaving the Philippines must be
unauthorized or not permitted by law.
(Technical Malversation)
Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or
property under his administration to any public use
other than that for which such fund or property was
appropriated by law or ordinance.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That there is a Public fund or property under his
administration;
3. That such public fund or property has been
Appropriated by law or ordinance (without this, it is
simple malversation); and
4. That he Applies the same to a public use other
than for which such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or ordinance.
1. Unlike in Art. 217 (Malversation), in illegal use of
public funds or property (Technical Malversation), the
offender does not derive any personal gain; the funds
are merely devoted to some other public use.
2. Absence of damage is only a mitigating
circumstance.
3. Criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a
particular public purpose to another public purpose.
The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the
prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes
a criminal offense because positive law forbids its
commission, based on considerations of public policy,
order, and convenience.
It is the commission of an act as defined by the law,
and not the character or effect thereof, that
determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is
completely irrelevant. (Arnold James M.Ysidoro v.
People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012)

4. In relation to the second element, if the public

funds are established to be part of savings, the same
ceased to be appropriated by law or ordinance for any
specific purpose. (Abdulla v. People, G.R. No. 150129,
April 6, 2005)
 ILLEGAL USE OF FUNDS OR PROPERTY AND
MALVERSATION, DISTINGUISHED

ILLEGAL USE OF FUNDS OR SIMPLE MALVERSATION

PROPERTY
(TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)

In both, offender is an accountable public officer

Offender does not derive Offender, in certain

any personal gain or cases, profits from the
profit proceeds of the crime

The public fund or The public fund or

property is applied to property is applied to
another public use personal use
Any public officer under obligation to make payment
from Government funds in his possession, who shall -
1. Fail to make payment; and
2. Refuse to make delivery despite being ordered by
competent authority to deliver any property in his
custody or under his administration (must be
malicious).
Elements:
1. That the public officer has government funds or
property in his possession
2. That he is under obligation to either:
a) make payment from such funds, or
b) deliver property in his custody or administration
when ordered by competent authority to do so; and
3. That he maliciously fails or refuses to do so
1. Private individual who, in any capacity, have
charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenue, or property Example: a withholding tax agent
2. Administrator or depositary of funds or property
that has been attached, seized or deposited by public
authority, even if owned by a private individual.
Notes:
1. Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
“administrator”
2. Judicial administrator (appointed to administer
estate of deceased and not in charge of property
attached, impounded or placed in deposit by public
authority) not covered by this article
3. Private property is included if it is attached,
seized or deposited by public authority.
Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers
Section 1. – 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.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape.
A person becomes a detention prisoner from the
moment he is “booked”. This refers to the
accomplishment of the booking sheet and filling out of
a form where his finger-prints are affixed. From that
time on, he is already a detention prisoner even if he
is not yet incarcerated.

The release of a detention prisoner who could not be

delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed
by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
Neither does mere leniency or laxity in the
performance of duty constitute infidelity.

There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence

when the custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a
relaxation of his imprisonment.
Any public officer charged with the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner who, through negligence, shall
allow the evasion (escape) of the prisoner.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is charged with the Conveyance or custody
of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by
final judgment; and
3. That such prisoner Escapes through his negligence
Notes:
1. The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts
to deliberate non-performance of a duty.
2. The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not
afford him complete exculpation.
3. Extent of liability of an escaping prisoner:
a. if a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable for
evasion of service (Art. 157)
b. if a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal
liability (unless he cooperated with the offender)
4. The negligent public officer suffers the same
penalty regardless of whether the prisoner is a convict
or merely a detention prisoner.
5. Any public officer who has direct custody of a
detained person under the provisions of this Act and
who, by his deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable
negligence causes or allows the escape of such
detained person, shall be guilty of an offense. (RA
11479, Sec. 42)
Art. 225. Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a
Person Not a Public Officer.
Any private person to whom the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall
have been confided, who shall commit any of the
offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private person;
2. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is confided or entrusted to him
(that is, he has been given custody);
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
and
4. That the offender consents to the escape of the
prisoner or person under arrest, or that the escape
takes place through his negligence.
Art. 226. Removal, Concealment or Destruction of
Documents.
Public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal
documents or papers officially entrusted to him.

Elements:
1. That the offender be a Public officer;
2. That he Abstracts, destroys or conceals a
document or paper;
3. That the said document or paper should have
been Entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
office; and
4. That Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
party or to the public interest should have been
caused.
by which a right could be established or an obligation
could be extinguished.
2. “Papers” would include checks, promissory notes
and paper money.
3. A post office official who retained mail/letters
without forwarding them to their destination is guilty
of infidelity in the custody of papers.
4. Removal (“abstracting”) of a document or paper
must be for an illicit purpose. There is illicit purpose
when the intention of the offender is to:
a. tamper with it,
b. to profit by it, or
c. to commit any act constituting a breach of trust in
the official care thereof. (Kataniag v People, 74 Phil
45)
5. Removal is consummated upon the removing or
secreting away of the document from its usual place.
It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of
the offender has been accomplished.

6. Destruction or concealment of a document or

paper does not require proof of an illicit purpose.
(REYES, BOOK TWO, P. 480)

7. Delivering a document (a backpay certificate) to a

wrong party instead of returning it to the releasing
clerk after it was signed by the Treasurer, with the
result that the owner could not withdraw his backpay,
is infidelity in the custody thereof. (People v Irineo,
CA, 53 OG 2827)
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That any closed papers, documents, or objects are
Entrusted to his custody;
3. That He opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects; and
4. That he does Not have proper authority to do so.
Notes:
1. “Custody” means guarding or keeping safe; care.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary
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.

Punishable Acts:

1. By revealing any secret known to the offending

public officer by reason of his official capacity; and
2. By delivering wrongfully papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and which should
not be published.
Elements of para. 1 (Secrets known by reason of his
official capacity):
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he knows of a secret by reason of his
Official capacity;
3. That he reveals such secret Without authority or
justifiable reasons; and
4. That Damage, great or small, be caused to the
public interest.
Notes:
1. Secret must affect public interest, not secrets of a
private individual.
2. Espionage for the benefit of another State is not
contemplated by the article. If the secrets are with
regard to military secrets or secrets affecting
Philippine State security, the crime may be espionage
Elements of para. 2 (wrongfully delivering papers or
copies of papers of which he may have charge and
which should not be published):
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has charge (custody or control) of papers;
3. That those papers should not be published;
4. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to
a third person;
5. That the delivery is wrongful; and
6. That damage is caused to public interest.

Notes:
1. Charge means custody or control. If the offender
is merely entrusted with the possession of papers but
not with the custody thereof, he is not liable under
this article.
2. If the papers contain secrets which should not be
published, and the public officer having charge thereof
removes and delivers them wrongfully to a third
person, the crime is revelation of secrets. On the other
hand, if the papers do not contain secrets, their
removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the
custody of documents.
3. Damage is essential to the act committed.

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 reveals such secrets.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he Knows of the secret of a private individual
by reason of his office; and
3. That he Reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.

Notes:
1. Revelation to one person is sufficient.
2. If the offender is an attorney, he is properly liable
under Art. 209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney).
3. It is not necessary that damage is suffered by the
private individual. The reason for this provision is to
uphold faith and trust in the public service.
Officers

Section 1. – Disobedience, Refusal of

Assistance, and Maltreatment of Prisoners

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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Judicial or executive officer;
2. That there is a Judgment, decision or order of
superior authority;
3. That such Judgment, decision or order was made
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
authority and issued with all the legal formalities; and
4. That the offender, without any legal justification,
Openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision
or order which he is duty bound to obey.

Art. 232. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer

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
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That an Order is issued by his superior for
execution;
3. That he has, for any reason, Suspended the
execution of such order;
4. That his Superior disapproves the suspension of
the execution of the order; and
5. That the offender Disobeys his superior despite
the disapproval of the suspension.

Note:
A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior
is illegal.
A public officer who, upon demand from competent
authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards
the administration of justice or other public service.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That a Competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service; and
3. That the offender fails to do so Maliciously
Notes:
1. This felony involves a request from one public
officer to another.
2. Damage to the public interest or third party is
essential.
3. Demand is necessary.
Art. 234. Refusal To Discharge Elective Office

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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is Elected by popular election to
a public office;
2. That he Refuses to be sworn in or discharge the
duties of said office;
3. That there is No legal motive for such refusal to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Notes:
1. If the elected person is disqualified, his refusal to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of the office is
justified.
2. Refusal to discharge the duties of an appointive
office is not covered by this article.

Art. 235. Maltreatment of Prisoners.

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 punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and
humiliating manner.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has charge of a prisoner (that is, by final
judgment ; a convict) or detention prisoner; and
3. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling
of such prisoner under his charge either –
i. by the imposition of punishments not authorized
by the regulations, or
ii. by inflicting such punishments (those authorized)
in a cruel and humiliating manner, or
b. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a
confession or to obtain some information from the
prisoner.
Notes:
1. The public officer must have actual charge of the
prisoner in order to be held liable (not merely a charge
by legal fiction).
2. Offended party must be a: (1) convict by final
judgment, or (2) detention prisoner.
3. Maltreatment should not be due to personal
grudge, otherwise, liability is for physical injuries only.
4. Offender may also be held liable for physical
injuries or damages caused. (The penalty provided in
Article 235 is imposed in addition to penalty for injury
or damage caused.) There is no complex crime of
maltreatment of prisoners with serious or less serious
physical injuries.
5. If the person maltreated should not be a prisoner,
physical injuries may be deemed committed.
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is Entitled to hold a public office or
employment, either by election or appointment;
2. That the Law requires that he should first be
sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
3. That he Assumes the performance of the duties and
powers of such office; and
4. That he has Not taken his oath of office and/or given the
bond required by law.
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is holding a public office;
2. That the period provided by law, regulations or
special provisions for holding such office has already
expired; and
3. That he continues to exercise the duties and
powers of such office.
Note:
The officers contemplated are those who have been
suspended, separated, declared over-aged or
dismissed.
Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment
of the public service.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he formally resigns from his position;
3. That his resignation has not yet been accepted;
and
4. That he abandons his office to the detriment of
the public service.
Notes:
1. There must be formal or written resignation.
2. The offense is qualified if the purpose behind the abandonment is
to evade the discharge of duties consisting of preventing, prosecuting
or punishing any of the crimes against national security (e.g. treason,
espionage), in which case, the penalty is higher.
 ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION AND
DERELICTION OF DUTY, DISTINGUISHED.
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR DERELICTION OF DUTY (ART.
POSITION 208)

Committed only by public

Committed by any public officer officers who have the duty to
institute prosecution

Public officer does not abandon

There is actual abandonment his office but merely fails to
through resignation to evade the prosecute a violation of the law
discharge of duties
Art. 239. Usurpation of Legislative Powers.

Any executive or judicial 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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial
officer; and
2. That he:
a. makes general rules or regulations beyond the
scope of his authority, or
b. attempts to repeal a law, or
c. suspends the execution thereof
Art. 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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge; and
2. That he:
a. assumes a power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or
b. obstructs executive authorities in the lawful
exercise of their powers

Note:
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of
executive functions.
Art. 241. Usurpation of Judicial Functions.
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 his jurisdiction.

Elements:
1. That the offender is an officer of the executive
branch of the government; and
2. That he:
a. assumes judicial powers, or
b. obstructs the execution of any order or decision
rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction

Note: Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation

of judicial functions.
Any public officer who, before a question of
jurisdiction by him over a proceeding is decided, shall
continue any proceeding after having been lawfully
required to refrain from so doing.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public
officer;
3. That there is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is
not yet decided;
4. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from
continuing the proceeding; and
5. That he continues the proceeding
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.
Elements:
1. That the offender is an executive officer;
2. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any
judicial authority; and
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case
or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the courts of justice

Note:
Legislative and judicial officers are not liable under
this article.
legal qualifications therefor.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he nominates or appoints a person to a
public office;
3. That such person lacks the legal qualification
therefor; and
4. That the offender knows that his nominee or
appointee lacks the qualification at the time he made
the nomination or appointment
Notes:
1. Mere recommending, even if with the knowledge that the
person recommended is not qualified, is not a crime. He must
nominate.
2. There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a
person to be nominated or appointed to a public office.
Section 4. – Abuses against Chastity

Art. 245. Abuses against Chastity.

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;

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

.
Elements:

1. That the offender is a public officer;

2. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent
advances to a woman; and
3. That such woman must be –
a. interested in matters pending before the offender
for decision, or with respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a superior officer, or
b. under the custody of the offender who is a warden
or other public officer directly charged with care and
custody of prisoners or person under arrest, or
c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the
same degree by affinity of the person in the custody of
the offender.
Notes:
1. The mother of the person in the custody of the
public officer is not included.
2. To solicit means to propose earnestly and
persistently something unchaste and immoral to a
woman.
3. The crime is consummated by mere proposal.
4. Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there
is sexual intercourse.
amended)
a. Definition of Terms [Sec. 2]

Government
It includes the national government, the local
governments, the government-owned and
government-controlled corporations, and all other
instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the
Philippines and their branches.

Public Officer
It includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government as
defined in the preceding subparagraph.
Receiving any Gift

It includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift

from a person other than a member of the public officer's
immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of
his family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either
by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a
family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly
excessive. (Sec. 2)

Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value

offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or
friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of this Act. (Sec. 14)
b. Corrupt Practices of Public Officers [Sec. 3]

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:
1. 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.
Examples:
a. Persuading an MMDA officer not to apprehend you
for a traffic violation;
2. 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.

Notes:
a. Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public
officer whose official intervention is required by law in
a contract or transaction (Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. L-56170, 1984)
b. Lack of “demand” is immaterial since the
provision uses the word “or” between requesting and
receiving.
public officer to take the gift so offered and consider it
as his or her own property from then on. Mere physical
receipt is not sufficient that the crime has been
committed. (Peligrino v. People G.R. 136266, 2001)
d. Conspiracy by silence and inaction occurs when
the accused are all heads of their respective offices
that perform interdependent functions in the
processing of cash advances and, exhibit an attitude
of “buck- passing” [the practice of shifting the
responsibility for something to someone else] in the
face of the irregularities (Jaca v. People, G.R. No.
166967, 2013)
e. There is no identity nor necessary inclusion
between the crime of direct bribery as defined and
punished under Art. 210 of the RPC and a violation of
Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
elements of one offense are included among or form
part of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the
mere request or demand of a gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a violation
of Section 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019, acceptance of a
promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present is
required in direct bribery. Moreover, the ambit of
Section 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019is specific. It is limited
only to contracts or transactions involving monetary
consideration where the public officer has the authority
to intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on the other
hand, has a wider and more general scope: (a)
performance of an act constituting a crime; (b)
execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a
crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or refraining from
Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed
from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to
two separate and distinct offenses. No
double jeopardy attached since there was a variance
between the elements of the offenses charged.
(Merecillo v. People, G.R. No. 142369-70, 2007)

f. An investigation conducted by a public officer is

not considered as a “contract or transaction” within
the ambit of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019. A transaction,
like a contract, is one which involves some
consideration as in credit transactions and this
elements (consideration) is absent in investigations.
(Soriano Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. No. L-65952,
1984)
3. 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.

4. 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.
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.
Notes:
a. A violation of this provision 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 acted with gross inexcusable
negligence (Jaca v. People, G.R. No. 166967, 2013)
b. Manifest Partiality – synonymous with "bias"
(Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, 1994)
c. Bad faith – imputes a dishonest purpose or some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; it
partakes of the nature of fraud (Fonacier v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, 1994)

d. Gross negligence – negligence characterized by

the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
other persons may be affected (Fonacier v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, 1994)
e. The inclusion of all the modes of violating Section
3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the charge sheet is not equivalent
to charging the accused with 3 acts. The use of the
three phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith"
and "gross inexcusable negligence" in the same
information does not mean that the indictment
charges three distinct offenses but only implies that
the offense charged may have been committed
through any of the modes provided by the law
(Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-50691, 1994).

f. There is no attempted or frustrated stage of the

crime defined in Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
g. The plain language of both Information indicate
that X was charged with violating Section 3 (e) of R.A.
3019 through the modality of evident bad faith.
Against and inconsistent with this singular modality as
charged, however, the Sandiganbayan's conviction of
X significantly grounded its finding of fault on the
discussion of X’s gross negligence. Sandiganbayan
convicted X on the modality of gross inexcusable
negligence, which is separate and distinct from the
modality of evident bad faith X was charged with in
the Information. This stark variance, as correctly
pleaded by X, is violative of his constitutional right to
due process, specifically his right to be informed of
the nature of the accusation against him. (Buencamino
v. People, G.R. Nos. 216745-46, 2020).
the establishment of the elements of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019
beyond reasonable doubt is indispensable for the prosecution
of the said crime. For failing to establish all the elements, the
accused officers is acquitted. (Martel v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 224720-23 & , February 2, 2021.)
i. There is no showing that the act of petitioner was done
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence, or that she gave any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference to another, or that undue
injury was caused to the government. By the very language of
Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA 3019, which defines "corrupt
practices of public officers," the elements of manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence and of
giving unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to
another must go hand in hand with a showing of fraudulent
intent and corrupt motives (Chung v. Office of the Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 239871, 18 March
2021).
purposes." On the other hand, partiality is synonymous
with bias which "excites a disposition to see and report
matters as they are wished for rather than as they are."
There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear,
notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor
one side or person rather than another. , petitioners
were able to show that their resort to direct purchase
for the questioned transactions was based on their
honest belief that the same was warranted under the
circumstances. Petitioners explained that the
questioned transactions were emergency purchases,
and following DOH-NCR's policy of adopting the results
of the previous winning bidder, the subject medicines
were procured from Aegis and Lumar, who were the
winning bidders in the bidding conducted by DOH-NCR
for the years 1995 and 1994, respectively .
k. In other words, the Sandiganbayan's finding of
evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part of
petitioners was primarily anchored on the
procurement of allegedly overpriced medicines
without the benefit of a public bidding.

l. The third element of Section 3(e) refers to two (2)

separate acts, namely, when the accused’s acts

(a) cause undue injury to any party, including the

government; or (b) gave any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his functions. Either act qualifies as a
violation. (Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 218652, 23 February 2022).
their dishonest or negligent subordinates because
they failed to personally examine each detail of the
transaction before affixing their signatures in good
faith. (Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563, 1989)

n. The doctrine in Arias is applicable only to heads of

offices who relied on their subordinates where the
accused is charged with gross and inexcusable
negligence in performing the duties primarily vested
in him by law, resulting in undue injury. The good faith
of heads of offices in signing a document will only be
appreciated if they, with trust and confidence, have
relied on their subordinates in whom the duty is
primarily lodged. (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340,
2013)
6. 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.

7. 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.
a. Determining whether the contract was manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous is not merely based on
consideration of the pecuniary amount involved.
(Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, 1998)
b. This partakes of the nature of malum prohibitum
(Go v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, 2007)
c. Section 3(g) of RA 3019 is for PUBLIC
OFFICERS ONLY. The liability of private individuals who
participated in the transaction must be established
under another MORE appropriate provision, which is
Section 4(b) of RA 3019, for knowingly inducing or
causing the public officers to commit crimes punished
under Section 3(g) where criminal intent must
necessarily be proved. This is in clear recognition that
Section 3(g), a malum prohibitum, specifically applies
to public officers only .
d. Where the government was amply protected in
the subject transaction, and consequently the contract
was not grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to
the government, it was held that one of the elements
of the crime, i.e., that the contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government, is conspicuously missing (Froilan v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115221, 2000)

e. There is no need to prove the validity of the

contract or transaction. (Luciano v. Estrella, G.R. No.
L- 31622, 1970).
8. Directly 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.
Note: Actual intervention is required.

9. 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.
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.

10. 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.

11. 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.
or close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family
or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having
some business, transaction, application, request or
contract with the government, in which such public
official has to intervene.
b. Family relation shall include the spouse or
relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil
degree.
c. Close personal relation shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal connections,
and professional employment all giving rise to
intimacy which assures free access to such public
officer. (Sec. 4)
2. Prohibition on certain relatives
a. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any
relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third
civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the
Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the
Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business, transaction, contract or application with
the Government.
b. This prohibition shall not apply to the following:
i. any person who prior to the assumption of office
of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has
been already dealing with the Government along the
same line of business; nor,
existing or pending at the time of such assumption of
public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of
the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or
regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act
lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the
exercise of a profession (Sec. 5)
e. Exceptions [Sec. 14]

Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant

value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
gratitude or friendship according to local customs or
usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this
Act. (Sec. 14 )
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
or property sealed by proper authority, who shall
break the seals or permit them to be broken.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a Public officer;
2. That he is Charged with the custody of papers or
property;
3. That these papers or property are Sealed by
proper authority; and
4. That he Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Notes:
1. It is the breaking of the seals, not the opening of
a closed envelope (covered by Art. 228) , which is
punished.
2. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary; damage is presumed.
Art. 228. Opening of Closed
Documents