1. What is the difference between Art.200 and Art. 201?

Grave Scandal

ART. 200. (Degree of Publicity is the essential element)

The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall
offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling
within any other article of this Code.

Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act;
2. That such act/s be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs;
3. That the highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other article of the RPC;
and
4. That the act/s complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or
view.

Grave scandal consists of acts that are offensive to decency and good customs. They are
committed publicly and thus, give rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally
witnessed the acts. The public view is not required. It is sufficient if committed in a public place.
For being committed
within public knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who see it is
not material.

Decency means properly observing the requirements of modesty, good taste.

Customs refers to established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by
social disapproval in case of violation.

The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that the acts committed are not only contrary to
morals and good customs but must likewise be of such character as to cause public scandal to
those witnessing it.

The acts must be performed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.

If it is committed in a private place, the crime of grave scandal is not committed.

In conduct involving lasciviousness, it is grave scandal only where there is mutual consent.

Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may bring about criminal liability for the crime of
grave scandal provided such act does not constitute some other crime under the Revised Penal
Code. Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.

DECENCY - means proprietary of conduct; proper observance of the requirements of modesty,

good taste, etc.

CUSTOMS - established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.

GRAVE SCANDAL - consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs which,
having committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally
witnessed the same.

Illustration:
 A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept there. They covered themselves with their blanket
and made the grass their conjugal bed. This is grave scandal.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked at its
penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding office at
the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful
binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk
of the town. 
1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain, 
2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

1) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal,
but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against decency and
good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public knowledge or
view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives accidentally and they have to use
binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.

The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of lasciviousness (as
there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town, resulting from her
sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides such topic is not intended
to defame or put Pia to ridicule.

Art. 200. Grave Scandal

A. Concept: It is a crime consisting of the performance or doing any act which is highly scandalous as to
offend against decency and good custom.
1.  The act, either a physical observable activity or audible noise, both of which scandalizes those who
see or hear them. As for instance the act of engaging in a torrid kissing, urinating or defecating or going
around in scanty attire, or loud obscene sex noises 
2.  They must be done either:
 (a) In a public place i.e where people usually go or congregate such as in parks, movie houses, bazaars,
malls. In these places the presence of third persons is not required.
(b) Within public knowledge or public view. This refers to private houses, rooms, grounds, veranda, but
the noises made are so loud or the acts can be seen by third persons. The third person must not however
be a Peeping Tom.   
B. The act must not be punished under any other provision of the Code as this is a crime of last resort or
a catch-all crime. 
C. The scandalous acts affect public morals or sensitivity and have nothing to do with violations of public
peace and tranquility. Thus two persons fighting or shouting at each other in a public place would
constitute Alarm and Scandal. But when these same two persons engage in a strip tease contest in full
view of people, the act would be Grave Scandal.
Strip tease - a burlesque act in which a performer removes clothing piece by piece.

The acts must be those that can cause public scandal among the persons witnessing them.

The acts must be performed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
When the acts were performed in a private house and seen by one person, the crime was not committed.

Art. 201 Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and Exhibitions and Indecent Shows. ( PUBLICITY IS
ESSENTIAL)

A. Persons or acts  punished:

1.  Those who expound  or proclaim doctrines contrary to public morals
a). As for instance advocating polygamy or wife-swapping or killing off the mental/physical retardates to
improve the Filipino race
b). What about advocating same-sex marriage? Or opening an exclusive ”nudist camp”? 
2. In reference to Obscene literature
a). The authors if they had knowledge of the publishing of their works. Thus writing an obscene literature
is not per se punished but if the authors said works to be circulated to any third person, then they become
liable. If the wok is stolen and circulated without their knowledge, they are not liable. 
b). The editors publishing such literature
c). The owners/operators of the establishment selling the same 
3.   In reference to obscene, indecent, or immoral plays, acts or shows:
a). The persons who exhibit them including the producers, actors, movie house/theater owners
b). These include plays, acts, shows which
(i)  glorify criminals or condone crimes
(ii)  serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography
(iii)  offend any race or religion
(iv)  tend to abet traffic in and sue of prohibited drugs
(v) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts 
4.  Persons who sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature, which are
offensive to morals. Hence mere possession of pornographic literature is not per se punished. It is the act
of distributing to people or circulating the same which is punished. Letting one person borrow or read is
not however distributing. 

2. Art. 202. Vagrants and Prostitutes (Decriminalized)

I.( Is this a crime against status?) There are four kinds of Vagrants:
1.(The Lazy one). A person with no apparent means of subsistence, but physically able to work, neglect
to apply himself to some lawful calling
a). It is not being unemployed per se which is punished but the refusal to look for work
2. (The Tourist) Any person found loitering about public or semi public buildings or places, or tramping or
wandering about the country or streets without visible means of support
3. (The bugao and maton) An idle or dissolute (immoral, lax, unrestrained) person who lodges in houses
of ill fame, ruffians (barairongs in Ilokano) or one who habitually associates with prostitutes
a. Absence of visible means of support is not required hence wealthy people may be vagrants under this
mode
4. ( The suspicious stranger) One found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to
another without any lawful or justifiable reason
a.The vagrant may have wealth
b.This is a preventive measure to prevent the commission of some other more serious offense
c.The estate is not fenced

3. Under our Law, does prostitution apply to men?

No. it only applies to a woman.

4. What are the felonies under TITLE SEVEN?

-

5. Who are Public officers?

In the Pinas system there are Public Officers. They are elective or appointive. Their functions are
provided or defined by Law. Basically they partake in the exercise of Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction means
Power).

Let us see: The current Mayor of the City of Manila (Isko Moreno) is an elective public officer.
Mayor Isko exercises Jurisdiction in the city of Manila. You can even argue to you Political Law
professor that el caudillo Digong is an Elective Public Officer, top honcho of the land. Now, back to
Manila: How about the Chief of Police of Manila’s Western Police District? Is he a Public Officer?
 Yes, because he was an appointive public officer. He also exercises jurisdiction. All names I cited
are natural-born Pinas citizens. The el caudillo and the mayor are elective; Manila’s police chief is
appointive. Note that their qualifications are defined by law and their powers are prescribed and
controlled by the Constitution and the Laws.

Down the line of the totem pole there are public officers in our many departments and bureaus and
offices and instrumentalities and authorities. They are provided for by Law (the qualifications and
jurisdictions). We cannot enumerate them all in one semester (and do not attempt to do it). But
note the qualification of natural-born Pinas citizens. There are some other grade or educational
qualifications but the prime one is (natural-born) citizenship. A simple police patrolman with a
badge and a rusty 38 cal. Smith & Wesson service revolver (or are they still issuing that?) is,
under the law, a public officer.

Now you will ask: is a Barangay Chairman in a far-flung barrio in the town of San Bernardo, in the
barrio of Kauswagan sans electricity lines a public officer? And I will answer Yes: because that is
so defines under the Local Government laws, the Penal laws and jurisprudence.

In many cases under our Law, a Public Officer in many sense is also a person in authority; when
Mayor Isko lost his cool about the dirty Lagusnilad (underpass) he was exercising the dual
functions of a public officer and a person in authority, he can order the arrest of any violator of
Sanidad and the laws and regulations are full-square behind him. Even a P.O. 1/2 (more so an
SPO 10 can exercise the power of a public officer and arrest you for violating a curfew and not
relent to your continuous protestations, more so if you possessed a face only your mother can
love! They are public officers. It is to your interests who these Public Officers are, they can make
your day miserable if you are on the wrong end of the applicable Pinas Law from San Miguel near
Malakanyang to the far-flung barrios of Kauswagan out there in the Bundoks.

You did not asked who are Public Employees so I need not discuss that.

Trusting I have given you a glimpse of an answer to a wide-ranging question.

6. What are the felonies under TITLE SEVEN?

-
7. What felonies can be committed by members of Judiciary?
8. Can a crime man of direct bribery be committed by mere agreement between the parties?
d). Conspiracy to Commit Bribery: If the officer merely agreed but did not actually do the
act and he did not yet receive nor was given the consideration, there is also the crime of
bribery. This is in the nature of a conspiracy which is punished
2. This has no frustrated or attempted stage since the mere agreement consummates the
crime

9. If A gives B, a police officer Php. 50,000.00 so that B will not file the case before the Prosecutors
office, what crime did A and B Commit?

10. What is \the difference between direct and Indirect bribery?

 Art. 211. INDIRECT BRIBERY
I. Concept: the crime committed by a public officer who accepts a gift given by reason of his
office or position. A gift is actually received and not future promises or offers. The officer
must have done an act appropriating the gift for himself, his family or employees. “ The
essential ingredient … is that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or
material consideration ( Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan 507 SCRA 258)

A. Illustrations:
1. An envelope was left on top of the desk of officer. The officer called his staff and told them to
use all the amount to buy food and snacks. This is indirect bribery
2. If the officer however gave it to the Jail or to some children, he is not liable
3. If he simply let the envelope drop on the floor and left it there, he is not liable.
4. If somebody pays the bill for his meal or drinks, he is not liable for indirect bribery as he did not
accept any gift.
5. Receipt of cash given as “share in winnings” or “balato” are included

II. The phrase “by reason of his office” means the gift would not have been given were it not for the
fact that the receiver is a public officer. The officer need not do any act as the gift is either for past
favors or to anticipate future favors, or simply to “impress” or earn the good will of the officer

11. What is the difference between Malversation from technical malversation?

Art. 217, Malversation is committed by a public officer, who, being accountable for public funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office, appropriates the same, or take or misappropriates, or
consent to the taking thereof by another person or permits him to take it through abandonment or
negligence.
 Art.220, Technical Malversation, On the other hand, illegal use of public funds or property
otherwise known as technical malversation is committed by any public officer who applies a public
fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or
property was appropriated by some law or ordinance.

As to its nature, malversation is mala in se or is inherently immoral. It is tainted with dolo or malice,
thus, good faith may be invoked as a defense for such crime. Technical malversation, on the other
hand, is mala prohibita, meaning that this prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a
criminal offense because of a positive law which forbids it. Therefore, good faith is not a defense in
technical malversation.

It is also worthy of note that the two crimes are not a parcel or piece of one another and they are
completely distinct criminal offenses. Thus, an accused acquitted of malversation cannot be
convicted of technical malversation since the latter does not include, or is not necessarily included
in the former changed in the information.
Art. 220. Technical Malversation
Concept: This is often referred to as “Juggling of Funds” or “Realignment of Funds”. This is the
crime committed by a public officer who used or applied funds earmarked or appropriated for a
specific public purpose, for another public purpose.
1. The funds involved should have been reserved by an appropriation ordinance for a
specific public purpose.
2. If the fund were not yet earmarked for a specific public purpose, such as the general fund, the
crime is ordinary malversation
3. If the funds earmarked for a public purpose were used for a private purpose, the crime is
ordinary malversation
4. It is immaterial that the other pubic use is more beneficial to the public.
5. The reason is that no public fund or property shall be spend except pursuant to an appropriation
or purpose specified by law

12. How is consenting to evasion committed?

Conniving with or consenting to evasion

ART.223

Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the escape
of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:

1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall
have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.

2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case
the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any
crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner
or prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape.

DETENTION PRISONER - A person becomes a detention prisoner from the moment he is booked. This
refers to the accomplishment of the booking sheet and made to fill a form (sic) where he is finger printed.
From that time on, he is already a detention prisoner even if he is not yet incarcerated.

The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed
by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere leniency or laxity in the performance of
duty constitutes of infidelity.

There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment.

Classes of prisoners involved

1. Those who have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;

2. Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in custody for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.

This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes the prisoner’s
services for domestic chores.

The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the
time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996)

A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day
sentence in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's
house because the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed space available.
Accordingly, the prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each
morning, until the ten-day sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any
crime? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to
evasion,the elements of which are
(a) he is a public officer,
(b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment,
(c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.

Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual; although
the convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the provision. It
also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence
in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla).
 Bar Exam Question (1997)

During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his
compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a detention
prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at
8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his
office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he
consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be
considered real and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code
(People vs. Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).

- Alternative answer:
-
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in the
performance of his
duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158).

13. Who is liable for evasion through negligence?

ART.224

ELEMENTS of Evasion through negligence

1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
3. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence.

NOTES:

The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-

performance of a duty.

The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his
custody does not afford him complete exculpation.

The liability of an escaping prisoner:

 a. if he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of service (art 157)
 b. if he is a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability (unless
cooperating with the offender).

The negligent public officer suffers the same penalty regardless of whether the
prisoner is a convict or merely a detention prisoner.
 This covers only positive carelessness and definite laxity which amounts to
deliberate non-performance of duties.

13. How is maltreatment of prisoners?

Maltreatment Of Prisoners

ART.235

Maltreatment of prisoners. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage
caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of
punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and
humiliating manner.

If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the
prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary
special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the
physical injuries or damage caused.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has charge of a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise the crime is physical injuries);
and
3. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
a. by overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his
charge either –
i. by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
ii. by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner, or
b. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the
prisoner.

The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner in order to be held liable (not merely by
legal fiction)
1. Offended party: Convict by final judgment or detention prisoner

 - To be considered a detention prisoner, the person arrested must be placed in jail even for just a
short time.

   - Maltreatment not due to personal grudge.

2. Offenders may also be held liable for physical injuries or damage caused. (Penalty provided in
Article 235 is imposed in addition to penalty for injury or damage caused)

This is committed only by such public officer charged with direct custody of the prisoner.

If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the crime is
physical injuries.

The offended party can either be a convict by final judgment or a detention prisoner.

The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries. Any kind of punishment not authorized
or though authorized if executed in excess of the prescribed degree.

If the maltreatment was done in order to extort confession, the penalty is qualified to the next
higher degree.
 Bar Exam Question (1999)

Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)

Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and maltreated by agents of the
law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to draw
from him a confession which was their intention to obtain through the employment of such means.
What crime was committed by the agents of the law? Explain your answer. 

Suggested Answer:

Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a suspect and may have
been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail, the crime is
maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to extort a
confession would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the offender's liability for the physical
injuries inflicted. But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him
admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released
because the agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the
violence employed to compel such confession without the offended party being confined in jail.
(US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143) It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to the police
headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime
committed would be maltreatment of prisoners

14. How is abandonment of duties?

- Art.38
15. What is a used against chastity?
-