period and suspension​; but if he shall have acted by
Art. 204. ​Knowingly rendering unjust judgment​ . — Any
judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by
prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgement in a case submitted to him
for decision
3. Judgement is unjust
4. He knows the judgement is unjust
Judgement - final consideration and determination of a court
of competent jurisdiction upon matters submitted to it
Unjust judgement ​- one contrary to law and/or not supported
by evidence
When is it rendered knowingly?
- When done maliciously and with intent
SOURCES:
1. Error
2. Ill will
3. Bribery
No liability​ when it is an error in ​good faith​.
The ​presumption ​is that the judgement is just.
T​here must be evidence that:
1. Judgement is ​unjust
2. Judge ​knew​ it was unjust
Art. 205. ​Judgment​ rendered through negligence. — Any
judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by
arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification​.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgement in a case before him
3. Judgement is manifestly unjust
4. Such is due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance
Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgement ​not
punishable.
- Abuse of discretion does not automatically imply bad
faith or an ulterior motive ​ 1. Maliciously ​refrain from instituting prosecution for the
​ ​
Art. 206​. ​Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall
knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree
shall suffer the penalty of ​arresto mayor in its minimum
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the
interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the
penalty shall be ​suspension​.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judge
2. He performs any of the following acts
a. Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order
or decree
b. He renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance
Interlocutory order
- Order issued by the court between commencement
and end of a suit
- Decides some point or matter but is not a final
decision on an issue at hand
Example:​ Order granted preliminary injunction
Art. 207. ​Malicious delay in the administration of justice. —
The penalty of ​prision correccional in its minimum
period ​shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious
delay in the administration of justice.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judge
2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious
Malicious - delay caused by the judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party
Mere delay without malice is NOT a felony
​
Art. 208. ​Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance.
— The penalty of ​prision correccional in its minimum
period and suspension ​shall be imposed upon any public
officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties
of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or
shall tolerate the commission of offenses.
*the word ​negligence in the provision does not refer to lack of
foresight or skill. It simply means ​neglect of the duties of his
office.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
punishment of violators of the law (Note: this assumes
that the offense has already been committed)
2. Maliciously ​tolerate the commission of offenses
(Note: this assumes that the offense is about to be
committed and the public officer or the officer of the
law knows about it)
*”maliciously” signifies deliberate evil intent; hence, if the
dereliction of duty was caused by poor judgment or honest
mistake, it is not punishable ​ a. Malicious breach of professional duty or
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a ​public officer or ​officer of the law who
has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses
2. Dereliction of the duties of office:
a. knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the
criminal (People v. Rosales)
b. knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates its commission
3. Offender acts with ​malice and ​deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law
Who can be the offenders ​ -
1. Public officer → officers of the prosecution
department, whose duty is to institute criminal
proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their
perpetration
2. Officer of the law → those who, by reason of the
position held by them, are duty-bound to cause the
prosecution and punishment of the offenders
Dereliction of duties of office
- Presupposes that the officer has a duty to prosecute
or to move the prosecution of the offender. The
following have such duty:
- Chief of police (People v. Rosales)
- Barrio lieutenant/captain (US v. Mendoza)
- Revenue officers do not have said duty
Examples of offenses under Art. 208
- People v. Mina: chief of police who failed to file
criminal action against the jueteng collector who was
caught possessing jueteng lists
- US v. Mendoza: if a barrio lieutenant was informed
that arson was committed but failed to move
prosecution of and punishment for arson, ​he would
be liable if the alleged crime was afterwards duly
proven
- Vda. de Bagatua, et.al. v. Revilla and Lombos: if the
fiscal is not convinced that the evidence gathered or
presented would warrant the filing of an action in
court, he is not compelled to file the corresponding
information based on the complaint.
Art. 209. ​Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. —
Revelation of secrets. — In addition to the ​proper
administrative action​, the penalty of ​prision correccional
in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
attorney-at-law or solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any
malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal
any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his
professional capacity.
The ​same penalty ​shall be imposed upon an
attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
​ 1. prejudicing/causing damage to his client by:
b. Inexcusable ​negligence or ignorance
2. revealing any secrets of the client learned by him in
his professional capacity (Note: damage is not
necessary)
3. undertaking the defense of the opposing party after
having undertaken the defense of a prior client or
having received confidential information from prior
client in a case (Note: if the prior client consents to
the attorney’s taking the offense of the other party,
there is no crime)
There is no solicitor or ​procurador judicial (person
who had some practical knowledge of law and
procedure but not a lawyer and was permitted to
represent a party in a case before an inferior court)
under the Rules of Court (RoC)
- Under the RoC, in the court of a justice of the peace,
a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend or with the aid of an attorney
(Sec. 34, Rule 138)
Art. 210. ​Direct bribery. — 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, shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of
the gift and] ​not less than three times the value of the gift
in ​addition ​to the ​penalty corresponding ​to the crime
agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and
the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the ​same
penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act
shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer
the penalties of ​prision correccional, in its medium
period and a fine of not less than twice the value of
such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was
to make the public officer refrain from doing something
which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the
penalties of ​prision correccional in its maximum period
and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] ​not
less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding
paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of ​special
temporary disqualification​.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall
be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and
claim commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties. ​(As amended by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
 official duty official duty (third act)
ACTS PUNISHABLE ​(and corresponding penalties)*
*All acts have penalty of special temporary dq Gift received / promised not In consideration of a gift
an element received / promised

1) Agreeing to perform or by performing ​in PM

consideration of any ​offer, gift, or present ​an med-max
fine (3x RA3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
act constituting a crime ​in connection with the Section 3. ​Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or
performance of his official duties value)
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
● Promise to give and promise to commit following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
an unlawful act by public officer is are hereby declared to be unlawful:
sufficient
● Public officer also suffers penalty (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to
corresponding to crime, if committed perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection
2) ​Accepting a gift in consideration of an Executed with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
execution of an act ​which does not constitute - same persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
a crime​, in connection with the performance of as first offense.
his duty act
Not (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
● Act done is not a crime, but is unjust share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
accompli
● Presupposes an overt act (mere connection with any contract or transaction between the
shed -
promise to execute is not sufficient) PC med Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his
fine (2x official capacity has to intervene under the law.
value)
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or
3) Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining to do PC max other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from
fine (3x any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity,
something which it is his official duty to do in
value) has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government
consideration of gift or promise permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given,
● If refraining to do the act constitutes a without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
crime, first act applies
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
Elements of direct bribery business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year
1. Offender is a public officer after its termination.
● Public officer as contemplated in Art 203
● Temporary performance of public functions
is sufficient Art. 211. ​Indirect bribery. — The penalties of ​prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and
● Applicable to assessors, arbitrators,
public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer
appraisal, and claim commissioners, experts who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
(last par, Art. 210) (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).
2. Offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift
or present ELEMENTS:
● May be received personally or through 1. Offender is a public officer
intermediary 2. He accepts gifts
● May be voluntary offered by private person 3. Said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office
or solicited by public officer
● Offer or gift must be accepted by the public Gift is usually given to the public officer in anticipation of future
officer favor from the public officer.
● Gift must be of value (pecuniary estimation),
given that penalties (fines) are based on its Example: A veterinarian of the Board of Health, authorized to
value examine mules which were offered for sale to the Government,
Note: for the first act, gift need not be actually received by received money from the vendor of mules. He accepted the gift
public officer, a promise of gift (an offer) is sufficient). offered to him by reason of his office.(US v Richards, 6 Phil.
3. Offer is in consideration of acts (refer to table) 545)
4. Act is connected with the performance of his official
duties There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to
take the gift so offered and considered the same as his own
Prevaricacion (Art 208) Bribery property from then on, such as putting away the gift for
safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt
Refraining from doing Refraining from doing unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act tos how
something which pertains to something which pertains to such acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude
that the crime of indirect bribery has been committed.
the national or local governments, to receive, directly or indirectly,
(Formilleza v Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 1) and for private persons to give, or offer to give, any gift, present or
other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery, because it such gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason of his
official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past
is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer by favor or favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or
reason of his office. better treatment in the future from the public official or employee
concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included within
the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainments in honor
Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.
For violation of this Decree, the penalty of imprisonment for not
less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years and
1. Public officer 1. Public officer
perpetual disqualification from public office shall be imposed.
recieves gifts receives gifts The official or employee concerned shall likewise be subject to
2. There is an 2. There is no administrative disciplinary action and, if found guilty, shall be
agreement agreement meted out the penalty of ​suspension or removal​, depending on
between the officer 3. Not necessary that the seriousness of the offense.
and the giver of the the officer should Any provision of law, executive order, rule or regulation or circular
gift or present do any particular inconsistent with this Decree is hereby repealed or modified
3. Offender agrees to act or even accordingly.
perform or promise to do an This Decree shall take effect immediately after its publication.
performs an act or act,, so long as he Done in the City of Manila, this 10th day of November, in the year of
refrains from doing receive gifts by Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.
something because reason of his office
of the gift or
promise PD749: GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO
GIVERS OF BRIBES AND OTHER GIFTS AND TO THEIR
ACCOMPLICES IN BRIBERY AND OTHER GRAFT CASES
It may be considered indirect bribery even f there was a sort of AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
an agreement between public officer and giver of gift. This Section 1. ​Any person who voluntarily gives information about any
violation of Articles 210, 211 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code,
may be mistaken for direct bribery. However, in direct bribery, Republic Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as amended:
under the second paragraph of Art 210, the act executed must Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the
be unjust. If the act is not unjust, then it will be held under Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of the said Codes
penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials
Article 211, even if there was some sort of agreement. concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of
graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse; and who willingly
PD No 46 makes act of receiving of gifts by public officials and testifies against any public official or employee for such violation
shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense with
employees and giving gifts by private persons, on any reference to which his information and testimony were given, and
occasion, including Christmas punishable by imprisonment of may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in
not less than one year nor more than five years and perpetual bar of such prosecution: Provided, that this immunity may be
enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are
disqualification from public office.
given against a person who is not a public official but who is a
principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of
Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from the the above-mentioned violations: Provided further, that this immunity
administrative penalty of separation from the judicial service. may be enjoyed by such informant or witness notwithstanding that
he offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public official or is an
accomplice for such gift or bribegiving; and Provided, finally, that
the following conditions concur:
PD46: MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE PERSONS TO
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of
GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION, INCLUDING CHRISTMAS
the abovementioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of
WHEREAS, under existing laws and the civil service rules, it is
the accused public officer;
prohibited to receive, directly or indirectly, any gift, present or any
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of
other form of benefit in the course of official duties;
the State;
WHEREAS, it is believed necessary to put more teeth to existing
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its
laws and regulations to wipe out all conceivable forms of graft and
material points; and
corruption in the public service, the members of which should not
5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a
only be honest but above suspicion and reproach; and
crime involving moral turpitude.
WHEREAS, the stoppage of the practice of gift-giving to
Section 2. The immunity granted hereunder shall not attach should
government men is a concrete step in the administration's program
it turn out subsequently that the information and/or testimony is
of reforms for the development of new moral values in the social
false and malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing,
structure of the country, one of the main objectives of the New
molesting or in any way prejudicing the public officer denounced. In
Society;
such a case, the public officer so denounced shall be entitled to any
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
action, civil administrative or criminal, against said informant or
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution
witness: Provided, however, That such action may be commenced
as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
only after the dismissal of the case against the denounced public
and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972,
officer after preliminary investigation or after the latter’s acquittal by
and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, do hereby
a competent court.
make it punishable for any public official or employee, whether of
The prescriptive periods for the various actions under the provisions

of this section shall start to run from the time such actions may be
commenced as herein provided. (As amended by BP Blg. 242,
approved Nov. 11, 1982.)
Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a
prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all proceedings
undertaken in connection therewith, shall be strictly confidential or
private in order to protect the reputation of the official under
investigation in the event that the report proves to be unfounded or
no prima facie case is established.
Section 4. All acts, decrees and rules and regulations inconsistent
with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Section 5.​ This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Art. 211-A. ​Qualified Bribery. — If any public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall
suffer the ​penalty for the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or
present, he shall suffer the penalty of ​death​. ​(As added by
RA 7659).
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement
2. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death
3. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the
offender in consideration of any promise, gift or
present.
Art. 212. ​Corruption of public officials. — The ​same
penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those
of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon
any person who shall have made the offers or promises or
given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding
articles.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or
presents to a public officer
2. Offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents
given to a public officer, under circumstances that will
make the public officer liable for direct bribery or
indirect bribery
Offender in this article is the giver of gifts or offeror of promise.
Article 212 punishes the person who made the offer or promise
or give the gift even if the gift was demanded by the public
officer and the offer was not made voluntarily prior to the said
demand.
Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired in entrapment.
However, PD 749 grants immunity from prosecution to givers
of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and
other graft cases against public officers provided:
1. The information must refer to consummated violations
of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules
and regulations
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the
conviction of the accused public officer
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the
possession of the State
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated
on its material points
5. The informant or witness has not been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
Art. 213. ​Frauds against the public treasury and similar
offenses. — The penalty of ​prision correccional in its
medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period,
or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both​, shall
be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with
regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other
scheme, to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees
and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following acts
or omissions:
(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law,
for any sum of money collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature different
from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the ​provisions
of the Administrative Code​ shall be applied.
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Entering into an ​agreement with any interested party
or speculator or making use of any other scheme to
defraud the government, in dealing with any person
with regard to:
a. Furnishing supplies
b. Making of contracts
c. Adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
2. By demanding directly or indirectly the payment of
sums ​different from or larger than those authorized by
law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and
other imposts
3. By failing ​voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by
law, for any sum of money collected by him ​officially,
in the collection of taxes, licenses fees and other
imposts
 4. By collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly by way
of payment or ​otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law, in the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees, and other imports.
Elements of frauds against public treasury (Art 213 par 1)
A. The offender is a public officer
B. That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is,
he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity
C. That 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. Making of contracts
c. The adjustment or settlement of accounts relating
to public property or funds
D. That the accused had the intent to defraud the
government
It is not necessary that the Government is actually
defrauded it is sufficient that the public officer had intent
to defraud.
Elements of Illegal exactions
A. Offender is a public officer ​entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
B. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums ​different from or larger than those
authorized by law
b. Failing ​voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially.
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of
a nature different from that provided by law
Mere demand for larger or different amount is sufficient to
consummate the crime.
To receive certain amounts in connection with his duties
and not issue receipts would be tantamount to illegal
exactions. ​As well as violation of Sec 113 of Article III Chapter
V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual.
When there is deceit, the crime is estafa not illegal
exaction.
When a public officer has the official duty to collect taxes,
receives a payment in said concept, he makes himself
directly accountable to the government for the money
collected. ​Money collected so acquires the character or forms
part of the public funds. Therefore misappropriation is suffered
by the government. (People vs Policher)
A tax collector collecting a sum larger than that authorized by
law is guilty of
a. illegal exaction for demanding a greater amount
b. malversation for misappropriating the amount
collected
The government may refund the difference between the
amount collected and the amount paid.
Art. 214. ​Other frauds. — In addition to the ​penalties
prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book
Two, of this Code, the penalty of ​temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification shall be imposed upon any public
officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
commit any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in said
provisions.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he takes advantage of his official position
3. That he commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Articles 315 to 318
Since the councillor committed the crime as a private
individual because he received the money not on the
exercise of his functions as councillor (US vs Dacuycuy)
When the councillor takes advantage of his position in
committing estafa the disqualification mentioned herein is
part of the penalty to be imposed (US vs Torrida)
Any of the other frauds enumerated in Chapter 6, Title 10,
book Two:
A. Estafa
B. Other forms of swindling
C. Swindling a minor
D. Other deceits
The RTC has jurisdiction when this article is involved.
Art. 215​. ​Prohibited transactions. — The penalty of ​prision
correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging
from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both​, shall be imposed upon
any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency,
shall directly or indirectly become interested in any
transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory
subject to his jurisdiction.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is an ​appointive​ public officer
2. That he becomes interested, ​directly or indirectly​, in
any transaction of exchange or speculation.
3. Transaction takes place ​within the territory subject
to his jurisdiction.
4. He becomes interested in the transaction ​during
incumbency.
The transaction must be one of exchange or speculation.
I.e. buying and selling stocks, commodities, land, hoping to The official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which
take advantage of and expected rise or fall in price, etc. have no connection with his office cannot commit the crime in
Art. 216
Purchasing stocks or shares in a company is simply an
investment and is not a violation. ** Constitutional prohibitions
To do so does not mean taking part in a business for gain or Sec. 14, Art. 6 - for Senators, members of House of Rep
profit, but simply to invest funds at a legal interest. Sec. 13, Art 7 - for Pres, VP, Members of Cabinet
Sec. 2, Art. 9-A - for Constitutional Commissions
Buying regularly/habitually securities for resale is
speculation.
The appointive public officer should not devote himself to
commerce.

Examples of appointive officers (under Art. 14 of Code of

Commerce)
1. Justices, judges, or fiscals.
2. Employees engaged in the collection and
administration of public funds.
A fiscal of Manila who engages in commerce in Manila is guilty
under this article. But if he engages in commerce outside of
Manila, he is not.

Art. 216​. ​Possession of prohibited interest by a public

officer. — The penalty of ​arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or
a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both​, shall be
imposed upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall
become interested in any contract or business in which it is
his official duty to intervene.

This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and

private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in
any contract or transaction connected with the estate or
property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which
they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors
with respect to the property belonging to their wards or
estate.

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contract or business in which it was
his ​official duty​ to intervene.
2. Experts​, ​arbitrators​, and ​private accountants who
took part in any contract or transaction connected with
the estate or property in ​appraisal​, ​distribution​, or
adjudication​ of which they had acted.
3. Guardians and ​executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the estate.

Actual fraud unnecessary

The 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 party which he represents.
(U.S. v. Udarbe)

Intervention must be by virtue of public office held