Special Penal Laws; Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and

Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (P.D. No. 1829)

Punishable Acts

The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by
committing any of the following acts:

(1) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of
any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats;

(2) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;

(3) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground
to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;

(4) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;

(5) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

(6) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and
with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases;

(7) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;

(8) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition,
whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;

(9) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information
and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the
court.

| Page 1 of 3
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher
penalty shall be imposed. [Section 1, P.D. No. 1829]

Qualifying Circumstance

If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the
penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office. [Section 2,
P.D. No. 1829]

Distinguished from Article 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal liability)

The exemption in Article 20, RPC is based on the ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of
one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in
this article.

An accessory is exempt from criminal liability when the principal is his:

1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate,natural or adopted brother, sister, or relative by affinity within the same degree.

Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him if he:

1. Profited by the effects of the crime, or

2. Assisted the offender to profit by the effect of the crime.

The punishable acts in PD 1829, compared to RPC Art. 20 are prompted by a detestable greed, not by
affection. The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829.

x x x It is a surprise to hear from petitioner who is a member of the bench to argue that unserved
warrants are tantamount to another violation of the law re: "obstruction of justice." Petitioner is like
saying that every accused in a criminal case is committing another offense of "obstruction of justice" if
and when the warrant of arrest issued for the former offense/ charge is unserved during its life or
returned unserved after its life – and that the accused should be charged therewith re: "obstruction of
justice." What if the warrant of arrest for the latter charge ("obstruction of justice") is again unserved
during its life or returned unserved? To follow the line of thinking of petitioner, another or a second
charge of "obstruction of justice" should be filed against the accused. And if the warrant of arrest issued
on this second charge is not served, again, a third charge of "obstruction of justice" is warranted or
should be filed against the accused. Thus, petitioner is effectively saying that the number of charges for
"obstruction of justice" is counting and/or countless, unless and until the accused is either arrested or
| Page 2 of 3
voluntarily surrendered. We, therefore, find the position taken by petitioner as contrary to the intent and
spirit of the law on "obstruction of justice."

As correctly observed by the CA, the facts of the case, as portrayed by petitioner, do not warrant the
filing of a separate information for violation of Section 1(e) of PD No. 1829. This Court agrees with the
CA that based on the evidence presented by petitioner, the failure on the part of the arresting officer/s to
arrest the person of the accused makes the latter a fugitive from justice and is not equivalent to a
commission of another offense of obstruction of justice. [Judge Adoracion Angeles v. Hon. Manuel
Gaite, G.R. No. 165276, November 25, 2009)

| Page 3 of 3