Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Who are considered as public officers?

The definition is quite comprehensive, embracing as it does, every public


servant from the highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the Penal Code, it
obliterates the standard distinction in the law of public officers between
officer and employee.( Maniego v. People)
Do members of a collegiate court can commit the crime of knowingly
rendering unjust judgement?
NO, The provisions of Article 204 of the RPC rendering knowingly unjust
judgement refer to an individual judge who does so in any case submitted
to him for decision. The said penal articles has no application to members of
a collegiate court such as the Court or its Divisions who reach their
conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgement
after due deliberation. (In Re: Wensceslao Laureta, G.R. No. 68635, March 12,
1987)
Q: If the public officer has no duty to prosecute or to move the
prosecution of the offender will he be liable to Art. 208 Prosecution
of offenses; negligence and tolerance
A: No, Article 208 uses the phrase who, in dereliction of the duties of his
office. Hence, the public officer liable under Article 208 must have a duty to
prosecute or to move the prosecution of the violation of the law.
Q: What if the crime committed by the law-violator is not proven,
will the public officer who refrain from instituting prosecution
against the violators of the law be liable?
A: No, the crime committed by the law-violator must be proven first. If the
guilt of the law violator is not proven, the person charged with dereliction of
the duty under this article is not liable. (U.S. v. Mendoza)
Q: Can a person who temporarily performs public functions can be
liable for the crime of direct bribery?
A: YES, for the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of
public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer. (Maniego v
People)
Q: Whats difference between direct bribery and indirect bribery?
A: In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an act or
refrains from doing something, because of the gift or promise; in indirect
bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or
even promise to do an act, as it enough that he accepts gifts offered to him
by reason of his office. (Pozar v. Court of Appeals)

Q: A private individual gives a public officer a gift because its


Christmas season; is the act of giving and receiving gifts because of
occasion like Christmas is punishable?
A: YES, if the gift was given by reason of the public position. The President of
the Philippines has made it punishable for any public official or employee, to
receive, directly or indirectly, and for a private persons to give or offer to
give, any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including
Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason
of his public position. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties
or entertainments in honor of the officials or employee or of his immediate
relatives. (P.D. No. 46 which took effect on November 10, 1972)
Q: What are the different acts of malversation that us punished
under Article 217?
1. Appropriating the public funds or property.
2. Taking or misappropriating public funds or property.
3. Consenting or permitting, through abandonement or negligence,
any other person to take public funds or property.
Q: Can a private individual be liable for malversation under article
217?
A. YES, The provisions of article 217 shall apply to private individuals who, in
any capacity whatsoever, have charge of national, provincial or municipal
funds, revenues or property, and to any administrator or depository of funds
or property attached, seized or deposited by a public authority. (Article 222)
Q: Distinguish illegal use of public funds from malversation.
A: The offender in illegal use of public funds or property does not derive any
personal gain or profit; in malversation, the offender in certain cases profits
from the proceeds of the crime.
In illegal use, the public fund or property is applied to another public use in
malversation, the public funds or property is applied to the personal use and
benefit of the offender or of another person.
Q: What is punished in evasion through negligence?
A: Not every negligence or distraction of a guard is penalized; it is only that
positive carelessness that is short of deliberate non-performance of his duties
as guard that is the gravamen of the crime of infidelity under Article 224.
Q: Can a private individual be liable for the escape of a prisoner
under his custody?
A: YES, While in infidelity in the custody of prisoners committed by public
officers the Code speaks of prisoner in the escape of prisoner under the

custody of a person not a public officer the Code mentions also persons under
arrest whose conveyance or custody must be confided to the offender.
Q: Will a public officer be liable under Article 232 Disobedience to
order of superior officer, when said order was suspended by the
inferior officer if the order of the superior is illegal?
A: Under the law, obedience to an order which is illegal is not justified and the
subordinate who obeys such order may beheld criminally liable. (Art. 11,
par.6)
Q: For the crime of refusal of assistance is damage necessary?
A: Yes, there must be damage to the public interest or to a third party, great
or small.
Q: Are appointed officials liable for refusal to discharge elective
office?
A: Article 234 or refusal to discharge elective office penalizes refusal to
discharge the duties of an elective office. Hence, refusal to discharge the
duties of an appointive office is snot covered by this Article.
Q: Can a Mayor of a municipality be liable of Maltreatment of
prisoners even if the prisoner is in the custody of a police?
A: The mayor is not liable for maltreatment of prisoners if the latter is in the
custody of the police. Article 235 contemplates actual charge of the prisoner,
not one which is so merely by legal fiction. (People v. Javier, C.A., 54 O.G.
6622)
Q: If a public officer resigns by verbal statement and then abandons
his office, will the public officer be liable under Article 238
Abandonement of office or position.
A: Yes, A verbal statement made by the accused to the Collector of Internal
Revenue that he was resigning is not the form of resignation contemplated by
the set-up of our Civil Service System. (People v. Santos)
Q: If a public officer nominates or appoints a person to a public office
and that person is not qualified for the position, will the public
officer be liable?
A: It depends, there must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person
to be nominated or appointed to a public office for the public officer to be
liable under Article 244.

Include:

a)

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act


(R.A. No. 3019, as amended)

What are the elements of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act


Section 3(e)?
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officers official,
administrative or judicial functions;
(3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
(4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
(Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403.
March 9, 2010)
When may private individuals be prosecuted under Section 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
Section 4 (b) of the same law provides that private individuals may
nonetheless be prosecuted under Section 3(e) thereof if he knowingly induces
or causes any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section
3(e) of RA 3019. Clearly, the law punishes not only public officers who commit
prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who induce or cause
the public official to commit those offenses. (Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v.
People of the Philippines,G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010 )
What is contract or transaction contemplated under the Section
3(b) of RA 3019?
Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
directly or indirectly request or receive any gift or benefit for himself in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and
any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law. The term transaction is limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has
the authority to intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a transaction under
the law. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013)

May a person be indicted alone for violation of Sec. 3(g) of RA 3019


after the death of the public officer with whom he allegedly have
conspired with?
Yes. Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating
Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to
have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the information, the private
person may be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25,
2014)

b) Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended)


Is there criminal liability for an officer who arrests a suspected
terrorist and does not deliver him to the proper judicial authorities
until 2 and a half days after said suspect has been detained?
No, there is none. Police or law enforcement personnel who has apprehended
or arrested, detained and taken custody of a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and
fails to deliver said person to the proper judicial authority within 3 days. (R.A.
9372, Sec. 20)
How is Infidelity in the custody of detained persons committed?
It is when any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person and
who by his deliberate act, misconduct or inexcusable negligence causes or
allows the escape of such detained person. (R.A. 9372, Sec. 44)
What are the punishable acts of terrorism?
Under the RPC
1. Piracy in general and Mutiny in High Seas
2. Rebellion or Insurrection
3. Coup detat
4. Murder
5. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
6. Crimes involving Destruction
Under Special Laws
1. Arson
2. Toxic substances and Hazardous Nuclear Waste Act
3. Atomic Energy Regulatory Act

4. Anti-Hijacking Law
5. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
6. Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives
(R.A. 9372, Sec. 3)
Can mere conspirators who did not participate in the crime of
terrorism or accomplices and accessories be liable for terrorism?
Yes they may be liable but only under the Provisions of the Human Security
Act (R.A. 9372, Sec. 4, 5, 6)
The Provisions of Articles 18 on accomplices and 19 on accessories of the RPC
do not apply since the penalty of nomenclature in the Act is not the same as
that of the RPC
Can a son who kills his father because he mistook his father for a
robber be penalized with reclusion perpetua for the crime of
parricide?
No, he cannot.
There are 3 circumstances for when those liable for parricide cannot be
penalized with reclusion perpetua to death: Parricide Through Negligence
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 365), Parricide by Mistake (Revised Penal Code, Art.
249), Parricide Under Exceptional Circumstances (Revised Penal Code, Art.
247)
If a person who is not a relative of the deceased takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, will he be liable for parricide?
The stranger will not be liable. The Key element in parricide is the relationship
of the offender with the victim. (People vs. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895)
Will dismemberment of the dead body qualify a killing to murder?
Yes it is considered as as one manner of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of
the victim and qualifies the killing to murder. (People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No.
147786)
When there is a quarrel between a group of individuals and one of
them was identified as the principal author of the killing, as against
a
common particular victim, is there a tumultous affray?
No it is not, in such a case the crime committed is homicide under Art. 249 of
the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Unlagada, G.R. No. 141080)
Will there be consummated rape if there is penetration but the
hymen is not ruptured?

Yes, complete penetration of the female organ or rupturing of the hymen is


not essential. However, there must be clear and convincing proof that the
penis did touched the labias or slid into the female organ. Without showing of
the slightest penetration of the female organ, then it is only attempted rape
(People vs Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270)
What if a 30 Year old with the mental capacity of a 5 Year old, is
there rape even though she consented to the sexual act?
Yes, her mental age is also considered. When a girl is under 12 years of age,
even if mentally, and she consented to the sexual act the law does not
consider that kind of consent as voluntary. (People vs Manlapaz, G.R. No. L41819)

If A takes Bs Child then asks from B a ransom immediately after the


child was killed by A, is there Kidnapping with murder?
No, the demand for ransom does not convert the offense into kidnapping with
murder. The Demand for ransom here can be considered as an attempt to
conceal the body and then demand money before discovery of the cadaver
(People vs. Lora, G.R. No. 49430)
What are the differences between kidnapping and failure to return a
minor?
In Failure to return a minor the offender has actual custody of the child but
fails to return him to the parents or guardians. In kidnapping the offender has
no custody over the child. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 267, 270)