CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC

OFFICERS
LEGAL SOURCES:

▪ Revised Penal Code (relevant provisions of Act No. 3815 as

amended)
▪ Special Penal Laws (e.g., relevant provisions of RA 3019 [Anti-Graft
& Corrupt Practices Act], RA 6713 [Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees], RA 9745 [Anti-Torture
Act of 2009], RA 7080 [An Act Defining & Penalizing Plunder])
▪ Jurisprudence / Illustrative Cases
▪ Reyes, Criminal Law Book 2
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

PUBLIC OFFICER:

▪ Taking part in the performance of public functions in

the Government or performing in said Government or
any of its branches public duties as an employee,
agent, or subordinate official of any rank or class; and
▪ His authority is by: (i) direct provision of law, (ii)
popular election, or (iii) appointment by competent
authority
 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Things to consider:

▪ Under RPC, the crimes are grouped as follows:

▪ MALFEASANCE & MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE: (i) Knowingly rendering unjust
judgement [Art 204]; (ii) Rendering judgment through negligence [Art 205]; (iii)
Rendering unjust interlocutory order [Art 206]; (iv) Malicious delay in the
administration of justice [Art 207]; (v) Dereliction of duty in prosecution of
offenses [Art 208]; (vi) Betrayal of trust by an attorney - revelation of secrets
[Art 209]; (vii) Direct Bribery [Art 210]; (viii) Indirect Bribery [Art 211]; (ix)
Qualified Bribery [Art 211-A]; (x) Corruption of Public Officials [Art 212]
▪ FRAUDS & ILLEGAL EXACTIONS & TRANSACTIONS: (i) Frauds against
public treasury & similar offenses [Art 213]; (ii) Other frauds [Art 214]; (iii)
Prohibited transactions [Art 215]; (iv) Possession of prohibited interest [Art 216];
 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

▪ MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY: (i) Malversation by

appropriating, misappropriating, or permitting any other person to take public
funds or property [Art 217]; (ii) Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
[Art 218]; (iii) Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before
leaving the country [Art 219]; (iv) Illegal use of public funds or property [Art
220]; (v) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property [Art 221]
▪ INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS: (i) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
[Arts 223 & 224]; (ii) Infidelity in the custody of documents [Arts 226 to 228]; (iii)
Revelation of secrets [Arts 229 & 230]
▪ OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS: (i) Open
disobedience [Art 231]; (ii) Disobedience to superior officer [Art 232]; (iii)
Refusal of assistance [Art 233]; (iv) Refusal to discharge elective office [Art
234]; (v) Maltreatment of prisoners [Art 235]
 KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT [ART. 204]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a judge
▪ (ii) Renders a judgment in a case submitted for decision
▪ (iii) Judgment is unjust
▪ (iv) Judge knows that judgment is unjust

▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision mayor (6y & 1d to 12y) + perpetual absolute
 KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT [ART. 204]
Things to consider:

▪ Unjust judgment is one that is contrary to law or not supported by evidence or

both. To be liable, such unjust judgment must not proceed from mere error on
the part of the judge. The judge must be moved by bad faith, with conscious
and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
▪ Complainant cannot immediately lodge a case for unjust judgment (Art 204) or
unjust interlocutory order (Art 206) against a judge. There must be a prior
determination by a competent court (CA or SC in appeal, certiorari/prohibition
or administrative proceedings) that the subject judgment or interlocutory order
was unjust and was attended by malice.
▪ This applies only to individual judge, not to members of collegiate courts (ex.
CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, SC) who reach their conclusions in consultation
and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation
▪ Good faith is a defense
Art 204 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment / Essence / Elements /
Good faith as defense
 Art 204 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment / Elements / Unjust /
With knowledge & malice / Good faith as defense / Reason for Judicial Immunity
Prior judicial determination is required / Inapplicable to
members of collegiate courts / Reasons
Art 204 is inapplicable to members of collegiate courts
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE [ART. 205]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a judge
▪ (ii) Renders a judgment in a case submitted for decision
▪ (iii) Judgment is manifestly unjust
▪ (iv) Due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance

▪ PENALTY:
▪ Arresto mayor (1m & 1d to 6m) + temporary special
 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER [ART. 206]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a judge
▪ (ii.a) Knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; OR
▪ (ii.b) Renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree
due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance

▪ PENALTY:
▪ (ii.a) Arresto mayor minimum (1m to 2m) + suspension
▪ (ii.b) Suspension only
 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER [ART. 206]
▪ Judgement disposes of the main case while interlocutory
order decides some point/matter in the case (ex. order
granting preliminary injunction in a civil case for recovery of
property)
▪ Like Art 204, prosecution under this penal provision, as
held in In Re Borromeo requires prior judicial determination
by competent court in the appropriate proceeding.
Complainant cannot immediately lodge a case against the
judge if the subject interlocutory order has not been
examined, evaluated and passed upon by the appropriate
court in a certiorari/administrative proceedings yet.
Art 206 Unjust interlocutory order / Elements / Proof beyond reasonable doubt
 MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE [ART. 207]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a judge
▪ (ii) There is a proceeding in his/her court
▪ (iii) Judge delays the administration of justice
▪ (iv) Delay is malicious, caused by the judge with deliberate
intent to inflict damage on either party in a case

▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m)
 DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSES [ART. 208]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer or officer of the law with the duty to cause the
prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses
▪ (ii) There is dereliction of duties of office: knowing the commission of crime
he/she does not cause its prosecution or knowing that the crime is about to
be committed he/she tolerated its commission
▪ (iii) Offender acted with malice & deliberate intent to favor the violator of the
law
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) + suspension
▪ The crime committed by the law-violator must be proven first before the
public officer can be prosecuted under this penal provision
Art 208 Dereliction of prosecution duties/ Malice as element / Meaning of malice
Art 208 Dereliction of prosecution duties/ Elements / Crime committed by
law-violator be proven first
 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY ATTORNEY - REVELATION OF
SECRETS [ART. 209]
Things to consider:

▪ PUNISHABLE ACTS:
▪ (i) By causing damage to his/her client, either (1) by any malicious breach of
professional duty, (2) by inexcusable negligence or ignorance
▪ (ii) By revealing any of the secrets of his client learned in his/her professional capacity
▪ (iii) By undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the
consent of his/her first client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client or
after having received confidential information from said client
▪ OFFENDER:
▪ Attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a
case
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) or Fine 40K to 200K or both
▪ In addition to any administrative action/sanction
Art 209 Betrayal of Trust / Illustrative Case
Art 209 Betrayal of Trust / Illustrative Case
Art 209 Betrayal of Trust / Illustrative Case
 DIRECT BRIBERY [ART. 210]
Things to consider:

▪ PUNISHABLE ACTS: Public officer commits direct bribery by -

▪ (i) 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
▪ (ii) 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
▪ (iii) agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of gift or promise
▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender accepts an offer/promise or receives a gift/present by himself or through another
▪ (iii) Such acceptance or receipt was: (a) with a view to committing some crime; or (b) in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or (c) to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to
do
▪ (iv) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Punishable Act (i) : Prision mayor medium & maximum (8y & 1d to 12y) + Fine (value of the gift to 3x gift value) + special
temporary disqualification + penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon if committed
▪ Punishable Act (ii) if the act is executed : Prision mayor medium & maximum (8y & 1d to 12y) + Fine (value of the gift to 3x
gift value) + special temporary disqualification
▪ Punishable Act (ii) if the act is not accomplished : Prision correccional medium (2y 4m & 1d to 4y & 2m) + Fine (not less
than 2x gift value) + special temporary disqualification
▪ Punishable Act (iii) : Prision correccional maximum to Prision mayor minimum (4y 2m & 1d to 8y) + Fine (not less than 3x
gift value) + special temporary disqualification
Art 210 Direct Bribery / Elements / Act related to duty of office / Acceptance of gift
Art 210 Direct Bribery / Different modes of commission / Specific allegation
Direct Bribery (Art 210) vs. Indirect Bribery (Art 211)
Art 210 Direct Bribery vs. Section 3(b) RA 3019 / No double jeopardy / One
transaction may result to distinct & separate offenses
Art 210 Direct Bribery vs. Section 3(e) RA 3019 / Elements / Illustrative case
 INDIRECT BRIBERY [ART. 211]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender accepts gifts
▪ (iii) Gifts are offered to offender by reason of his/her
office
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional medium & maximum (2y 4m
& 1d to 6y) + Suspension + Public Censure
Art 211 Indirect Bribery / Acceptance of gift as essential element must be clear
Art 211 Indirect Bribery / Connivance is not necessary since
acceptance of gift is the one being punished
Art 211 Indirect Bribery / Elements / Subsequent return of gift is not exculpatory /
Accepting gift also liable under
Section 7(d) RA 6713
Art 211 Indirect Bribery / Gift can be in a form of borrowing vehicles
 QUALIFIED BRIBERY [ART. 211-A]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement
▪ (ii) Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting a person who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death
▪ (iii) Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting the person in
consideration of any promise, gift or present
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Penalty for the offense that was not prosecuted
▪ Death if the public officer was the one who demanded or asked
▪ In 2006, RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of death penalty & instead
provided: (i) reclusion perpetua if law uses RPC penalties; or (ii) life
imprisonment in other cases
 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS [ART. 212]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer
▪ (ii) 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
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted (bribery or indirect bribery)
▪ The offender is the giver of bribe
▪ Attempted corruption of public official is committed when the public officer
refused to be corrupted
Art 212 Corruption of Public Official / Attempted when the
public official refused to be corrupted
 FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY &
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS [ART. 213]
Things to consider:

▪ PUNISHABLE ACTS:
▪ (i) By 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
furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds (Art 213, Par 1)
▪ (ii) 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 (Art
213, Par 2a)
▪ (iii) 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 (Art
213, Par 2b)
▪ (iv) 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 imposts (Art 213, Par 2c)
 FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY &
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS [ART. 213]
▪ ELEMENTS (Frauds Against Public Treasury, Art 213, Par 1):
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender has taken advantage of his/her office, by intervening in
the transaction in official capacity
▪ (iii) Offender entered into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to (1)
furnishing supplies, (2) the making of contracts, or (3) the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or
funds
▪ (iv) Offender had intent to defraud the Government
 FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY &
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS [ART. 213]
▪ ELEMENTS (Illegal Exactions, Art 213, Par 2):
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts
▪ (ii) Offender engages in any of the 3 specified acts/omissions:
▪ (1) Demanded, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law; or
▪ (2) Failed voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for
any sum of money collected by him officially; or
▪ (3) Collected or received, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature different
FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY &
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS [ART. 213]
▪ PENALTY
▪ Prision correccional medium to Prision mayor
minimum (2y 4m & 1d to 8y) or 40K to 2M Fine or
both
▪ Collecting officer must issue the corresponding official
receipt
▪ When there is deceit in demanding greater fees than
those prescribed by law, the crime committed is estafa
and not illegal exaction
Art 213 (Par 2) Illegal Exactions / Illustrative case / Elements / Collection officer expansive in
scope / ‘Different from’ includes fees not authorized or allowed by law
Art 213 (Par 2) Illegal Exactions / Illustrative case / Failure to issue official receipt
 OTHER FRAUDS [ART. 214]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender takes advantage of his official position
▪ (iii) Offender commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in Arts. 315
to 318
▪ Arts. 315 to 318 cover the provisions defining & penalizing (1) estafa, (2)
other forms of swindling, (3) swindling a minor, and (4) other deceits
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Temporary special disqualification maximum to Perpetual special
disqualification
▪ Disqualification as a principal penalty can only be imposed by RTC (not
MTC) so RTC has jurisdiction over offenses involving this provision
 PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS [ART. 215]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is an appointive public officer (not elected)
▪ (ii) Offender becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction of
▪ exchange or speculation
▪ (iii) Transaction takes place within offender’s territorial jurisdiction
▪ (iv) Offender becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) or 40K to 200K
Fine or both
▪ This involves transaction of exchange or speculation, such as, buying
and selling stocks, commodities, land, etc., hoping to take advantage of an
expected rise or fall in price
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTEREST [ART. 216]
Things to consider:

▪ PERSONS LIABLE:
▪ (i) Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested in any
contract or business in which it was his official duty to intervene
▪ (ii) Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like manner, took
part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in
the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they had acted
▪ (iii) Guardians and executors who, in like manner, took part in any contract
or transaction connected with the property belonging to their wards or the
estate
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Arresto mayor medium to prision correccional minimum (2m & 1d to
2y & 4m) or 40K to 200K Fine or both
 SPL PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO ART. 216 OF RPC
▪ (1) RA 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act)
▪ Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
▪ xxx
▪ (h) Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from
having any interest.
▪ (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
▪ Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
▪ Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year
nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful
income.
▪ xxx
▪ The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or
dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
Sec 3(h) RA 3019 / 2 Modes of commission (Unlawful intervention & Prohibited interest) / Elements /
Conviction in a mode different than charged / Proper penalty (RA 3019 vs. LGC) / Conspiracy
Sec 3(h) RA 3019 / Elements / Modes / Prohibited interest of mayor in cockpit not crime
involving ‘moral turpitude’ / Guidelines for determining moral turpitude
Sec 3(h) RA 3019 / 2 Modes of commission (Unlawful intervention & Prohibited interest) / Elements /
Illustrative case Unlawful Intervention / Conspiracy dummy entity
 SPL PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO ART. 216 OF RPC
▪ RELEVANT SPL Provisions:
▪ (2) RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
▪ Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
▪ (a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly,
have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
▪ Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds
office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing
any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6)
months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of
the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is
punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter
statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in
the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 217]
Things to consider:

▪ PUNISHABLE ACTS:
▪ (i) By appropriating public funds or property
▪ (ii) By taking or misappropriating the same
▪ (iii) By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other
person to take such public funds or property
▪ (iv) By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property
▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender be a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of
office
▪ (iii) Funds or property were public in nature for which offender is accountable
▪ (iv) Offender appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them
 TABULAR SUMMARY OF PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION (ART 217)
AMOUNT INVOLVED (PhP) PENALTIES + ACCESSORY
1. 40K or below Prision Correccional medium & maximum (2y4m&1d to 6y) +
Fine equal to amount/value involved + Perpetual special
disqualification
2. More than 40K to 1.2M Prision Mayor minimum & medium (6y&1d – 10y) + Fine equal to
amount/value involved + Perpetual special disqualification
3. More than 1.2M to 2.4M Prision Mayor maximum & Reclusion Temporal minimum
(10y&1d to 14y&8m) + Fine equal to amount/value involved +
Perpetual special disqualification
4. More than 2.4M to 4.4M Reclusion Temporal medium & maximum (14y8m&1d to 20y) +
Fine equal to amount/value involved + Perpetual special
disqualification
5. More than 4.4M to 8.8M Reclusion Temporal maximum (17y4m to 20y) + Fine equal to
amount/value involved + Perpetual special disqualification
6. More than 8.8M Reclusion Perpetua (20y&1d to 40y imprisonment) + Fine equal
to amount/value involved + Perpetual special disqualification
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 217]
▪ For this provision to apply, the public officer must have the authority to
receive from the Government public funds/properties due to the nature of
his/her duties and is thus, directly accountable for it. This is different from
‘qualified charge’ like in the case where public officer had the custody of
the funds/property only because it was entrusted to him/her by a superior,
the latter officer being the one who is accountable for said funds/property.

▪ Private individuals may be held liable under the following circumstances:

▪ (i) Acted in conspiracy (or other criminal participation like accomplices or
abettors) with the guilty public officer
▪ (ii) Private individuals who, in any capacity whatsoever, have charge of
national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property, and
▪ (iii) Any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized
or deposited by public authority [Nos. (ii) & (iii) are specifically provided
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 217]
▪ Once the fund, though public in origin, becomes the property of a private person, this
article no longer applies. Like in the case of a municipal treasurer, who drew government
funds corresponding to the face value of the check which was previously endorsed by
the complainant, as payee of said check. In this particular case, the funds had already
become the private property of the complainant which the municipal treasurer was under
obligation to deliver to her. The municipal treasurer’s non-delivery of the money resulted,
not in the commission of the crime of malversation, but in the commission of the crime of
estafa. (Reyes citing People vs. Concepcion, 2 C.A. Rep. 1019)
▪ Private property, however, in very limited cases, may be involved in malversation. Article
222 of the RPC, made malversation applicable to administrator or depository of funds or
property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, "even if such property
belongs to a private individual." Such phrase denotes the express intention of the Penal
Code to make accountable public officers guilty of malversation not only of national,
provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property, but also of other funds or property,
even if they belong to private individuals, as long as such funds or property are placed in
their custody. (Reyes citing People vs. De la Serna, C.A., 40 O.G. Supp. 12, 159)
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 217]
▪ The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public
funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by
any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he
has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. The
effect would be, that the accountable public officer may be
convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage
in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.
(Reyes citing People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 856; De Guzman vs.
People, 119 SCRA 337; Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan, 149 SCRA 108)
▪ Though demand gives rise to the presumption, it is not an element
of the crime and conviction can still be had even without it for as
long as there is evidence to prove commission of malversation
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 217]
▪ The presumption can be rebutted if the accountable
officer can satisfactorily explain and prove by evidence
that he/she did not personally appropriate the
money/property (e.g., the money was applied to
legitimate purposes as shown by documents evidencing
transactions or property was razed by fire or had been
the subject of robbery committed by another person as
shown by evidence)
▪ The return of the funds malversed is not exculpatory but
it can be appreciated as mitigating circumstance in
imposing penalty if done promptly
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Mayor accountable public officer / Payment is not a defense/
Purpose of Demand / Conspiracy / Reduced penalty retroactive effect
Art 217 Malversation / Accountable Public Officer Defined / 2 Modes of Commission:
Intentional & Negligence / Conviction in a mode different from charged allowed
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Public property must be involved / Purpose of presumption /
Penalty dependent on the value
Art 217 Malversation by Negligence / Revision of penalty due to favorable amendatory laws
Art 217 Malversation / Presumption of law
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Presumption of misappropriation / Illustrative case
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Presumption of misappropriation / Illustrative case
Art 217 Malversation / Demand / No presumption without demand / Direct evidence needed
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Rebutted Presumption / No cash shortage only accounting error/
No receipt of money / No taking
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Rebutted Presumption
Art 217 Malversation / Rebutted Presumption / No personal use but legitimate operational expenses
Art 217 Malversation / Elements / Conspiracy / 2 Modes of Commission
Art 217 Malversation by Falsification / Elements / Conspiracy / 2 Modes of Commission /
Conviction in mode different from charged
Art 217 Malversation / 2 Modes of Commission / Conviction in mode different from charged/
Good faith as defense / Obedience to a lawful order
 FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER
ACCOUNTS [ART. 218]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender be a public officer, whether in the service or separated
therefrom
▪ (ii) Offender must be an accountable officer for public funds or property
▪ (iii) Offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the
Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor
▪ (iv) Offender fails to do so for a period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) or 40K to 1.2M Fine or
both
Art 218 Failure to Render Account / Elements / Illustrative Case / Demand not necessary
Art 218 Failure to Render Account / Elements compare to Sec 3(e) RA 3019 / Demand not necessary /
Return or restitution as mitigating circumstance
 FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER TO RENDER
ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY [ART. 219]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) Offender must be an accountable officer for public funds or
property
▪ (iii) Offender must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of
leaving) the Philippines without securing from the Commission
on Audit a certificate showing that his/her accounts have been
finally settled
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Arresto mayor (1m & 1d to 6m) or 40K to 200K Fine or both
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 220]
Things to consider:
▪ Commonly referred to as “Technical Malversation”
▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) There is public fund or property under offender’s administration
▪ (iii) Such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or
ordinance
▪ (iv) Offender applies the same to a public use other than that for which
such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) or Fine ranging from: (i)
1/2 to total value of sum misapplied if damage/embarrassment resulted or (ii)
5 to 50% if no damage/embarrassment + Temporary special disqualification
ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY [ART. 220]
▪ There is no technical malversation if there is no law or
ordinance appropriating public funds or property for a
particular purpose
▪ Savings is not an appropriated fund
▪ Technical malversation is not included in nor does it
necessarily include the crime of malversation of public
funds
▪ Technical malversation is not necessarily included in the
information for Section 3(e) of RA 3019, so the accused
cannot be convicted without violating his constitutional
right to be informed of the accusations against him
Art 220 Technical Malversation / Illustrative case / Elements / Conspiracy
Art 220 Technical Malversation / Illustrative case / Elements / Criminal intent not element /
Malum prohibitum / Savings not appropriated
Art 220 Technical Malversation / Illustrative case / Elements / Funds must be appropriated
Art 220 Technical Malversation / Compare with Art 217 Malversation / Appropriation needed
Art 220 Technical Malversation / Compare with Sec 3(e) RA 3019 / Not necessarily included
 FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY [ART. 221]
Things to consider:

▪ PUNISHABLE ACTS:
▪ (i) Failing to make payment by a public officer who is under obligation to make
such payment from Government funds in his possession
▪ (ii) Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been ordered by
competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his
administrations
▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Public officer has government funds in his/her possession
▪ (ii) He/she is under obligation to make payment from such funds
▪ (iii) He/she fails to make the payment maliciously
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Arresto mayor (1m & 1d to 6m) + Fine 5 to 25% of unpaid amount [punishable act (i)]
or graduated value of undelivered thing but shall not be less than 10K [punishable act (i)]
CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION [ART. 223]
Things to consider:

▪ ELEMENTS:
▪ (i) Offender is a public officer
▪ (ii) He/she had in his/her custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
▪ (iii) Such prisoner escaped from his/her custody
▪ (iv) He/she was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter's escape
▪ PENALTY:
▪ Prision correccional medium & maximum (2y 4m & 1d to 6y) + Temporary
special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification
- if fugitive sentenced by final judgment
▪ Prision correccional minimum (6m & 1d to 2y & 4m) + Temporary special
CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION [ART. 223]
▪ If a person is detained for violation of RA 9372 (Human Security
Act), like Terrorism, the following provision of said law is applicable:
▪ SEC. 44. Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons. - Any
public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under
the provisions of this Act and who by his deliberate act,
misconduct, or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the
escape of such detained person shall be guilty of an offense and
shall suffer the penalty of: (a) twelve (12) years and one day to
twenty (20) years of imprisonment, if the detained person has
already been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a
competent court; and (b) six years and one day to twelve (12)
years of imprisonment, if the detained person has not been
convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court
Offenses involving prisoners / Art 156 (Delivering) / Art 223 (Conniving) / Art 224 (Negligence)