REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

ARTICLE 201
Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and Exhibitions, and Indecent Shows
US v. KOTTINGER
45 Phil 352, G.R. No. L-20569, October 29, 1923

FACTS: On November 24, 1922, detective Juan Tolentino raided the premises known as Camera Supply Co. at 110
Escolta, Manila. He found and confiscated the post-cards which subsequently were used as evidence against J. J.
Kottinger, the manager of the company. The pictures which it is argued offend against the law on account of being
obscene and indecent, disclose six different postures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines. Exhibit A
carries the legend "Philippines, Bontoc Woman." Exhibit A-1 is a picture of five young boys and carries the legend
"Greetings from the Philippines." Exhibit A-2 has the legend "Ifugao Belle, Philippines. Greetings from the
Philippines." Exhibit A-3 has the legend "Igorot Girl, Rice Field Costume." Exhibit A-4 has the legend "Kalinga Girls,
Philippines. Exhibit A-5 has the legend "Moros Philippines." The prosecution produced no evidence proving the
postcards obscene and indecent because it thought the post-cards themselves the best evidence of that fact. The
fiscal admitted in open court "that those pictures represented the natives (non-Christians) in their native dress."
Out of these facts arose the criminal prosecution of J. J. Kottinger in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The
information filed in court charged him with having kept for sale in the store of the Camera Supply Co., obscene and
indecent pictures, in violation of section 12 of Act No. 277.

ISSUE: Whether or not pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they appear and
can be seen in the regions in which they live, are obscene or indecent.

HELD: Pictures portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress and as they appear and can be seen in the
regions in which they live, are not obscene or indecent within the meaning of the Libel Law. The Philippine statute
does not attempt to define obscene or indecent pictures, writings, papers, or books. But the words "obscene or
indecent" are themselves descriptive. They are words in common use and every person of average intelligence
understand their meaning. Indeed, beyond the evidence furnished by the pictures themselves, there is but little
scope for proof bearing on the issue of obscenity or indecency. Whether a picture is obscene or indecent must
depend upon the circumstances of the case.

RATIO: The word "obscene" and the term "obscenity" may be defined as meaning something offensive to
chastity, decency, or delicacy. "Indecency" is an act against behavior and a just delicacy. The test ordinarily
followed by the courts in determining whether a particular publication or other thing is obscene within the
meaning of the statutes, is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt
those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article
charged as being obscene may fall. Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the ordinary and common
sense of men as an indecency.

---

ARTICLE 202
Vagrants and Prostitutes
PEOPLE v. MIRABIEN
50 Phil 499, G.R. No. L-26391, July 28, 1927

FACTS: The accused, Joaquin Mirabien, was the proprietor of a bar and restaurant called "New Bohemian
Refreshment," situated in the municipality of San Pedro Makati, Rizal. The true occupation, however, of the
accused consisted in maintaining a house of prostitution. The restaurant was merely a means by which the
exploitation of women could be carried on. This was the situation discovered when the Constabulary raided the
place. Mirabien's payment of the internal revenue and municipal licenses does not alter the facts. The accused
lived in the camouflaged restaurant as well.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused as the keeper of a house of prostitution may be punished under existing laws
REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

HELD: The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila found the accused guilty of a violation of the Vagrancy
Law. Giving application of the law to the admitted facts, the accused must be considered a lewd or dissolute
person, for one dedicated to the sale of human flesh could hardly be otherwise. In the second place, the accused
lived in the camouflaged restaurant for such is deduced from his own testimony. And lastly, the restaurant was a
house of ill-fame, for evidence proved it to be so and the trial judge made this his finding. Want of visible means of
support is not made an ingredient of this part of the Vagrancy Law.

RATIO: A keeper of a house of prostitution may be considered a vagrant within the meaning of the provision,
who is "every lewd or dissolute person who lives in and about houses of ill-fame."

---

ARTICLE 211
Indirect Bribery
FORMILLEZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
159 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 75160, March 18, 1988

FACTS: Petitioner Leonor Formilleza, convicted in the Sandiganbayan for indirect bribery, has been with the
government service for around 20 years. She was the personnel supervisor of the regional office of the NIA in
Tacloban City, Leyte. Her duties include the processing of the appointment papers of employees. She then filed a
petition for review of her case.

Mrs. Estrella Mutia was an employee of the NIA from February, 1978 up to March, 1985. Her appointment was
coterminous with a project of the NIA. On December 31, 1983, her appointment was terminated. This
notwithstanding, she continued working for the NIA pursuant to the verbal instructions of the regional director of
the Administration. Mrs. Mutia testified that she took steps to obtain either a permanent or at the least a renewed
appointment; that when she approached the regional director about the matter she was advised to see the
petitioner who was to determine the employees to be appointed or promoted; and that the petitioner refused to
attend to her appointment papers unless the latter were given some money. Mrs. Mutia reported her problem to
the Philippine Constabulary authorities in the province. The PC officials told her that steps were to be taken to
entrap the petitioner. The entrapment equipment consisted of marked paper money bills. Mrs. Mutia maintains
that after they had finished taking their snacks at the canteen, she handed the marked money bills under the table
with her right hand to the petitioner who received the same with her left hand. At that moment, Sergeant Bonjoc
approached the petitioner and held her hand holding the money bills. Sergeant Abanes brought out his camera
and took photographs of the sequence of events. The petitioner was arrested by the soldiers despite her
objections to the entrapment. She was brought to the PC crime laboratory in the locality where she was found
positive for ultra-violet powder. In the presence of the corporate counsel of the petitioner, she denied accepting
any bribe money from Mrs. Mutia.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused accepted the supposed bribe money

HELD: The Court holds that the guilt of the petitioner in has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. She is,
therefore, entitled to an acquittal. Against the evidence of the respondents that the money was handed to
petitioner by Mrs. Mutia under the table is the assertion of petitioner that it was when she stood up that Mrs.
Mutia suddenly placed something in her hand which she did not know to be money and when she saw that it was
money she threw it away. An examination of the seven photographs that were allegedly taken immediately after
the passing of the money shows that the petitioner was standing up when the PC agents apprehended her. This
corroborates petitioner's story. There was no picture showing petitioner to be seated which should be her position
immediately after the money was handed to her under the table, which should be the case according to the
version of the prosecution. None of the photographs show the petitioner in the process of appropriating or
keeping the money after it was handed to her. As the petitioner was admittedly handed the money, this explains
why she was positive for ultra-violet powder. It is possible that she intended to keep the supposed bribe money or
may have had no intention to accept the same. These possibilities exist but we are not certain.
REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

RATIO: The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the
public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration. There must be a clear intention
on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider the same as his own property from then
on, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied
by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude
that the crime of indirect bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will encourage unscrupulous
individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody some gift, money or other
property.

---

ARTICLE 212
Corruption of Public Officials
R.A. No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
PEOPLE v. ALBANO
163 SCRA 511, G.R. Nos. L-45376-77, July 26, 1988

FACTS: General Santos City Mayor Antonio C. Acharon was charged for violation of Republic Act 3019, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

He was charged with the grant of license or permit to operate cockpits in the said City as he denied the application
for renewal of Emilio Evangelista for license or permit to operate his cockpit, and issuing instead a license and
permit to operate to Luis Acharon, his uncle (relative within the third civil degree) to operate a new cockpit about
250 meters away from the cockpit of Emilio Evangelista and in spite of the order of the CFI in Civil Case No. 840,
entitled "MANDAMUS" in which Emilio Evangelista is the Petitioner, directing the Mayor to accept and give due
course to the application of petitioner Emilio Evangelista for a license or permit to operate his cockpit; the said
accused failed and refused to do so, thereby causing injury to said applicant and gave his uncle, Luis Acharon, an
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions thru his manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. These acts are contrary to paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 3,
Republic Act No. 3019.

He was also, on separate information, charged of taking advantage of their positions as City Mayor and City Vice
Mayor, by using the names of 327 employees of the city government of General Santos City, fraudulently procured
and purchased 1,635 sacks of rice in bulk with the Regional Office of the Rice & Corn Administration by using their
own money and after obtaining such rice at a price very much lower than the prevailing price in the open market
for the same quality of rice, dispose the same illegally to persons other than the said 327 employees of the city
government in violation of paragraph (a), (e), (h) and (j) of Section 3, in relation to Section 1 of Republic Act 3019.

The prosecution then filed an Urgent Motion for the issuance of an order suspending the accused from office.

The accused submitted the question of the validity or invalidity of the informations on the basis of the records of
each case. The trial court subsequently decided the cases on the merits by making findings of fact based on its
assessment of the records of the antecedent proceedings had in the cases, taking into consideration matters of
defense of the accused, resolving that the informations in both cases are "invalid ab initio" and consequently
dismissing said cases. Thus, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the order
of the lower court. They contend that the trial court erred in finding that the acts charged do not constitute
violations of RA No. 3019 by taking matters not alleged in the informations and that the same court erred in
deciding the case on the merit without trial consequently rendering the orders of dismissal null and void for want
of due process.



REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a court may consider matters not alleged in the information under consideration in a pre-
suspension proceeding to determine the validity or invalidity of an information filed under RA No. 3019
2. Whether or not a court may, without a trial proper, decide a case on the merits by making findings of fact
after an assessment of the evidence on the record, taking into consideration matters of defense of the
accused, and, on the basis thereof, dismiss the same

HELD: The Court has previously ruled that, under Sec. 13, Rep. Act 3019, suspension of a public officer is
mandatory. However, suspension cannot be automatic, the reason being that "a hearing on the validity of the
information appears conformable to the spirit of the law, taking into account the serious and far reaching
consequences of a suspension of an elective public official even before his conviction and that public interest
demands a speedy determination of the issues involved in (the) cases." Thus, before a suspension order can be
issued, a hearing on the issue of the validity of the information must first be had. This pre-suspension hearing is
conducted to determine basically the validity of the information, from which the court can have a basis to either
suspend the accused, and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold the suspension of the latter
and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its validity.

No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be
given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the VALIDITY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS against him, e.g.
that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation; that the acts for which he stands charged
do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act 3019 or the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal
Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under section 13 of the Act; or he may present a
motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

RATIO: Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019 provides that:

Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended. Should he be convicted
by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall
be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless
in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

---

ARTICLE 212
Corruption of Public Officials
R.A. No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
DELOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
173 SCRA 409, G.R. No. 86899-903, May 15, 1989

FACTS: On or about February 3, 1978 in Botolan, Zambales, accused Amor Deloso, a public officer being then the
Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Botolan, Zambales, issued Daniel Ferrer a tractor purchased by the
Municipality of Botolan thru a loan financed by the Land Bank of the Philippines for lease to local farmers at
reasonable cost, without any agreement as to the payment of rentals for the use of tractor by Daniel Ferrer, giving
the latter unwarranted benefits, thereby causing undue injury to the Municipality of Botolan. Petitioner was then
suspended pendente lite from his position as Provincial Governor of Zambales and from any other office that he
may now be holding pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. He thereafter filed an urgent motion with
the Sandiganbayan requesting that the execution and implementation of the suspension order be held in abeyance
pending determination of the merits of the petition. The motion was denied prompting the petitioner to ask the
Court for an earlier setting of the trial of the cases which was denied by the Sandiganbayan since they have a
REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

heavy case load and that other cases have been set earlier. Petitioner then questioned the constitutionality of the
suspension provision of Section 13 of RA No. 3019.

ISSUE: Whether or not the preventive suspension of the accused is justified

HELD: Petitioner Deloso was elected governor of the Province of Zambales in the January 18, 1988 local elections.
The regular term of a governor is only 3 years although he shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992 by special
provision of the Constitution. (Section 8, Article X, Section 2, Article XVIII, Constitution). He was, however, ordered
suspended from performing his duties as governor by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act
No. 3019 by virtue of the criminal charges filed against him. The order of suspension does not have a definite
period so that the petitioner may be suspended for the rest of his term of office unless his case is terminated
sooner. An extended suspension is a distinct possibility considering that the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's
plea for earlier dates of trial of his cases on the ground that there are other cases set earlier which have a right to
expect priority. Under these circumstances the preventive suspension which initially may be justified becomes
unreasonable thus raising a due process question. The injunction against preventive suspensions for an
unreasonable period of time applies with greater force to elective officials and especially to the petitioner whose
term is a relatively short one. The interests of the sovereign electorate and the province of Zambales cannot be
subordinated to the heavy case load of the Sandiganbayan and of this Court. It would be most unfair to the people
of Zambales who elected the petitioner to the highest provincial office in their command if they are deprived of his
services for an indefinite period with the termination of his case possibly extending beyond his entire term simply
because the big number of sequestration, ill-gotten wealth, murder, malversation of public funds and other more
serious offenses plus incidents and resolutions that may be brought to the Supreme Court prevents the expedited
determination of his innocence or guilt.

RATIO: A preventive suspension of an elective public officer under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 should be
limited to the ninety (90) days under Section 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree, which
period also appears reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The injunction against
preventive suspensions for an unreasonable period of time applies with greater force to elective officials and
especially to the petitioner whose term is a relatively short one.