Title 7. Chapter 1 &2. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICER

Question 1

“public officers” definition

Answer 1

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 vs. People, 88 Phil. 494)

Question 2

Requisites to be a public officer,

Answer 2

To be a public officer, one must be —
(1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the Government, or
(2) Performing in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
(3)That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must be —
a. by direct provision of the law, or
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority.

Question 3

doctrine in the cases of Maniego vs. People and People vs. Paloma, infra.

Answer 3

One appointed as laborer in the government is not a public officer.
That a government laborer is not a public officer may be inferred from the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Maniego vs. People and People vs. Paloma, infra.

Question 4

What are the crimes classified under malfeasance and misfeasance
in office?

Answer 4

The crimes classified under malfeasance and misfeasance in office
are:
(1) Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. (Art. 204)
(2) Rendering judgment through negligence. (Art. 205)
(3) Rendering unjust interlocutory order. (Art. 206)
(4) Malicious delay in the administration of justice. (Art. 207)
(5) Dereliction of duty in prosecution of offenses. (Art. 208)
(6) Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor — revelation of secrets. (Art. 209)
(7) Direct bribery. (Art. 210)
(8) Indirect bribery. (Art. 211)

Question 5

Misfeasance, defined.

Answer 5

“Misfeasance” is the improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done.

Question 6

Malfeasance, defined

Answer 6

“Malfeasance” is the performance of some act which ought not to be done.

Question 7

Nonfeasance, defined

Answer 7

“Nonfeasance” is the omission of some act which ought to be performed.

Question 8

Elements of knowingly rendering unjust judgment

Answer 8

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;
4. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

Question 9

Judgment, defined.

Answer 9

A judgment is the final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to it, in an action or proceeding.

Question 10

Unjust judgment, defined

Answer 10

An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law, or is not supported by the evidence, or both.

Question 11

Source of unjust judgment

Answer 11

The source of unjust judgment may be either (a) error or (b) ill-will or revenge, or (c) bribery.

Question 12

Elements of Article 205 Judgment rendered through negligence

Answer 12

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 manifestly unjust.
4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Question 13

What is a “manifestly unjust judgment”?

Answer 13

It is so manifestly contrary to law, that even a person having a meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice.

Question 14

Elements of article 206 Unjust interlocutory order

Answer 14

1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
   a. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
   b. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

Question 15

Interlocutory order, defined.

Answer 15

An interlocutory order is an order which is issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue.

Question 16

Elements of Article 207 malicious delay in the administration of justice

Answer 16

1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That there is a proceeding in his court;
3. That he delays the administration of justice;
4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case.

Question 17

Acts punishable under Article 208 prosecution of offenses (dereliction of duty)

Answer 17

Acts punishable:
1. By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against
violators of the law.
2. By maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.

Question 18

negligence as defined in article 107

Answer 18

The word “negligence” simply
means “neglect of the duties of his office by maliciously failing to move the
prosecution and punishment of the delinquent.”

Question 19

Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses (Article 208)

Answer 19

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 (People vs. Rosales, G.R. No. 42648) or knowing that a crime
   is about to be committed, he tolerates its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.

Question 20

Who can be the offenders in Art. 208?

Answer 20

The offender under Art. 208 is either (a) a public officer, or (b) an officer of the law.
The phrase “officer of the law” includes all those who, by reason of the position held by them, are duty-bound to cause the prosecution and punishment of the offenders.

Question 21

Acts punished as Art 209 betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor-revelation of secrets

Answer 21

1. By causing damage to his client, either (1) by any malicious breach of professional duty, (2) by inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
   Note: When the attorney acts (1) with malicious abuse of his employment or (2) inexcusable negligence or ignorance, there must be damage to his client.
2. By revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity.
   Note: Damage is not necessary.
3. By undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client or after having received confidential information from said client.

Question 22

Acts punishable in article 210 direct bribery:

Answer 22

A public officer commits direct bribery —

1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present — an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties.
2. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duty .
3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of gift or promise.

Question 23

Elements of direct bribery:

Answer 23

a. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art. 203.
b. That the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another.
c. That such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the public officer —
(1) with a view to committing some crime; or
(2) in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or
(3) to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do.

d. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.

Question 24

In direct bribery under the 2nd paragraph, is the mere promise to give a gift and a mere promise to execute an act not constituting a crime sufficient?

Answer 24

Under the 2nd paragraph of Sec. 210, if the gift was accepted by the public officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, there are two penalties provided:
(1) prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not/ less than the value of the gift and not more than three times such value — if the offender executed said act;
(2) arresto mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not more than twice such value — if said act shall not have been accomplished

Question 25

Direct bribery under the 3rd paragraph of Art. 210.

Answer 25

In this kind of direct bribery, the object for which the gifts is received
or promised is to make the public officer refrain from doing something which
it is his official duty to do.

Question 26

Does rendering unjust judgment apply to members of a collegiate court?

Answer 26

Respondents should know that the provisions of Art. 264 as to “rendering knowingly unjust judgment” refer to an individual judge who does so “in any case submitted to him for decision” and even then, it is not the prosecutor who would pass judgment on the “unjustness” of the decision rendered by him but the proper appellate court with jurisdiction to review the same, either the Court ofAppeals and/or the Supreme Court. Respondents should likewise know that said penal article has no application to the members of a collegiate court such as this Court or its Divisions who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation.

Question 27

Must crime be proved before for conviction dereliction?

Answer 27

The crime committed by the law-violator must be proved first. If the guilt ofthe law-violator is not proved, the person charged with dereliction of duty under this article is not liable. (U.S. vs. Mendoza, supra)

Question 28

Is deviliction of duty applicable to revenue officers?

Answer 28

No. Officers, agents or employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who, having knowledge or information of a violation of the Internal Revenue Law, fail to report such knowledge or information to their superiors, shall be punished under that law, not under this provision.

Question 29

What is a procurador judicial?

Answer 29

A procurador judicial is a 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, 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.

Question 30

to constitute the crime ofbribery (of the first form) as provided in this article, four things are necessary:

Answer 30

That the defendant be a public officer according to the meaning of this term in Article 401 (Art. 203);
That he has received either personally or through another gifts or presents or accepted offers or promises;
That such reception of gifts or presents or acceptance of offers or promises has been for the purpose of executing a crime; and
That the act constituting the crime relates to the exercise of the office which the public officer discharges.
All these must concur. (U.S. vs. Gimenea, 24 Phil. 470)

Question 31

Is a promise to give gift to, and a promise to commit an unlawful act by, a public officer ‘ sufficient in direct bribery under the first paragraph of Art. 210.

Answer 31

It is sufficient that a promise or offer was made to the public officer to give him money if he would commit an unlawful act in connection with the performance of his official duties and that he agreed to commit the unlawful act in consideration of the promise or offer.

Question 32

Does it have to bea statutory to be duty the under of purview direct bribery?

Answer 32

The act need not, however, be statutory duty; it is sufficient if the action to be affected by the bribe be part of the established procedure of a governmental agency.

It is not bribery if the act is in discharge of a mere moral duty

But if the act agreed to be performed is so foreign to the duties of the office as to lack even color of authority, there is. no bribery

Question 33

In direct bribery under the 2nd paragraph, is the mere promise to give a gift and a mere promise to execute an act not constituting a crime sufficient?

Answer 33

a mere agreement or promise on the part of the public officer to execute an act nor constituting a crime is not a violation of the provision in the 2nd paragraph of Art. 210.

Question 34

What if direct bribery is committed by refraining from doing an act the public officer commits a crime.

Answer 34

It must be noted that if the act of refraining from doing something, which is the official duty of the officer, constitutes a crime in itself, the bribery should not be punished under this paragraph but under paragraph 1 of Art. 210.

Question 35

Prevaricacion distinguished from bribery.

Answer 35

The third form of direct bribery (Art. 210) is committed by refraining from doing something which pertains to the official duty of the officer. Prevaricacion (Art. 208) is committed in the same way.
In this regard, the two felonies are similar.
But they differ in that in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary in the crime of prevaricacion.

Question 36

Elements of indirect bribery

Answer 36

1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he accepts gifts.
3. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office

Question 37

Will there be indirect bribery, if a public officer accepts a promise of gifts made to him by reason of his office?

Answer 37

Art. 211 does not use the word “promise,” but the phrase “shall gifts.

Question 38

Is there: attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.

Answer 38

Indirect bribery has no attempted or frustrated stage of execution, because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public officer by reason of his office. If he does not accept the gifts; he does not commit the crime. If he accepts the gifts, it is consummated.

Question 39

Distinguish direct bribery from indirect bribery

Answer 39

In both crimes, the public officer receives gift.
While in direct bribery there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or present, in indirect bribery, usually, no such agreement exists.
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 is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office, (cited in Pozar vs. Court of Appeals, 132 SCRA 729)

Question 40

Distinguish indirect bribery from direct bribery under the 2nd par. of Art. 210.

Answer 40

The case of People vs. Pamplona, C.A., 51 O.G. 4116, might be mistaken for a case of direct bribery under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 210, because there was an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift and that the act which the public officer executed did not constitute a crime. But in direct bribery under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 210, the act executed must be unjust. In the Pamplona case, the act executed by the accused (preparing the voucher) was not unjust.

Question 41

Elements of qualified bribery

Answer 41

1. 2.
   3.
   That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
   That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death;
   That the offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, gift or present.

Question 42

Elements ofcorruption of publicofficials

Answer 42

1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer.
2. That the 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.

Question 43

How is bribery proved?

Answer 43

In view of the fact that it is hard to prove bribery, for the briber himself is punished by law and he is usually the only one who could give direct evidence, ways and means are resorted to, to catch the public officer while he is in the act of obtaining bribes. This is known as entrapment.

Question 44

Which crimes ave malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance?

Answer 44

Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are misfeasances in office that a judge can commit.
Nos. 7 and 8 are malfeasances in office that a public officer can commit.
No. 5 is nonfeasance.

Question 45

What are thesources of unjustjudgment?

Answer 45

Error with bad faith
Ill will or revenge
Bribery

Question 46

15 dereliction of duty applicable to revenue officers?

Answer 46

Officers, agents or employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who, having knowledge or information of a violation of the Internal Revenue Law, fail to report such knowledge or information to their superiors, shall be punished under that law, not under this provision.

Question 47

Should the gift or present be actually received to be liable of direct bribery?

Answer 47

In the 1st paragraph of Art. 210, the law uses the phrase “in consideration of any offer, promise,” etc. Hence, a promise of gift to a public officer who accepts such promise is sufficient.
But in the 2nd paragraph of Art. 210, the law uses the phrase “the gift was accepted by the officer.”
The words “offer” and “promise” are not used in the 2nd paragraph.

Question 48

Prevaricacion distinguished from bribery.

Answer 48

The third form of direct bribery (Art. 210) is committed by refraining from doing something which pertains to the official duty of the officer. Prevaricacion (Art. 208) is committed in the same way.
In this regard, the two felonies are similar.
But they differ in that in bribery, the offender refrained from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift received or promised. This element is not necessary in the crime of prevaricacion

Question 49

Elements of Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. .

Answer 49

1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer.
2. That the 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.

Question 50

How is bribery proved?

Answer 50

Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired in entrapment.