Está en la página 1de 6

PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice

What are the acts punishable under this law?

The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects
and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases:

a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from


reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s
by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats.

b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,


document, or object with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility,
availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official
proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases.

c. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he


knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any
offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest,
prosecution and conviction.

d. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime,


evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true
name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes.

e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of


process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts.

f. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with


knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of
the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases.

g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of


abstaining from, discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal
offender.
h. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong
upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or
members of his family in order to prevent a person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in criminal
cases.

i. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent


the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating
information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background information and not for
publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
the investigator or the court.

Article 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even


though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:

(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a


contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation,
undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are
annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.

The principle of unjust enrichment is provided under Article 22 of the


Civil Code which provides:

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by


another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.

There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to


the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience.23 The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions:
(1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2)
that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.24

ELVIRA LATEO y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA y ARCAS, and


BARTOLOME BALDEMOR y MADRIGAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 161651 June 8, 2011)

In Alcantara v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court, citing People v.


Balasa,[22] explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.:

[F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything


calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,
trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to
another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing
all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device,
and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an
advantage over another by false suggestions or by
suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick,
cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another
is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended
to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury.

GOOD FAITH is a defense in malum en se, such as estafa. This is too basic and
too elementary a doctrine that it does not require jurisprudential
citations. At any rate, the following cases are cited:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, G.R. Nos.
104238-58, June 2004, on GOOD FAITH as a defense in estafa
and mala en se.

It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code was enacted to penalize
unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes mala in
se. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious
intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which
together make up the criminal mind behind the criminal act. Thus, to
constitute a crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be
accompanied by a criminal intent.Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the
act complained of is innocent. As we held
in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 [1997].:

In the case of DIONISIO AW a.k.a. TONY GO vs. PEOPLE OF THE


PHILIPPINES, GR No. 182276, March 29, 2010, the elements of Estafa
were discussed by the Supreme Court, thus:

Xxx.

The elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(B) of the Revised
Penal Code are:

(a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the


offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the
same.

(b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or


property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt

(c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the


prejudice of another; and

(d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

The first element of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(B) is the
receipt by the offender of the money, goods, or other personal property in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same.

X x x.
We next turn to the second element of Estafa under Article 315,
Paragraph 1(B) namely, prejudice and the third element, therein of
misappropriation.

The essence of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) is the


appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the
prejudice of the owner. The words convert and misappropriate
connote an act of using or disposing of anothers property as if it were
ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed
upon. To misappropriate for ones own use includes not only conversion
to ones personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right.

G.R. No. 160110 June 18, 2014

MARIANO C. MENDOZA and ELVIRA LIM, Petitioners,


vs.
SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ and GABRIEL V. GOMEZ

Actual or Compensatory Damages. Actual or compensatory damages are


those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury
sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the
wrong.34

Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasi delicts,
the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. Article 2199 of the same
Code, however, sets the limitation that, except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. As such,
to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages, the claimant
must prove that the damage sustained is the natural and probable
consequences of the negligent act and, moreover, the claimant must
adequately prove the amount of such damage.

También podría gustarte