Download Criminal Penal Law in the PH and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Illegal Recruitment as Mala Prohibitum. What
cannot be used as valid defenses?
- Illegal recruitment is classified as malum prohibitum , meaning it is an offense simply because it is prohibited by law, regardless of intent or knowledge.
- The Supreme Court cases cited establish that the following are not valid defenses against a charge of illegal recruitment: 1. Lack of knowledge – A person cannot claim they did not know their actions constituted illegal recruitment (People v. Cauras, 1997 ). 2. Lack of intent to defraud – The prosecution does not need to prove intent to deceive or defraud complainants (People v. Enriquez, 1999 ). 3. Lack of awareness of co-accused’s illegal activities – A person cannot claim innocence by saying they did not know their co-accused was engaged in illegal recruitment (People v. Gamboa, 2000 ).
Title VII: Crimes Committed by Public Officers
Malfeasance Misfeasance Nonfeasance
Performance of some act which ought not to be done There is malfeasance when a public officer performs in his public office an act which is prohibited by law
Example: A public officer falsifies a document to cover up corruption. Improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done There is misfeasance when a public officer performs an official act in a manner not in accordance with what the law provides. E xample: A tax assessor negligently applies incorrect tax rates , leading to revenue loss. Omission of some act which ought to be performed There is nonfeasance when the public officer deliberately refuses, refrains or omits from doing his official duty which the law requires him to do. >Example : A public officer ignores a court order or refuses to issue permits.
- Exception:
- If the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) designates a person to hold distrained property (seized assets for tax collection), this does not make that person a public officer.
- The reason: Their authority is not based on law, election, or appointment by a competent authority (Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan). Thus, they cannot be charged with crimes specific to public officers , such as violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER R.A NO. 3019 (Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
- Section 2 (b)
- "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
Case law: Preclaro v Sandiganbayan G.R 111091
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. Petitioner instituted the present petition for review of Supreme Court. Argument – Petitioner asserts that he is not a public officer as defined by Sec. 2 (b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019 as amended), because he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. Rather, petitioner maintains that he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period as evidenced by the contract of services he entered into with the ITDI. Petitioner, to further support his "theory," alleged that he was not issued any appointment paper separate from the abovementioned contract. He was not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work and neither did he take an oath of office.
Case law: Preclaro v Sandiganbayan G.R 111091
- Issue
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in taking cognizance of
the case, instead of dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, the
petitioner not being a public officer.
Case law: Preclaro v Sandiganbayan G.R 111091
- Non-career service in particular is characterized by —
- ( 1 ) entrance on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service ; and ( 2 ) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made.
- The Non-Career Service shall include :
- ( 1 ) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;
- ( 2 ) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the President and their personal or confidential staff(s);
- ( 3 ) Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff;
- ( 4 ) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency ; and
- ( 5 ) Emergency and seasonal personnel.
Case Case law: Preclaro v Sandiganbayan G.R 111091
- From the foregoing classification, it is quite evident that
petitioner falls under the non-career service category (formerly
termed the unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil
Service and thus is a public officer as defined by Sec. 2 (b) of
the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019 )
- WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan is
hereby AFFIRMED.
- Compensation is Not Required to Be a Public Officer
- A UP student regent is still a public officer even if she does not receive a salary. Compensation is not an essential element of public office. (Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 2008).
- Whether a person is compensated nominally (per diem, allowances) or not at all , they are still considered a public officer if elected or appointed (Javier v. Sandiganbayan, 2009).
Private Individual
- Under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and the Revised Penal Code (RPC), a private individual can be held criminally liable if they conspire with a public officer to commit corrupt acts.
- Private individuals can be charged under Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019
if they conspire with public officials.
- In Santillano v. People (G.R. Nos. 175045 - 46 , March 8 , 2010 ),
the Supreme Court ruled that a private individual who actively
participates in corruption with a government official can be held liable
under the Anti-Graft Law.
- Private individuals can also be charged with crimes under the
Revised Penal Code if they act in conspiracy with a public officer.
- In U.S. v. Ponte (G.R. No. L- 5952 , October 24 , 1911 ), the Court
ruled that if a private individual helps a public officer commit
malversation, they can be prosecuted for the crime as a co-conspirator.
- A private individual cannot be charged alone without a public
officer as a co-Accused
- A private individual cannot be the sole accused in a R.A.No. 3019 case unless there is a public officer involved in the conspiracy. - Graft and corruption under R.A. No. 3019 primarily targets public officials , and private individuals can only be prosecuted if they act in conspiracy.
- Exception: A private individual can be charged even without a public
officer if the public officer died before the case was filed
- People v. Henry Go (G.R. No. 168539 , March 25 , 2014 )
established that a private individual can still be charged alone if their
public officer co-conspirator died before the case was filed.
"No Double Jeopardy" in R.A. No. 3019
- A public officer can be charged with both a violation of R.A. No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and an offense under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) for the same act , without violating the rule on double
jeopardy.
- This means a public officer who commits an act punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) may also be charged under R.A. No. 3019 , leading to multiple charges for the same act.
- A public officer violating R.A. No. 3019 can also be held liable for: - Falsification of public documents (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, January 31,
- Malversation through falsification (People v. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17,
- Failure to render an accounting (Lumauig v. People, G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014) - Plunder (Senator Revilla v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212427-28, December 6, 2016)
