00:44:32

We can indite or convict the accuse under Article 229.

Now, is damage an element?

Yes. This Article provides for a higher penalty if the acts shall have caused serious damage to the public interest
otherwise a lesser penalty is imposed. The use of the word serious modifying damage indicates that the lesser
penalty refers to causing damage which is not serious.

Let’s have some examples of secrets.

a. Peace officers, who published instructions received by tem for the arrest of the culprit, thereby enabling him
to escape and resulting in the failure of the law and authority.

Example: Buy bust operation gi-reveal nimo sa nakatakas. The interest of the public is involved so
that act of revealing the operation of the PDEA or the PNP can consummate this offense or this
crime.

b. The provincial fiscal who revealed the records of all investigation conducted by him to the defendant who
thereby learned of the evidence of the prosecution.

Remember that any form of investigation if you are a fiscal and you are in office is highly confidential and revealing
that will make you liable for revelation of secrets by an officer.

Our public nurse, can they be held liable for this? No because we are talking about secrets that will affect public
interest and not the individual.

Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. - Any public officer to whom the secrets of any
private individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties
of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of his office.
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.

Revelation to one person is sufficient, for public revelation is not required. So baka ditto sila pwede, revealing the
secrets of a private individual and the information came to them by reason of their office.

Example:
Public Health Doctors: Records of HIV patients are highly confidential and if they release that information, that is an
act under Art 230 because those are highly confidential information that came into their knowledge by reason of their
official duties and it should not be released even if sa iyahang husband. Remember it does not need public release of
information. It is already sufficient na sa isa ka tao.

When the offender is an attorney-at-law or a solicitor, Article 230 is not applicable. He is not liable under this Article
but under Article 209. Remember Article 209? Let’s go back to Article 209. What is your Article 209? Betryal of trust
by an attorney or solicitor. Didto nato siya i-fall not here.

Damage to private individual is not necessary. As long as it is the secret of the private individual.
We are already done with the Chapter. Now let’s go to OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS.

Section One. – Disobedience, refusal of assistance, and maltreatment of prisoners

Article 231. Open disobedience. - Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment,
decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the
legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:

1. The offender here is a judicial or executive officer.

2. That there is judgement, decision or order of a superior authority.
3. That such judgement, decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
authority and issued with all the legal formalities.
4. That the offender without any legal justification openly refuses to execute the said judgement, decision or
order, which he is duty bound to obey.

Why do we only have judicial and executive officer? Who are our legislative officers? Those people in Congress or
Senate. Why judicial and executive only? Because their duties require an execution of something. In your execution
department, they execute laws- administrative orders, etc. In your judicial, we have execution of decisions. So mao
sila ang affected aning Article.

Example:
1. A sheriff who refuses to execute a decision. A writ of demolition, he refuses to execute it. Dili siya mag
demolish didto. That’s open disobedience. Dili lang na open disobedience, contempt pud na sila.
2. Executive Department: There’s an order from the Mayor to close establishments who fail to pass the
sanitary laws. Dili niya na i-execute so therefore open disobedience.

Acts constituting the crime

Open disobedience is committed by any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgement, decision, or order of any superior authority.

Example:
1. A municipal secretary who openly refuses to deliver the mayor, after having been repeatedly
requested to do so, the keys of the doors of the municipal building and the seal under his
custody.
2. Mandamus by Supreme Court ordering lower court to receive certain evidence, If the lower
court openly refuses to obey said judicial order, there is a violation of this article.

Remember: The order must be lawful. Naay approval from the authority and it ust be in accordance with law. If the
order is not lawful, it is a defense under Article 231. If it is manifestly unlawful, for example gisugo ka sa imong
superior na mag falsify ang minutes of the meeting therefore you cannot be held liable under open disobedience
because there must be a lawful order.

Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer. -
Any public officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey
such superiors after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That an order is issued by his superior for execution.
3. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order.
4. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order.
5. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension

Gikasuhan pa dyud, i-grievance na lang ni. So here there is an order but for some reason gi-suspend niya. Ana si
inferior officer “I will not execute the decision” so karon ang i-suspension sa iyang execution gi-disallow ni superior
and still he did not execute it so that will fall under Article 232.

What is the rationale of the law?

The law has taken into account that a superior officer may sometimes err, and that orders issued by him may
proceed from a mistaken judgement.

For example there is an order, it is lawful in its face pero pagtanaw ni inferior officer dili siya in accordance with the
law. Let’s say sa LGU, isarado nila ang street foods kay wala nag undergo sa inspection. Mao na ang order na ang
executive order ni Mayor unya pagtanaw sa mga mag execute, wala na apil sa inspection records ang inspection
order. So na inspect diay siya its just that wala nakita ni Mayor so he suspended wala niya na execute on that day
ang order. So therefore if upon review of the superior officer na mali man gyud ni kay kani na inspection record kay
last year pa so you execute, ni-refuse gihapon siya that is Article 232. Because again it can happen. Pwede nimo i-
suspend as an inferior officer because it can happen na naay error. But what if pagtan-aw ni Mayor naa dyud diay
error so that’s why we give a leeway. Dili dayon na kasuhan nato. Remember in Article 231- Open disobedience,
kumbaga it’s like serious disobedience to a lawful order but it’s open or Article 231 but for Article 232, you suspended
the execution for any reason or for some reason. The fact lang na suspend ang execution but you did not disobey it
already ha, you just suspended it for some reason and then there is an opportunity for the superior officer to review
the suspension of the execution. But if still dili gihapon nimo i-obey upon review niya na mali ang suspension of the
order so therefore saka naka mag hold liable under Article 232.

GOOD TO KNOW FACT: But I haven’t found any recent cases under Article 232. Dili na lang nato ni kasohan, i-
suspend na lang nato administratively because I have talked to a dean of a new school, ang direction na gusto sa
LEB sa atong legal study is non-adversarial that’s why we have now arbitration and litigation. Mas gusto nila non-
adversarial ang direction because here in our study pag kasohan nato na: unsa atong kaso? Unsa atong i-file? Gusto
nila non-adversarial, pano i-settle ang cases out of court but that is of course unapplicable in criminal cases because
this is Mala In Se. Mga cancers ng Lipunan.

The Article does not apply if the order of the superior is illegal. Again that is your exempting circumstance. It does not
apply when the order of the superior is illegal, for under the law, obedience to an order of the superior which is illegal
is not justified and the subordinate who obeys such order may be held criminally liable. Remember that in your Article
11 par. 6.

Now refusal of assistance. Daghan kayo lami kasuhan ani.

Article 233. Refusal of assistance. - The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in
its minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon a
public officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service, if such failure shall result in serious damage to the public interest, or
to a third party; otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service
3. That the offender fails to do so maliciously.

Ma’am kasuhan namo tong aming police officer kay dili man sila mutabang. No because one of the elements is a
competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation.

Is a private individual a competent authority? No.

There must be a demand from competent authority. Hence, if the chief of police received from a private party a
subpoena, issued by a fiscal, with a request to serve it upon a person to be a witness, and the chief of police
maliciously refused to do so, the latter is not liable. Because again di man na nila trabaho ang mag issue ug
subpoena.

Example of refusal of assistance:

A chief of police who flatly and insolently refuses to serve summons of a provincial fiscal, after having been duly
requested to do so by the latter official, is guilty of a violation of this article.

What is the difference? In the first one, although the subpoena is issued by a fiscal or a prosecutor kinsa ang ni-
request sa police? A private individual so therefore dili siya competent authority but in the second, the case of People
vs Castro, ang ni request mismo to issue the summons is the prosecutor and it is already a competent authority. Ang
difference sa ilang duha kay kinsa ang requesting party. So this is common in our office kay kung naay mag request
ug assistance sa amoa dili namo na kaya tanan, we refer it to another agency.

For example naay reklamo about traffic violation, naglagot sila atong mga nag illegal parking alangan naman kami pa
magpahawa anang mga nag parking diha. We refer it to CTTMO. If the CTTMO refuses, therefore pwede namo sila
kasuhan ug refusal of assistance.

Is damage to public interest essential? Yes, there must be damage to public interest or to a third party, great or small.
So this articles are good for reading but it seldom goes out in the bar exam. Basin mapangutana diay at least naa
moy matubag.

Now refusal to discharge elective office. Naa pa ba ni karon?

Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office,
shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Elements:
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public office.
2. That he refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
3. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Magpakamatay pa man gani sila para ma sworn anang office. This is already bselete. Let’s say on the day na mag
swear na sila into office and di sila mag appear for no justifiable reason, nidaog siya but dili siya gusto mag serbisyo.
So Article 23. But this is highly improbable in our times today.

Why is it punished?
The reason is that once an individual is elected to an office by the will of the people, the discharge of the duties of the
said office becomes a matter of duty, not only a right.

Once ma-boto na ka sa mga tao, dapat you already discharge your office.

This is not applicable to an appointive officer. Of course we have administrative charges not criminal.

Article 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 under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner.
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.

Again you must be in custody or actual charge of the prisoner to hold him liable?

In the case of Punzalan vs People, the mayor of the municipality of Tiaong, Quexon was accused of maltreatment of
a prisoner, Moises Escueta, by assaulting, beating and striking the abdomen, face, breast and arms of the latter with
an automatic pistol and his fists, for the purpose of extorting confession from him.

With those set of facts alone, is the mayor liable? Yes or no? What are the elements? What is number 2? Is the
mayor in custody of a prisoner? No. It was held in Article 235, it is necessary that the maltreated prisoner be under
the charge of the officer who maltreated. So that element is lacking.

The offended party must be a convict or detention prisoner. So masking kinsa. The detention prisoner must places in
jail even for a short while. Why is that emphasized in the book of Reyes? Because we are talking about prisoner.
Diba si detention prisoner is awaiting trial. What if nadakpan siya and gipalingkod lang siya didto, gikulata siya? Is the
crime committed? In People vs Baring, a person was suspected of having committed a crime and taken to a
cemetery and maltreated there by the policemen. Since he is not yet booked in the office of the police and placed in
jail even for a moment, he is not a detention prisoner. Giguyod pa lang siya, gidala siya sa kanto unya gikulata sa
police, dili pa siya maltreatment of prisoner. Precisely because there is no prisoner to speak of yet. At least dapat
mabook siya sa police or sa prison.

The maltreatment must relate to the correction or handling of the prisoner, or must be for the purpose of extorting a
confession or of obtaining some information from the prisoner. For example in the case of People vs Javier, naglagot
na dyud siya. Naa siya’y personal grudge, kita nya na mao tong niagaw sa iyang girlfriend sa una so iyang gikulata.
That is just physical injuries not maltreatment of prisoners. Becaue again the reason, it must be connected sa
handling, punishment and/or to extort a confession.

The offender is also liable for physical injuries or damage caused, if any is caused by maltreating the prisoner. So
they are not mutually exclusive. So sa akong example ganiha because the underlying reason of the maltreatment or
iyang gikulata is not connected with the penalty or with the punishment or handling but it is merely physical injuries.
But what if maltreatment dyud siya and in the maltreatment, the prisoner got physical injuries so it’s maltreatment
plus physical injuries.

Let’s now go to Section 2.

Section Two. - Anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office.

Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. - Any person who shall assume the performance of the duties
and powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond required by law,
shall be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied with the respective formalities and
shall be fined from 200 to 500 pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment, either by election or appointment.
2. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give a bond.
3. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office
4. That he has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law.

So we have this bonded officers before they can assume their office kelangan sila maghatag ug bond. Usually these
are money related those officers which are charged with custody of the money or public funds. Before they can
assume as administrators, they have to give a bond after appointment and swear. So if they prolong that pwede sila
ma charge with Article 236 but this is not a usual case.

Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. - Any public officer shall continue to exercise the
duties and powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulation or special
provisions applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, special
temporary disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is holding a public office
2. That the period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office, has already
expired.
3. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office.

Officers contemplated. A public officer who has been suspended, separated, declared overaged or dismissed cannot
continue to perform the duties of his office. Except when it is in a legal holdover capacity but if iprolong niya for no
reason at all tapos kailangan na niya ang compulsory retirement tapos na suspend siya or na dismiss siya, he can be
charged under Article 237.

Article 238. Abandonment of office or position. - Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation,
shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the
offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and by arresto mayor if the
purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other crime.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he formally resigns from his position.
3. That his resignation has not yet been accepted.
4. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service.

Although this is involuntary servitude, ngano man ko ninyo gipugngan mag resign? Public office is a public trust so
therefore without the concurrence of the appointing authority with your resignation, you cannot abandon your post.
That is why you can be held liable under this abandonment of office or position. So hulat sa dyud that the resignation
should be expected. Mao ning mga nag AWOL.

There must be a written or formal resignation. So if it’s only a verbal statement made by the accused to the Collector
of Internal Revenue that he was resigning is not the form of resignation contemplated by the set-up of our Civil
Service System. Dapat nag resign dyud siya witha formal resignation letter.

When is the offense qualified?

When the abandonment of the office has for its purpose to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing,
prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of
this Code, the penalty is higher.

What are these?

1.) Treason 10.) Rebellion
2.) Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason 11.) Coup d’etat
3.) Misprision of Treason 12.) Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
4.) Espionage d’etat or rebellion
5.) Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal 13.) Disloyalty of public officers
6.) Violation of Neutrality 14.) Inciting for rebellion
7.) Correspondence with hostile country 15.) Sedition
8.) Flight to enemy country 16.) Conspiracy to commit sedition
9.) Piracy and Mutiny 17.) Inciting to sedition

If it is not for the purpose of apprehending those treacherous individual so it will be a qualified abandonment of office.

Let’s differentiate this from prevaricacion. Let’s distinguish abandonment of office from negligence and tolerance in
prosecution of offenses:

1. Abandonment of office or position is committed by any public officer; negligence and tolerance in the
prosecution of offenses is committed only by public officers who have duty to institute prosecution for the
punishment of violations of the law.

:Diba specific to didto kung kinsa lang? But here any public officer

2. In abandonment of office or position, the public officer abandons his office to evade the discharge of his
duty; in negligence and tolerance in the prosecution of offenses, the public officer does not abandon his
office but he fails to prosecute an offense by dereliction of duty or by malicious tolerance of the commission
of offenses.

Let’s now go to usurpation.

 Section Three. - Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments

Who are our offenders here? Thos public officers who are not in the legislative.

Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. - The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer
who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or
regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.

Elements:
1. That the offender is an executive and judicial officer.
2. That he
a. Makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or
b. Attempts to repeal a law or
c. Suspends the execution thereof.

Example:

Dangerous Drugs Act. Nag declare ka diri nga dili na Dangerous Drugs ang Marijuana unya executive officer ka.
Taka-taka ka. That is usurpation of legislative function but anyway i-certiorari lang na dili na lang na i-file ug criminal
case.

Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. - The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period,
temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer
who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or
regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.

Elements:
1.) That the offender is a judge.
2.) That he
a. Assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or
b. Obstructs the executive authorities in the law in the lawful exercise of their powers.

Thus, a councillor who assumes a power pertaining to the mayor or obstructs him in the lawful exercise of his power
is not liable under Article 240, because only a judge can commit usurpation of executive functions. The council or
liable under Article 177 of the Code, if he assumes the power of the mayor.

Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government
who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge
within its jurisdiction.

Elements:
1. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the Government
2. That he
a. Assumes judicial powers, or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.

This came up tong nanumbag si Inday Sara. This Article came up because there was a lawful order for the sheriff for
a writ of demolition. Tapos ang gibuhat daw ni Mayor kay obstruction sa writ of demolition which is a judicial order.
However, what transpired was that ang gipangayo lang ni Inday Sara was the suspension of hours. Do not execute if
wala pa siya kay magkagubot. Because what is contemplated here is really obstruction or preventing it from
happening. So it was for peace or security purposes.

Mayor is guilty under this article if he investigates a case while justice of the peace is in the municipality. This is a
very old case in 1922. But a municipal president who received a complaint signed by the chief of police, and
afterwards tried the case, even though the justice of the peace was discharging his office in the municipality is guilty
under this article. Sa una man gud na panahon very powerful ang Mayor kay lisod pa man ang ilang communication
ani with other agencies. Sa unang panahon pag walay Justice of the Peace or what we call now Regional Trial Court
judges, si Mayor ang mu decide if guilty or not guilty. So now if naa ang Justice of the Peace, the Mayor cannot do
that and if he does that, that is usurpation of public function.

Let’s go now to Article 242.

Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. - Any public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is
decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished
by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer.
3. That there is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet
decided.
4. That he has been lawful required to refrain from continuing the proceeding.
5. That he continues the proceeding.

Example:

The Mayor of Manila suspended a market administrator for alleged irregularity. Then he caused an administrative
investigation of the market administrator. The latter filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance which
issued a preliminary writ of injunction pending the resolution of the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner.
Gipa-stop niya ang investigation but pending that the Mayor still continued the investigation. In this case, the Mayor
may be held liable under this article.

This is common for example. For example ganoon pa rin, execution of writs and there is what katong mga
respondent kung asa i-demolish naka file sila timely ug petition for issuance for temporary restraining order. So naay
TRO, gipa-restrain ang demolition pero gipadayon gihapon toh. So that person may be held liable under Article 242
Disobeying request for disqualification.

Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. - Any executive officer who shall
address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is an executive officer.
2. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of justice.
Again the rationale of this is to maintain the independence of the judiciary. The judicial branch is intended to be free
and secure from executive dictations. Courts cannot, under their duty to their creator, the sovereign power, permit
themselves to be subordinated to any person or official to which their creator did not itself subordinate them.

For example let’s go back to the situation tong kay Mayor Inday, what if iyaha tong gi-stop. Nagpaadto siya ug PNP
didto ipaundang ang demolition. That cannot be. Again the judiciary is not subordinate the executive because they
are independent bodies.

But who is liable here? Only your executive officers.

Article 244. Unlawful appointments. - Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public
office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office.
3. That such person lacks the legal qualifications therefor.
4. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualifications at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.

This is also a common charge in our office. Public officer nominates or appoints a person to a public office and he
lacks the legal qualifications and he knowingly nominates that the nominee lacks the qualification but he still
nominates anyway. There is unlawful appointment under Article 244.

But what if he recommends only for promotion? And then the recommendation was considered for promotion so na
promote, can the accuse be held liable? No because we are talking about nomination of appointment and not merely
recommendation. Wala tay mabuhat if the appointing authority gave credence to that. As long as dili gikan sa iyaha
ang nomination.

Persons lacking the legal qualifications therefor. There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be
nominated or appointed to a public office. If subjective ang qualification, wala na tay mabuhat. But for example there
is a legal qualification that he must be admitted to the bar, iyahang gi-appoint wala nag bar. So klaro. For example
attorney, ang requirement ana: passed the bar and two years of experience pero ang gi appoint niya passed the bar
but walay experience. So klaro. There is an unlawful appointment.

Section Four. - Abuses against chastity

Article 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. - The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:

1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in
matters pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to
or consult with a superior officer;

2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.

If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the
custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and
temporary special disqualification.

There are 3 ways to commit abuse of chastity:

1. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advance to a woman interested in matters pending before the
offending officer for decisions, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer.

Example:
Ako unya muadto si Mr. Ramos didto unya naa koy indecent proposal sa iyaha kay naa siya’y transaction,
can he be held liable? Of course not because what is there? INDECENT ADVANCES TO A WOMAN
interested in matters pending before the offending officer so the victim is a woman.

:What if transgender, liable or not? No because our gender is not flexible. A woman is stated in the birth
certificate. Does the offender need to be a man? No because the only requirement is the offended party is a
woman.

2. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a woman under the offender’s custody.

:So this is common in our prison. What if gay or transgender? Indecent advances from the jail warden?
Dpat i-repeal na ni kay what if diay.

3. By soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same
degree by affinity of any person in the custody of the offending warder or officer.

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman.
3. That such woman must be-
a. Interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or with respect to which he is required to
submit a report or consult with a superior officer; or
b. Under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public officer directly charged with the care
and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest; or
c. The wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in the custody of
the offender.

Example:

First Act: Issuance of licenses those are matter pending before an offender so na siya’y i-solicit na indecent advance
before nako i-release.
Second Act: Self-explanatory
Third Act: Woman na nakulong but also a prisoner who has a daughter or sister. With your number 3, what if
nakulong ang papa unya naa kay indecent advances sa iyahang wife, or daughter or sister same degree or affinity.
That can also fall under Article 245.

The crime of abuses against chastity is consummated by mere proposal because it is sufficient that there is soliciting
or making immoral or indecent advances to the woman.

Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse. The appellant was in charge of the prisoners,
among them a woman, in the Tondo police station. He entered the cell of the woman and has illicit relations with her.
The appellant argues that the proof fails to show that he solicited a woman in his custody. Ingon siya sweetheart
defense. It would be strange interpretation to place upon said law that the failure to prove to show the solicitation was
sufficient to relieve the defendant from responsibility when the act solicited was already consummated. Of course
your indecent advances, asa man gyud na padulong? Didto man dyud na sa sexual act or intercourse. Enough na
ang proof of sexual intercourse.