The relevance of the classification is to point the
Altering true dates
elements required because the elements that are
required for falsification of private document is different
form the elements required from public, official or
commercial.
For a private document, in order to constitute
falsification, it is not enough that there is alteration. The
alteration must be for the purpose of causing damage or
it must actually cause damage. Meaning, it is not even
necessary that the actual damage is present. Just the
mere intent to cause damage would already
consummate the crime. That is for private, because for
other kinds of documents that damaged element is not
required anymore.
FALSIFICATION; HOW COMMITTED:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature
or rubric
a. Even if the handwriting is not imitated but a
person misrepresents himself to be a person
who is supposed to execute the document
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated
in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate
a. If a person misrepresents himself to be the
person who is supposed to execute the
document. E.g Juan signs (not copying the
signature of Pedro) as Pedro, pretending
that he was indeed Pedro.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in fact
made by them
a. Even if a person did participate but the
extent of the participation is changed,
maybe added or altered
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
a. Must be contained in a public document,
commercial or private
b. This document should not be an affidavit
because if the document is such, the crime
would not anymore be falsification under
171 & 172
c. The crime would already fall under 183 (2)
which is perjury
d. Even if there is untruthful narration; it will not
always be perjury, it is only found when it is
an affidavit
e. It will only be perjury if the untruthful
narration is found in an affidavit. E.g Juan
executed a deed of sale stating that he is an
owner of the piece of land (it is a contract,
not an affidavit). And so therefore, there is
untruthful narration of facts which is not in
an affidavit form thus the crime is
Falsification
f. But if Juan will execute an affidavit stating
that he inherited property because he is the
heir of Juan Dela Cruz when in fact he is not
and he makes this statement in an affidavit,
the crime will already be perjury.
5.
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning
a. SC: if the change is for the purpose of
correcting an erroneous entry in a
document, the alteration, even if it changes
the meaning of the document, that would not
be falsification.
b. It is falsification, and not a correction
which the law punishes
c. It is only falsification if the purpose is to
change the meaning in order for it to be a
false statement
d. But if the purpose of the alteration is to state
the correct entry, then it will not be
falsification
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
of the genuine original or
 We’re talking about certified true copies
wherein it is certified that a copy is the same
as the original even if you have not seen the
original or you do not have the custody of
the copy
 That can give rise to a crime of falsification
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official
book
LAYUG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
“there is no falsification of a public document if the acts
of the accused are consistent with good faith.”
 Good faith may be a defense provided that
nobody is prejudiced by the alteration or error.
PRESUMPTION AGAINST POSSESSOR OF
FALSIFIED DOCUMENT:
 It is an established rule that when a person has in
his possession a falsified document and makes use
of the same, the presumption or inference is justified
that such person is the forger.
 The legal presumption is that he is the one who
falsified. Note however that it is just a
presumption. It can be overcome by other
evidence.
 The presumption is given because most of the
time there are no witnesses, we do not know
who is the one falsifying because these are acts
done in public.
 Thus the reasonable conclusion is the one who
executed it must be the one who has it, and the
same one who benefited the execution.
 Why is there no complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Private Document? Yes. But we can
only complex if we have 2 felonies. If we do not have
2 felonies then we cannot complex.
COMPLEXING: GONZAGA
Accused was charged with Estafa under Art. 315
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
There must be damage or intent to cause damage for a
private but no such element is required in falsification of
document
PP VS. PO GIOK TO
DISTINCTINO BETWEEN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS:
 “Falsification of public document is committed by
mere performance of any of the acts enumerated in
Art. 171
 Although it is true that it was the employee of the
City Treasure of Cebu who performed the overt act
of writing the allegedly false facts on the defendant’s
residence certificate, it was, however, the defendant
who induced him to do so by supplying him with
those facts. The employee was defendant’s mere
innocent agent in the performance of the crime
charged
 The defendant here argued that as a private
individual, he can only commit Nos. 1, 3, 8.
 He was still convicted because he was the one who
supplied the information even if he wasn’t the one
who wrote.
 In falsification it is not necessary that the accused is
the one who actually wrote.
 It can be committed through another.
SEVILLA VS. PEOPLE
 Is falsification an intentional felony? Yes.
 Sevilla was charged with violation of 171 for ticking
the no box in the PDS on whether he had a pending
criminal case
 He argues that his staff filled up the PDS as he did
not yet have an office at the time
 He was liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Falsification under Art. 365
CAN FALSIFICATION BE COMMITTED BY CULPA?
SC: Yes. It can be committed by culpa. He was liable
not for intentional falsification. But we have a public
document, which is false, but the falsification was not
intended. It was merely committed by being negligent by
submitting it without going over it.
Convicted by Reckless Imprudence resulting in
falsification.
US V. INFANTE & BARRETO
When consummated – the crime of Falsification of
Private Document is consummated at the time when the
time and the place were the document is falsified to the
prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice, a third person,
and this whether the falsified document is or is not
thereafter put to the improper or illegal use for which it
was intended
When the law says damage, as an element of the crime,
it is not necessary that it is already incurred. The mere
intent to cause damage as the reason for the
falsification. E.g Juan authorized Pedro to collect money.
Now Jose, falsified it by placing his name in the place of
Pedro. He went to the debtor in order to collect who did
not give him the money. Is there damage? No. Because
the debtor did not give him the money but there is
intent to cause damage
What is important is that he intended to cause the
damage. It’s not just attempted falsification, it’s
already consummated falsification.
PP V. TAN BOMPING
A deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public
document and the fact that the false dates were written
into the documents here in question BEFORE said
documents were presented to the notary does not alter
the character of the crime as Falsification of Public
Document if they were so presented by the party who
committed the falsification or at his instance.
 Even if the falsification happened before the
notarization of a document (at this time, the
document becomes a public document), you do
not necessarily have to do the falsification after
the notarization.
 Since the falsehood was made before
notarization, there will still be a falsification of
public document so long as that public document
was thereafter notarized
 The date of the consummation will not be the
notarization but when the falsification was
actually committed
---One of the questions for tomorrow will be from
one of these topics---
ART. 173. FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS,
TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE MESSAGE
ART. 174. FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE
The use of such certificates is a crime. Even the
possession of instrument that are used in order to falsify
E.g you have a printing instrument to fake the diploma or
whatever, that will be a crime.
ART. 175 USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
ART. 176 MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF
INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
FALSIFICATION
ART. 177 USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:
Although it is punished under one article, there are 2
crimes
Art. 177 punishes the following:
1. Usurpation of authority – a person knowingly
and falsely represents himself to be an officer or
representative of the Phil or foreign gov’t
a. The person claims to be this public
official for instance
 2. Usurpation of official functions – a person, under
pretense of official position, performs any act
pertaining to a person in authority or officer of
the Phil or foreign government
a. He does not claim to possess authority
and yet he performs the functions, which
does not officially belong to him. E.g a
mayor was suspended, and yet despite
his suspension, during such, he still
performed the functions of the mayor. Is
there usurpation of authority? Not
necessarily because he is the elected
mayor.
b. But if he performs an official
function, that’s already a crime.
However if a person is not really the mayor and he
claims to be the mayor, without doing anything, he is
already liable for usurpation of authority because
number 1 is different from 2.
A person claims to be a policeman and wears the
uniform of the policeman while doing the functions of a
policeman, he is not only liable for usurpation of
authority and usurpation of public functions, he will also
be liable for illegal use of uniform or insignia.
In Gigantoni vs. PP, the petitioner was not accused of
usurpation of official functions. He was only indicted for
usurpation of authority.
USURPATION
ART. 178 – using fictitious name and concealing true
name (purpose must be to conceal a crime, evade a
judgment or cause public damage)
If Tomas Cruz changes his name to Tom Cruise
because he wants to be a Hollywood actor, would it be a
violation of 178? No. Because even if he is using a
fictitious name, he was not doing it in order to conceal a
crime or evading a judgment or cause public judgment.
If the person’s real name is Juan Dela Cruz but he is
known popularly as Jaguar.
Now because Jaguar is very common, he started
shedding of that name and went to another place and
adopted now his real name, which is Juan Dela Cruz.
The purpose was in order to conceal a crime. Is that a
violation under 178? No. because in one 178 you
must use a fictitious name. he was not using a
fictititous name. it was his real name.
What is the act? Must be using a fictitious name
Purpose of that act? Purpose must be to evade or
conceal a crime.
Be conscious of the element because if a crime has
several elements and one is missing there is no more
crime, or it is possible that it is only attempted or that the
crime is another crime.
For example, Juan used violence and intimidation in
order to get the cellphone with intent to gain. The crime
will be robbery. But, if he did not have intent to gain, he
used violence or intimidation in order to get a cellphone
that was borrowed by somebody or maybe rented by
somebody, there will be no more intent to gain because
he is the owner.
Will there be a crime? It will be a different crime. It will be
grave coercion. Once there is violence or intimidation
without intent to gain for the purpose of compelling
another to do something. Such as to give him the
cellphone.
If he uses violence or intimidation with intent to gain in
getting the cellphone but he was not able to get the
cellphone, the crime will be attempted robbery. See?
And that’s the beauty of the elements because any
change or any lapse in the elements might give rise to
another crime, might give rise to an attempted stage or
even no crime.
Going back to 178, you do not only talk about using the
purpose which is to conceal a crime, even if the purpose
is to conceal a crime, there has to be another element
which is the use of an alias .
ART. 179 – illegal use of uniform or insignia
CA 142, AAB RA 6085 – Anti Alias Law
FALSE TESTIMONIES
ART. 180 – false testimony against a defendant
ART. 181 – false testimony favorable to the
defendant
ART. 182 – false testimony in civil cases
FIRST PARAGRAPH ONLY OF 183
There is a hearing/trial. If the trial is criminal in nature,
it’s either we have a violation of 180 or 181. If the false
testimony favors the victim and against the accused it is
a crime that is punished under 180. But if it is in favor of
the accused, then it will be a crime under 181. Whether it
is in favor or not in favor, it is punished under 180/181.
If the case is a civil case, regardless of who it favors, it
will be punished under 182.
What matters is that it is a false testimony regardless of
who benefited from it.
It is not necessary that the testimony be actually be
considered by the Court in its decision.
ART. 183. FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES
AND PERJURY
The first paragraph talks about false testimony in other
case, meaning not civil, not criminal. What is this kind of
hearing? It can be labor, administrative or a case before
the Civil Service or maybe before the PRC.
What’s important is testimony is given in those cases as
a witness.
The second paragraph is more popular and it’s called
perjury. It has no relation to the first paragraph or the
preceding articles. This is a completely different thing.
This is not about testimony but executing an affidavit,
which is false.
Affidavit is a statement under oath/sworn statement
wherein the person giving the statement swears to the
truthfulness and the veracity of the contents.
When you say something that is not true, when does it
become perjury and falsification? Here you have to
remember this is not something verbally done. Unlike in
181, 182 & 183 first paragraph, those can be verbally
done. But here and falsification, these are not verbally
done but in written documents.
ELEMENTS OF PERJURY 2nd paragraph of 183:
1. Accused made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit
a. Falsification – it must not be under oath.
It can be public, notarized, but the one
executing it doesn’t say that you are
swearing to its veracity.
b. Affidavit as a sworn statement -
“subscribed and sworn to before…” –
jurac. If this is a jurac, that means that
the document is a sworn statement.
c. But if the bottom part contains “before
me personally appeared…”, that portion
is called an acknowledgment. You do
not swear to it, you jut acknowledged
that you were the one who appeared
and executed the document.
d. If it is an acknowledgment, it is a public
document wherein any falsehood
constitutes falsification.
2. It pertains to a material matter
a. E.g if you say that, I Juan Dela Cruz, 25
years old but actually you are 75 years
old, if it is not connected to the matter, it
will not be perjury. Is there something
wrong, false? Yes. Will it be perjury?
No. for it to be perjury, there must be
the other elements. If it is not
material, there is not perjury.
b. It must be the main fact. If it is not, then
it is not material.
3. It was made before a competent officer
4. There is a deliberate assertion of falsehood
5. It is required by law
a. Maghimo lang kag affidavit, I Juan Dela
Cruz, I am the owner of USC. “Nganong
naghimo man ka?” Wala lang, trip
b. Is that perjury? No. because you do not
need it, nobody is requiring you to
execute that affidavit. You’re not even
transacting it. Is that notarized? Yes,
but that alone will not make it perjury.
This is about executing an affidavit where the affidavit
was false; a statement under oath wherein the person
giving the statement swears to the truthfulness and the
veracity of the contents
MATERIAL MATTER is the main fact, which is the
subject
ART. 185 MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
There are two acts punished under this article: in
common usage, the term is buy-out.
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration
from refraining from taking part
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
Note: in both instances, there must be a public auction
Also punished under other laws such as procurement
law because now under this law, there has to be bidding.
In a buy out for example, if there are 5 bidders and the
contract is for making a bridge even if there is no river,
there’s going to be a construction of a bridge so there
will be contractors, unless they call it that there’s a
negotiated contract meaning there is no other person or
entity capable of doing it. But otherwise, if the work or
the project to be done, if it is not something new or
specialized, there has to be at least 3 bidders. Let’s say
that there are 3 bidders. One bidder will buy-out
meaning they will give them money so that they will bid
higher. So if they will bid higher, they will not win. Tuyo-
on ba, so that the others will not win. There are in fact
contractors who have very high ratings for purposes of
document pleadings but actually do not have skills or
even the equipment. What they do is they just participate
in biddings so that they can make money form buy-outs.
Nonetheless, there has to be a public auction but there
is a special penal law on this.
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENSY AND GOOD
CUSTOMS
ART. 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL – is any highly
scandalous act offensive to morals and good customs
and committed publicly OR within the knowledge and
view of the public
Not necessarily a specific act. To constitute grave
scandal, what is necessary is the test of an act. So in
grave scandal, it can be any act, same as unjust
vexation, what we are after here is what is the effect.
Whether or not the act results in a highly scandalous act
that is offensive to the morals and public customs. Or an
act done, highly scandalous act, which is done within the
knowledge or view of the public. so therefore, when a
couple or maybe more than a couple have sex in the
confines of their private houses, that is not per se
immoral. But it becomes highly scandalous if it is
performed in view of the public. Or if it is an act which is
highly offensive. It may not be sexual, but in the context
of Philippine culture. Diba when we say grave scandal
it’s always sexual, but it may not be. The law does not
limit itself to scandal which is sexual in nature.
Note: it applies only when there is no other felony
committed. It is a catch-all provision
Punishes everything that shocks the audience or the
morals.
Grave scandal must be directed to the sense of decency
or good customs and NOT on property. Public view is
not always necessary as long as the act performed as in
a public place.
For example if you commit vandalism, that is a crime
against property. But what you drew is something that is
shocking, that will not only be vandalism that would also
be grave scandal.
ART. 201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND INDECENT
SHOWS
Supplemented by many other special penal laws. By
publication it may be through radio, TV, print or whatever
media. It may even be live exhibitions for example.
Note: mere possession of obscene literature is not
punishable. Possession must be coupled with
publishing, exhibiting and distribution
Under 201, mere possession of the playboy magazine is
not a crime because in order that we have a violation of
201 it must be public, published. There must be
distribution or making known to the public. If you just
keep it inside your room for your personal consumption,
there is no crime. However, we have to relate with the
special penal law; child pornography.
However, RA 9775 punishes mere possession of child
porn materials.
But if you have a magazine of porn stars for example,
mere possession is not a crime. But if children, mere
possession is a crime.
Mangraid ug dirty bars, mga striptease joint, these fall
under 201 but this may not only be the crime committed.
While it is true that we have this law, there are other
crimes that are already punished under special penal
laws. So there may be other penal crimes such as
human trafficking.
ART. 202, first paragraph has already been repealed
which refers to vagrancy. In 2012, vagrancy has
already been decriminalized. However, paragraph 2 of
Article 202 has still been retained which refers to
prostitution.
But if you look at the definition of prostitution, you
will see that only women can commit the crime of
prostitution. Men cannot commit the crime.
VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
 Under the RPC, prostitutes are penalized
 Under 9208, aab RA 10364, trafficked sexual
workers are considered victims
 Under the RPC, only women can be considered
prostitutes
 Prostitutes under the RPC requires habituality in
engaging in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
 Can Art. 202, RPC be reconciled with RA 9208, aab
RA 10364?
 In April 2012, vagrancy was decriminalized
Now there is another special penal law, which refers to
human trafficking. Here, the crime consists of women
who are recruited and made to work as commercial sex
workers. Many prostitutes have been recruited maybe
willingly or unwillingly. They go into the job into the
commercial sex work. Now according to this law which is
the human trafficking law, the act of recruiting, in order
that the person recruited will be made to work for sexual
or whatever purpose, the recruiter will be criminally
liable.
Take a look at Art. 202. Here, the one who is criminally
liable is not the manager, it is the prostitute herself. It’s
not even the customer. So if a customer hires a
prostitute peddled by the bugaw, if the 3 of them will be
caught, under the RPC, the only one who goes to jail is
the prostitute. That’s under the revised penal code. The
customer will get away with it.
There used to be a time, not very long ago when the
entrapment operations because how do you commit
prostitution? You will engage in sexual. How do you
catch, at least in the mind of the police, a person who is
engaging in sexual conduct? According to them, you
have to participate. So they conduct entrapment
operations wherein somebody will act as the decoy,
kumbaga sa drugs pani, pusher buyer, he will participate
in the entrapment operations by acting as the customer.
Why? The logic is that they will not go to jail since under
the RPC only the prostitute is punished.
Here comes the trafficking law, the one who uses a
trafficked person, is now liable. In contrast, the
prostitute, the trafficked person will not be liable.
If the prostitute is a trafficking victim, only the manager,
the bugaw, the pimp and the customer can be held liable
under the human trafficking law. But if the prostitute is
not a trafficking victim, the human trafficking law will not
apply. What will apply is RPC, Art. 2 wherein even the
user/customer will not incur criminal liability.
In prostitution, it is not required that there be sexual
intercourse; mere lascivious conduct can be prostitution.
For example, karaoke with the GRO or something like
that who engaged not in the usual service like food but
rendering extra services. Although the services are not
sexual, but provided it is already lascivious, that is
already prostitution.
TITLE 7 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
ART. 203 – WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS (by
provision of law, popular election or appointment)
Crimes committed by this are prosecuted under special
penal laws. Not anymore under the revised penal code
because the penalties there are lesser compared to RA
3019, which we will also take up. By the time we will take
up 3019, we will also be making cross-reference to
article 7.
So these are crimes committed by public officers. Who
are public officers? When we discuss title 3, direct
assault and indirect assault, we made it clear that
persons in authority may not be public officials. Agents
of PA may also be not public officials.
When can a person be an agent of a person in
authority? If he comes to the aid of a person in authority.
When does the private person becomes a person in
authority? When he is a lawyer/professor or victim of
rebellion/sedition.
But now we are not talking about persons in authority.
That is only in reference to DA and IDA. Here, we are
talking about public officers, provided that they derive
their office by election, appointment or by operation of
law.
 Notes: for malversation (Arts. 217-221), “public
officers” include those mentioned in Art. 222.
 For RA 3019, “public officers” has a wider scope and
includes temporary, contractual, casual employees
or those receiving compensation from the
government
E.g office of the konsehal has been vacated, under the
LGC, which is a law, there will be a replacement. And
who is that replacement? It will be determined by the
Sanggunian. Not elected by the public in general, but
elevated into the office by law. If he becomes such, he is
also considered a public officer. These are the ways in
which a person can become a public officer.
 In Maniego vs. People, SC held that it is not the
nature of the appointment but the duties performed
that is determinative of whether a person is
considered a public officer or not.
What are the crimes that involve public officers:
MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE
1. Malfeasance- is the doing of something which is
wrong and should not be done (the worst since it
should have not be done)
2. Misfeasance – is the doing of an act which may
be performed but is done erroneously
3. Non-feasance is the omission to do an act that
should be done
ARTS. 204-207 can be committed by judges only:
ART. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
In order to be criminal, we need the word, “knowingly”.
Just because the judgment is unjust, does not
necessarily make the act a crime. It may give rise though
to an administrative sanction. If the judgment is unjust
but there is no malice in it, there may necessarily be no
crime.
ART. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
Still unjust judgment but not deliberate/malicious. There
is negligence involved but ignorance alone will not
necessarily make the act criminal. Ignorance of the law
by the judge may give rise only to administrative
sanctions. In order to be criminal, it must be negligence.
ART. 206. Unjust interlocutory order
Different from a judgment because in a judgment, it
results in the termination of a case.
Here, the case is still there but there is an order which
does not terminate the case being issued by the court.
E.g Juan, you are deemed to have waived your right to
cross-examine. If the order is unjust, that is an example
of unjust interlocutory order. But the case is not
dismissed, you are just not allowed to cross examine a
witness.
ART. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice
If not malicious, then there is no crime. Malicious is the
important element. E.g the accused has been
languishing in jail for years, nganong wa man ma
hearing? Because there’s no judge or prosecutor. That
will not result in a crime.
VILLAROSA VS. YADAO
“it is well-settled that a judge’s failure to interpret the law
or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does
not necessarily render him liable.
Only errors tainted with fraud, dishonest, gross
ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice
will be sanctioned.
(In this case, the Court ruled that a violation can only
give rise to administrative sanction and only the OCA
can impose such sanctions. Varies from Yasin vs. Felix)
But just because the judge committed a mistake, it does
not mean that he can be criminally or even
administratively sanctioned. That’s the reason why we
have appeals. Why do we have appeal? Because we are
saying that the judge in the lower court is wrong. But that
does not necessarily mean he is liable.
YASIN VS. FELIX
Not every error of judgment can be attributable to a
judge’s ignorance of the law. A judge may not be
charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence xxx.
In order to be liable, there must be bad faith, malice or
corrupt purpose
LOYOLA VS. GABO
For granting bail in a murder case, the judge was held
liable only for gross ignorance of the law. He was relived
form charges of knowingly rendering unjust interlocutory
order.
The quantum of proof required for knowingly rendering
an unjust judgment is …
Granted bail without a hearing. He failed to do it, so he
could have been liable for knowingly rendering unjust
interlocutory order but, in order to be liable for the
crime, there has to be malice. And in this case malice
was not proven so he was not punished.
ART. 208 – penalizes dereliction of office by prosecutor,
by maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution, or
tolerating the commission of offense
Again note the word maliciously. This is very important
because the rules say that nobody, can compel a
prosecutor to file or not to file a case. That decision
belongs to the DOJ. So the courts cannot intervene.
However, if a crime has been proven, if there is evidence
that indeed, this person has committed a crime, it is
beyond question, then failure of the prosecutor to file a
case, and if that failure is attended with malice, then he
can be criminally liable. So it is not enough reason to say
that he has the discretion. Discretion only means that he
can decide whether there is probable cause. Once there
is probable cause but despite that he does not file a
case, that will give rise to a crime, but if there is no
evidence yet, the walay magbuot sa fiscal. But once it is
established, you must have to file. Failure to do so will
become criminal.
ART. 209 punishes prevaricacion or betrayal of trust by
an attorney
Note: prevaricacion covers any dereliction of duty
whereby the public officer violates his oath of office.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION:
Distinctions between bribery and corruption:
The legal meaning is different in common usage. If we
say bribe, it refers to the one who gives. It pertains to the
act of giving. When you say corrupt, it pertains to the act
of receiving. But the legal meaning of bribery is not
the act of giving. It is the act of receiving. If you
receive something, you will not be liable for
corruption but bribery. But if you are the one who is
giving, you will be liable for corruption. It is the baliktad
of the common understanding of the terms.
 Direct bribery – in connection with the performance
of his official duties
o We refer to the act of giving or receiving
something and that thing which is received
has something to do with the performance or
the non-performance of an official function.
So there is kind of a condition. Something is
subject to a condition and that condition
must have something to do with the official
function. Whether it is the performance or
non-performance of the official. It is
connected with the performance or
nonperformance of official functions.
ELEMENTS OF DIRECT BRIBERY
1. The offender is a public officer
2. The offender accepts an offer, promise or gift or
present by himself or through another
3. Such offer or promise or gift or present be
received by the public officer with a view to
committing some crime, or in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain
from doing something which it is his official duty
to do and
4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or
which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties
 Indirect bribery – given by “reason of his office”
 In Direct bribery, mere promises are sufficient but
not in indirect bribery.
o There is no such connection. It is given by
virtue of the public office. “You are the
mayor, I will let you go to Vegas and watch
the fight of pacquiao.”
o Is it connected? NO. but still it is punished
as indirect bribery.
 How to people get away with that? If the purpose of
the giving was because of a close friendship, they
can get away with it. Because why do you give? He
is my friend. But why do you give? Because he is the
chief of police? That is not alright even if there is no
connection.
 In direct bribery, a mere promise will already
consummate a crime. It doesn’t have to be money.
It doesn’t have to be a thing. It can be a promise.
Example: “I will give you 20% commission if I can
sell this shabu. Provide that you will not intercept the
shabu”
 Let’s say you are the police or customs official: you
are asked to let the contraband pass outside of the
xray, so ayaw gamiti ug xray and I will give you this
much.
 You did not receive anything yet. It’s just a promise.
That is already direct bribery because it is a favor
that is being asked and that is in relation to the
performance or non-performance of a public
function.
 WHAT IF, you did not receive anything? It does not
matter. A promise will already consummate the
crime provided that you acted accordingly.
 Not true with indirect bribery, there has to be
something. Mere promise is not enough.
 Can a lawyer of PAO be liable if he accepts a
parcel of land?
o What was the consideration of the land?
o If promise, “if I win I will give you this?”
o Yes that’s already bribery. You are going
to receive something in relation to your
function.
= Ang ni promise nga mohatag, can commit bribery but
the one who did not receive, is not liable for corruption
but contraband (?)
SC: on the meaning of acceptance. In order to be
liable for bribery, you must receive or accept (if no
money yet, just promises)
POZAR VS. CA
DIRECT BRIBERY FROM INDIRECT BRIBERY
In both crimes, the public officer receives a gift. While
in direct bribery, there is an agreement between po and
the giver of the gift, in indirect bribery, usually, no such
agreement exists.
In direct bribery, there is an agreement to do or not to
do. In indirect, there is no agreement because the
purpose is by reason of the office. In direct bribery, the
offender agrees to perform or refrain from doing
something because of the gift or the promise.
That is not required in indirect bribery. If there is no
acceptance, the crime would only be attempted
corruption. If the money is accepted, there will be 2
crimes: bribery, corruption.
In Pozar also, good faith is a defense. Because here he
gave something and he was charged with corruption, the
reason was he thought nga katong money will be used
for photo-copying, he never intended the money to go to
the pocket.
ATTEMPTED CORRUPTION IF NO BERIBERY
this one is very important, Formelleza (?) teacher who
wants to be promoted, somebody told her that you have
to be friends with this higher ranking official. And so
there was somebody I think who acted like the bridge or
the broker so that the applicant and supervisor will meet.
There was really no agreement, no meeting of the
minds. The applicant was told to give something, but the
one who made the agreement with her was not the
accused but a third person who suggested that I will
arrange a meeting between the 2 of you and this is what
you will do.
So they met at Jollibee and gave an envelope. Then the
accused accepted it and got arrested (the supervisor).
SC said that yes, you were meeting and that the
supervisor received, but what was the purpose of the
receiving? Does it have something to do with a favor in
relation to a public function? Because that was not
proven. What was only proven was that there was
something under the table nga gidawat. So in this case,
SC clarified that in order to constitute receiving, there
must be that intention, clear intention on the part of
the public officer to take the gift and consider it his
own.
If the money offered was not accepted, the crime would
only be attempted corruption
Meaning of “receiving” in bribery. The essential
ingredient of direct bribery is that the public officer must
have accepted the gift or material consideration. There
must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer
to take the gift and consider the same thing as his own
property from then on, such as putting away the fit for
safekeeping or pickpocketing the same. Mere physical
receipt unaccompanied y any other sign, circumstance
or act is not enough to show that the crime of indirect
bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will
encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public
officers by simply putting within their physical custody
some gift, money or property.
PP VS. FRANCISCO
BRIBERY FROM ROBBERY
Accused, a sanitary inspector, discovered dirty lard from
victim’s store. He threatened to take it to the municipal
building unless the victim pays him an amount. The
victim paid, but later the accused returned with a
policeman when the victim told others about the incident.
As the lard was already learning, accused secretly
dropped cigarette ashes thereto.
Bribery is voluntary while robbery is neither voluntary nor
mutual.
When you receive something voluntarily given in
consideration of doing something that is bribery there is
willingness on the part of the giver. But in this case, the
only reason why the giver gave something was because
he was threatened = intimidation. When you take
something with intent to gain, that becomes robbery.
You employed extortion = robbery. If the reason why the
person gave money was because imong gihadlok, that is
not bribery, that’s robbery which means to say that the
giver will not be liable for corruption because the giver is
actually a victim of robbery.
US VS. JADER
BRIBERY FROM ESTAFA
A municipal official who demands and exacts gifts from
persons under promise to relieve them from certain
obligations to the municipality is guilty of estafa and not
of bribery
In this case, it’s not robbery. What happens here
is iyang gi ilad. The means used here is not intimidation,
but fraud. It’s as if he swindled. SC said that is not
bribery, that is estafa. When there is fraud or swindling,
the crime will become estafa. When there is intimidation
or extortion, the crime will be robbery.
In estafa/robbery/extortion, the giver will have no
liability. In bribery, whether direct or indirect, the giver
will be guilty of corruption. But not always, remember
entrapment where the giver participates but not for the
purpose of committing a crime but catching it. If the
entrapment is valid, the giver who participates will not be
liable.