Obstruction of Justice

OBSTRUCTION
OF
JUSTICE
P.D. No.
1829
TOPICS
COVERED
TREATMENT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIAL
RATIONAL
E OR EMPLOYEE VIOLATING P.D. 1829
Section 2 of P.D. 1829
PENALTY
Section 1 of P.D.
1829
PADIERNOS vs.
PUNISHABLE PEOPLE
ACTS
Presedential Decree No.
1829
Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and
Prosecution of Criminal Offenders
RATIONA President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD
1829 on January 16, 1981
LE To discourage public indifference and

apathy towards the apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders
Penalize any person who knowingly or

willingly obstructs, impedes, frustrates
or delays the apprehension and
prosecution of suspected criminal
offenders.
PENAL
TY
Provided in Section 1 of P.D. 1829
Prision correccional in its maximum period

Imprisonment for 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years
Fine ranging from 1,000.00 - 6,000.00
PHP. OR BOTH.
A. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal
investigation 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, traces or prints, with
PUNISHABLE
intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability,
or admissibility as evidence in a crime scene or in any
investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases,
or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings
ACTS 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 laws in
Provided in Section 1 of P.D. 1829
order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction;
D. Using a false identity or falsified document 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 National Prosecution Service,
Ombudsman, 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
PUNISHABLE
G. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in
consideration for abstaining from, discontinuing, or
impeding the legal proceedings
H. Threatening another, directly or indirectly, with the
ACTS infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or

that of any immediate member or members of his family, or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to
Provided in Section 1 of P.D. 1829 prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of
or official proceedings in criminal cases
I. Giving 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 publishing or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities.
TREATMENT TO
PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR
EMPLOYEES
VIOLATING P.D. 1829 Public official or employees committing
any of the punishable acts shall in
addition to penalties, suffer perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.
PADIERNOS vs.
PEOPLE
G.R.
2015
No. 181111 AUGUST 17,
Padiernos, Roxas, and Mesina were charged as accessories
to the crime of illegal possession of lumber, in violation of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 or the Forestry Reform
Code of the Philippines. According to the Information, the
petitioners took away the truck that carried the lumber to
prevent its use as evidence and to avoid its confiscation
and forfeiture.
FACT That at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning on November

2002, in Aurora, the principals, confederating together and
mutually helping one another, did then and there,
S unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in their possession

and control 818 pieces of lumber loaded on a ten-wheeler
truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 and owned by the accused
Santiago Castillo y Cruz without any permit, license or
documents from the proper authority and that at about 3:00
o'clock in the afternoon on the following day, the petitioner
accessories, confederating together and mutually helping
one another, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and
willfully take and carry away the ten wheeler truck so it
could not be used as evidence and avoid confiscation and
forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or instrument of
the crime, CONTRARY TO LAW.
Prosecution’s evidence: DENR officer approached a truck
loaded with lumber in a national highway inAurora. Truck
bore name of JEROME. The driver of the truck was
FREDERICO, and the truck helper was MOSTERA. Officers
asked for supporting documents but failed to produce any.
Officers decided to transferthe truck and lumber to the
police station. They transferred the lumber first and left the
truck at the highway.The truck was then seized by the
FACT petitioners. The Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber

gun.
Defense: Mesina testified that he was at home with his wife
S and children. Santiago asked him to bring the truck but

Mesina refused. However, Mesina finally agreed and rode in
Santiago’s car and they fetch Roxas. They were on their way
to the truck when they saw Padiernos, and the latter hitched
a ride. They also alighted from the car and Santiago talked
to the officers. Santiago handed the truck keys to Mesina.
Mesina took the driver’s seat, Padiernos sat in front with
Santiago and Roxas. They alleged that they didn’t reach the
area where the Army was. They did not hear the commotion,
and also raised the defense that they did not intentionally
take the truck
RTC ruling: Petitioners were guilty. RTC did not entertain
the defense that they did not intentionally take thetruck.
RTC also disregard the petitioner’s claim that they did not
hear the warning shot.
FACT CA: Affirmed RTC but modified penalty. Also the subject
S truck as an “instrument” in the commission of the crime,

connected to the petitioners being accessories. The
violation was a mala prohibita, and the defense of not
intentionally taking the car was not entertained at all
Whether Petitioners are liable as accessories to
the crime
ISSU
ES Whether the factual allegations in the information
constitute the crime of OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE
The Supreme Court find that insofar as the petitioners are
concerned, the facts alleged in the Information and the
crime proved in the present case do not make the
petitioners liable as accessories for violation of P.D. 705.
They are, however, liable for violation of Section 1(b) of P.D.
1829.
RULIN The factual allegations in the Information, while not
G constituting an offense committed by accessories under

Article 19, paragraph 2 of the RPC, constitute instead the
criminal offense of obstruction of justice, which is defined
under Section 1(b) of P.D. No. 1829 entitled "Penalizing
Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders."
P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which

obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the
successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders.
First, the Information duly alleges all the essential elements
of the crime of obstruction of justice under Section 1(b).
The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the

accused of taking and carrying away the truck so that it
could not be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation
and forfeiture in favor of the government as a tool or
instrument of the crime.
RULIN Second, the petitioners deliberately took the truck or
G "suppressed" this particular evidence. The term "suppress"

means to subdue or end by force.
Specifically, the petitioners intentionally suppressed the

truck as evidence, with the intent to impair its availability
and prevent its use as evidence in the criminal investigation
or proceeding for violation of P.D. 705. This intent was duly
proved during trial.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and
REVERSE the Court of Appeals' decision dated
May 10, 2007, and its resolution dated December
RULIN 20, 2007. We find petitioners Jackson Padiernos y

Quejada, Jackie Roxas y German, and Rolando
Mesina y Javate GUILTY for violation of Section
G 1(b) of P.D. 1829. They are hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of prision correccional for 4
years, 9 months, and 11 days to 5 years, 4 months,
and 20 days.
THANK
YOU!
EUNA ANNE R.
GALLARDO SPL - 2BB

Obstruction of Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Obstruction of Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Obstruction of Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OBSTRUCTION

LE To discourage public indifference and

Penalize any person who knowingly or

Prision correccional in its maximum period

Fine ranging from 1,000.00 - 6,000.00

B. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any

ACTS in, criminal cases.

D. Using a false identity or falsified document for the

F. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper

H. Threatening another, directly or indirectly, with the

ACTS infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or

I. Giving false or fabricated information to mislead or

FACT That at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning on November

S unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in their possession

FACT petitioners. The Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber

S and children. Santiago asked him to bring the truck but

S truck as an “instrument” in the commission of the crime,

RULIN The factual allegations in the Information, while not

G constituting an offense committed by accessories under

P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which

The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the

RULIN Second, the petitioners deliberately took the truck or

G "suppressed" this particular evidence. The term "suppress"

Specifically, the petitioners intentionally suppressed the

RULIN 20, 2007. We find petitioners Jackson Padiernos y

You might also like