Obstruction of Justice Report

7/27/2019 Obstruction of Justice Report

1/23

The term is used to refer to the acts punished under Presidential Decree No. 1829(Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and

Prosecution of Criminal Offenders). Full texthere.

What is the stated purpose of PD 1829?

As stated in the law, its purpose is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal

offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension

and prosecution of criminal offenders.

What is the penalty for Obstruction of Justice?

The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both. Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years (prision

correccionalin its maximum period). The fine ranges from P1,000 P6,000.

Who may be charged under PD 1829?

Any person whether private or public who commits the acts enumerated below may be charged with violating PD 1829. In

case a public officer is found guilty, he shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

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 orfrom 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.

What are some of the instances when questions against charges under PD 1829 reached the Supreme Court?

In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of the University of the Philippines (UP) were

charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c above). The UP officers objected to the warrantless arrest of certain students by the

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground for the warrantless arrest. The
http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/http://jlp-law.com/blog/presidential-decree-no-1829-penalizing-obstruction-of-apprehension-of-criminal-offenders/


2/23

UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the arrest of the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The

need to enforce the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.

In another case, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was charged under PD 1829, for allegedly accommodating Col. Gregorio Honasan by giving

him food and comfort on 1 December 1989 in his house. Knowing that Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile

allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. The Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Enrile could not be

separately charged under PD 1829, as this is absorbed in the charge of rebellion already filed against Sen. Enrile.

TO STRICTLY PENALIZE OFFENSES

AGAINST THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION

OF JUSTICE:A CRITIQUE OFPRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1829

PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND

PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

by

Allan Verman Y. Ong

The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure withoutconscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business withoutmorality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.[1]

- Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction: Tracing the Roots of the Crime of Obstructionof Justice

At an early date, the punishment of acts of obstructing the due administration of justice was

recognized as absolutely essential to the existence of courts and their efficiency in performing

the functions for which they were created. The great object for the existence of courts is the

ascertainment of truth, and this can only be done fairly and impartially when all persons having

knowledge of the transactions at issue are allowed to come before the courts for examination

without hindrance from anyone. Thus, under American penal law, the obstruction of the

administration of justice is an indictable offense under the common law, and by statute in most

states.[2]
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn1http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn1


3/23


4/23

official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted. A call to another

requesting that he give false information to the police is not constitutionally-protected speech,

and is punishable as obstruction of justice. Allegations that the defendant, intending to obstruct

justice, unlawfully sought to induce others, in connection with an investigation, to mislead the

investigation and not tell the investigators the true and complete facts support a conviction for

obstruction of justice.[9]

PD 1829 provides that if any of the acts mentioned in the law is penalized by any other

law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.[10]

But this act does not seem to

be penalized under Philippine penal law. The act of giving false testimony is penalized under the

Revised Penal Code[11]

as well as the act of refusing to answer.[12]

But there is no other law

which penalizes this same act.

(b) alter ing, destroying, suppressing or conceali ng any paper, record, document, or

object, with intent to impair i ts ver ity, authenticity, legibil ity, avail abil ity, or admissibi li ty as

evidence in any investigation of or of f icial proceedings in , criminal cases, or to be used in the

investigation of, or of fi cial proceedings in , cr iminal cases;[13]

Under American jurisprudence, one who knowingly and willfully impedes a lawfully

conducted police investigation of a crime by secreting, suppressing, or destroying evidence,

knowing that it is being sought by investigating officers, may be prosecuted for the crime of

obstruction of justice. Some states specifically make it a crime to destroy evidence with the

intent to impair its availability as evidence in an investigation or official proceeding. Tampering

with evidence pertains to the destruction or concealment of any book, paper, record, instrument

of writing, or other matter or thing about to be produced in evidence and is not limited to written

evidence but can extend to the destruction of contraband narcotics, as the term object

encompasses an unending variety of physical objects.[14]

(c) harboring or concealing, or facili tating 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 arr est prosecution and convicti on;[15]

The Revised Penal Code penalizes, as accessories, those who, having knowledge of the

commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or

accomplices, take part, subsequent to its commission, by three acts: 1) profiting or to assisting

the offender to profit by the effects of the crime, 2) concealing or destroying the body of the

crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery and 3) harboring,

concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn11http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn11http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn11http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn9


5/23

with abuse of his public functions, or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,

parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be

habitually guilty of some other crime.[16]

The third type of accessory is central to the analysis presented in this paper. Under the

Revised Penal Code, there are two classes of accessories contemplated under the third type of

accessory:1. Public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of

the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his

public functions; and

2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape ofthe author of the crimeguilty of treason, parricide, murder, or

an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to

be habitually guilty of some other crime.[17]

Thus, the Revised Penal Code does not penalize a person who harbors, conceals or assists

in the escape of an author of a crime other than those specifically enumerated therein treason,

parricide, murder, or an attempt on the life of the President. Various crimes such as kidnap for

ransom, destructive arson, qualified rape, and crimes related to prohibited drugs, are of the same

gravity[18]

with the crimes listed under Art. 19 of the Code. But the Code does not penalize

private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of crimes such as kidnap

for ransom.

However, PD 1829 penalizes under the present subsection penalizes the act of 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. Here, there is no specification of the crime to be committed

by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred for harboring, concealing, or facilitating the

escape of the offender, and the offender need not be the principal unlike paragraph 3, Article

19 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, although the subject acts may not bring about criminal

liability under the Revised Penal Code, it may still be punishable under this particular subsection

of PD 1829. Such an offender if violating Presidential Decree No. 1829 is no longer an

accessory. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person

assisted to escape, and he is penalized as a principal. So in the problem, the standard of the

Revised Penal Code, the person who helps the criminal escape is not criminally liable because

crime is kidnapping, but under Presidential Decree No. 1829, the person who gives such aid is

criminally liable.
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn16


6/23

Under paragraph 3, Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, in the case of a civilian who

harbors, conceals, or assists the escape of the principal, the RPC requires that the principal be

found guilty of certain specified crimes. The paragraph uses the particular word guilty. So

this means that before the civilian can be held liable as an accessory, the principal must first be

found guilty of the crime charged, either treason, parricide, murder, or attempt to take the life of

the Chief Executive. If the principal is acquitted, the civilian who harbored, concealed or

assisted in the escape did not violate Art. 19 of the RPC. That is as far as the Revised Penal

Code is concerned. But not Presidential Decree No. 1829. This special law does not require that

there be prior conviction. It is a malum prohibitum, so there is no need for guilt, or knowledge of

the crime.

It is interesting to note that this particular act does not seem to be penalized under

American jurisprudence on obstructing justice.

(d) publi cly using a f icti tious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading

prosecution or the executi on of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal

cir cumstances for the same purpose or purposes;[19]

This particular act seems to be penalized also under the Revised Penal Code. Art. 178

penalizes the act of using fictitious names for purposes of concealing a crime, evading the

execution of a judgment or causing damages. The same articles also penalizes any person who

conceals his true name and other personal circumstances. The illegal use of a fictitious name

under this article must be for the three said reasons, otherwise, if the damage concerns private

interest, the offense may be punishable as estafa through the use of a fictitious name.[20]

However, PD 1829 applies only where the person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,

impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution

of criminal cases by committing any of the mentioned acts. Art. 178 which penalizes the use of

fictitious name and the concealment of true name of a person to allow himself, not another

person as provided in PD 1829, to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to

cause damage. So PD 1829 and Art. 178 of the RPC do not seem to penalize the same

offense. However, the wording of this particular subsection seems to imply that the acts must be

done to evade a sentence on oneself. There is yet no case of the Supreme Court which clarifies

this apparent duplicity.

However, it is interesting to note that the penalty provided for in PD 1829 isprision

correccionalin its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both. In

turn, the penalty provided for in Art. 178 is arresto mayorand a fine not to exceed 500 pesos. It

thus appears that the penalty is more stringent in PD 1829. So should a person be penalized


7/23

under this subsection rather than Art. 178, the convicted person can be made to suffer a greater

penalty.

(e) delaying the prosecuti on of criminal cases by obstructi ng the service of process or

court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the

courts;[21]

American law on obstructing justice makes it a crime to obstruct the exercise of rights or

performance of duties under federal court orders. Although certain acts that violate the statute

may also constitute criminal contempt, the statute is designed to reach the actions of non-parties

who are beyond the traditional reach of the contempt sanction. To support a conviction, there

must be proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the court order and intentionally

obstructed justice. It is to be noted that a state court has noted that a person who obstructs an

officer that is attempting to carry out a court decree may be convicted of obstructing the duecourse of justice, and not just of obstructing an officer in the execution of process, since the

officer is acting in this situation as part of the judicial machinery.[22]

The same observations

apply to Philippine penal law.

(f ) making, presenti ng or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge

of i ts falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or off icial

proceedings in, criminal cases;[23]

Furnishing false information includes withholding information or providing information

that intentionally misleads. A misrepresentation statute applies to the concealment of true facts

as well as to the assertion of what is false.[24]

A suspect who gives a false identification to a

police officer impedes the course of an investigation, and violates a statute dealing with

obstruction of an officer in the discharge of his duty.[25]

Under American jurisprudence,

falsification of evidence with corrupt intent is an endeavor to obstruct justice. A state statute

dealing with presentation of false documents for the purpose of misleading a public servant deals

only with the use of false documents in court, not with the use of a genuine document as part of

the support of a false alibi.[26]

A false information statute may require that the information be given with the intent toprevent the prosecution and with knowledge that the information was untrue. This intent need

not be proved by direct evidence but can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Three

elements are required to convict one under a false reporting statute. There must be a false

statement to a peace officer, it must be given with the intent to impede an investigation, and the

investigation must be of an actual criminal matter.[27]
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn21


8/23

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefi t in consideration of abstain ing

from, discounti ng, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal off ender;[28]

This act seems to fall under the definition since the offense can only be committed by one

who is responsible for the prosecution of a criminal offender, and on account of a benefit,

abstains from, discounts or impedes the prosecution thereof. To wit, direct bribery is committed

by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with

the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present

received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another.[29]

This particular

subsection of PD 1829 is similar to paragraph three of Art. 210 on Direct Bribery, which

penalizes the public officer when the act of bribery constitutes the act of refraining from doing

something which it was his official duty to do. The penalty to be imposed upon the public

officer shall beprision correctionalin its maximum period toprision mayorin its minimumperiod and a fine not less than three times the value of such gift.

[30] In addition to this, Art. 210

imposes the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provision shall apply to

assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other person performing

public duties.[31]

Given that the act penalized in this subsection is similar to paragraph three of Art. 210,

what shall be the penalty imposed? PD 1829 imposes the general penalty ofprision

correccionalin its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both. This

penalty is lighter than that given under Art. 210 on bribery. Therefore, the accused shall beimposed the penalty provided for under Art. 210, whether he is prosecuted under Art. 210 of the

Revised Penal Code, or under PD 1829.

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infl iction of any wrong upon his

person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of h is fami ly i n order

to prevent such person fr om appeari ng in the investigation of , or off icial proceedings in ,

criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or un lawful , in order to prevent a

person from appeari ng in the investigation of or in off icial proceedings in , cr iminal cases;[32]

Under American jurisprudence, it is made an offense by federal statute for one toinfluence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede, by means of threats

of force or by any threatening letter or communication, the due and proper administration of the

law under which any pending proceeding is being had before a federal department or

agency.[33]

Under PD 1829, the acts are punishable are likewise not limited to criminal

investigations.
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn28


9/23

It has been indicated that the act must be calculated to obstruct the administration of the

law to constitute a violation of the statute. However, the obstructionneed not be successfulas

one who endeavors to obstruct a proceeding may be convicted. There is also no requirement that

the means used to obstruct justice beper se illegal.[34]

This appears to be applicable as well under

PD 1829, since this subsection does not require that the wrong inflicted on the person to prevent

such person from appearing in an investigation or proceeding must constitute a crime. American

jurisprudence likewise provides that although most instances when there was obstruction of

justice have been based on acts of bribery, subornation of perjury, falsification of documents,

threats, and the like, a corrupt attempt to influence a pending administrative proceeding may also

include the use of legitimate arguments for concealed or falsified ends, such as asking an

investigator for a favor that would benefit the target of an investigation, without disclosing that

the request was made in return for a cash payment by the target.[35]

This act is not punishable elsewhere in Philippine penal law and it is only PD 1829 whichpenalizes the said act. Art. 143 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the commission of acts

tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies, but the criminal act contemplated

in this subsection pertains to those participants who were supposed to aid in the investigation,

and not the members of Congress themselves.

(i) giving of false or fabr icated in formation to mislead or prevent the law enforcement

agencies fr om apprehending the offender or f rom protecting the li fe or property of the victim;

or fabricating in formation f rom the data gathered in conf idence by investigating authori ties

for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or

disseminati ng the same to mislead the investigator or to the cour t.[36]

The acts penalized under this subsection seems to be similar to those penalized under

subsection (c) of the same PD 1829, since that subsection penalizes 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.[37]

Under American law on obstruction of justice, these such acts are penalized

under other acts that constitute obstruction of justice. These include unlawfully obtaining and

using unreleased grand jury transcripts and attempts to transmit or sell transcripts of secret grand

jury testimony to persons under investigation, an agreement between co-defendants that one co-

defendant would absent himself as to cause a mistrial, persuading a co-defendant to absent

himself from trial in order to improperly secure its postponement and such acts constitute the

crime of obstruction of justice.[38]
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn34


10/23

However, it is not a crime under American jurisprudence to advice the recipient of a letter

from a prosecutor not to comply with the prosecutors request to come to court and enter a plea,

since the obstruction of justice statute should not be used to give to the attorneys notes or verbal

requests the quality of process. And associating with a person whose conditions of probation

forbid such association does not come within the meaning of the federal obstruction of justice

statute.[39]

II. Jurisprudential Pronouncements on PD 1829: A Dearth ofPronouncements

Despite the admirable purpose of the statute and its interstitial nature which is to bridge

certain gaps in the law, there has hardly been PD 1829 which have reached the Supreme

Court. There are four cases reported where the accused was charged of PD 1829. These cases

are as follows.

A. Enri le v. Am in

In the case ofJuan Ponce Enrile v. Hon. Omar U. Amin,[40]

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was

charged with rebellion complexed with murder in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for

activities connected with the December 1989 coup d etat, and he was charged to be a co -

conspirator of Ex. Lt. Col. Gregorio Gringo Honasan. Government prosecutors filed another

information charging him for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with the Regional Trial

Court of Makati. The information charged Enrile for willfully and knowingly obstructing,

impeding, frustrating or delaying the apprehension of Honasan by harboring or concealing him in

his house.

Petitioner Enrile claimed that the pending charge of rebellion complexed with murder and

frustrated murder against Senator Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan, on the basis

of their alleged meeting on December 1, 1989 precluded the prosecution of the Senator for

harboring or concealing the Colonel on the same occasion under PD 1829. Both the RTC and

the CA denied him relief on this ground and he filed a petition forcertiorari with the Supreme

Court.

The Supreme Court invoked its ruling in the case ofPeople v. Hernandez[41]

where the

Court laid down the doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other

offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as

an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. The Court observed:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn39


11/23

This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a person can not be

charged with the complete crime of rebellion for the greaterpenalty to be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two

(2) different offenses where one is a constitutive or component

element or committed in furtherance of rebellion.

x x x x x x x x x

The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the petitionerentertained and accommodated Col. Honasan by giving him food

and comfort on December 1, 1989 in his house. Knowing that

Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly

did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. Andbecause of such failure the petitioner prevented Col. Honasan's

arrest and conviction in violation of Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829.

x x x x x x x x x

x x x [T]he factual allegations supporting the rebellion charge

constitute or include the very incident which gave rise to thecharge of the violation under Presidential Decree No. 1829. Under

the Department of Justice resolution there is only one crime of

rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murderbut there could be 101 separate and independent prosecutions for

"harboring and concealing ' Honasan and 100 other armed rebels

under PD No. 1829. The splitting of component elements is readily

apparent.[42]

Thus, the Supreme Court granted the petition and quashed the information. The Court

held that since petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the fugitive Col.

Gringo Honasan, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioner's alleged act of harboring or

concealing was for no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constituting

a component thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of

rebellion.

The crime of rebellion consists of many actsit is described as a vast movement of men

and a complex net of intrigues and plots and jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in

furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single

crime of rebellion. In this case, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere

component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot

therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn42


12/23

The Court noted the prosecutions theory that harboring or concealing a fugitive is

punishable under a special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised Penal Code;

hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a prosecution under the other. This argument is

specious in rebellion cases. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law,

which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become

absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in

themselves. Clearly, the petitioner's alleged act of harboring or concealing which was based on

his acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with or in furtherance of

rebellion and must now be deemed as absorbed by, merged in, and identified with the crime of

rebellion punished in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC.

B. People v. El ias Lov edioro

In the case of People v. Elias Lovedioro,[43]

an off-duty policeman was walking when a man

suddenly walked beside him fired a gun at the policeman's right ear and killed the policeman.

The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen

policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his

companions boarded a tricycle and fled. A witness identified the man who fired at the deceased

as Elias Lovedioro y Castro. Elias Lovedioro y Castro was charged and convicted in the

Regional Trial Court for the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Appellant claims that the lower court erred in holding him liable for murder and notrebellion. He claims that Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member of the New

People's Army. Additionally, he contends that because the killing of Lucilo was "a means to or in

furtherance of subversive ends," should have been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion

under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, claiming that he did not fire the

fatal shot but merely acted as look-out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he avers that he should have

been charged merely as a participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under paragraph

2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code and should therefore have been meted only the

penalty of prision mayor by the lower court.

The Solicitor General in turn avers that the crime committed by appellant may be

considered as rebellion only if the defense itself had conclusively proven that the motive or

intent for the killing of the policeman was for "political and subversive ends."

The Supreme Court held that the gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public

uprising against the government. By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or


13/23

multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a priori within predetermined

bounds. One aspect noteworthy in the commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its

pursuance are, by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a political character.

This peculiarity was underscored in the case ofPeople v. Hernandez,[44]

thus:

In short, political crimes are those directly aimed againstthe political order, as well as such common crimes as may be

committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is theintent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common, like

homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the

allegiance to the Government the territory of the Philippine Islandsor any part thereof, then it becomes stripped of its "common"

complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of

rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter.

Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary

act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed inthe crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the

crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion,not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain

whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end.

The political motive of the act should be conclusivelydemonstrated.

In such cases, the burden of demonstrating political motive

falls on the defense, motive, being a state of mind which theaccused, better than any individual, knows.

Clearly, political motive should be established before a person charged with a common

crime-alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty-could benefit from the

law's relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. The Court said that the ruling in Enrile

v. Amin[45]

was instructive in this regard. The Supreme Court observed and ruled:

x x x This Court held, against the prosecution's contention, that

rebellion and violation of P.D. 1829 could be tried separately 14

(on the principle that rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Codewhile P.D. 1829 is a special law), that the act for which the senator

was being charged, though punishable under a special law, wasabsorbed in the crime of rebellion being motivated by, and related

to the acts for which he was charged in Enrile vs. Salazar (G.R.Nos. 92163 and 92164) a case decided on June 5, 1990. Ruling in

favor of Senator Enrile and holding that the prosecution for

violation of P.D. No. 1829 cannot prosper because a separateprosecution for rebellion had already been filed and in fact

decided, the Court said:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn44


14/23

The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however

constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in rebellion casesmust not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses

under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the

political offense.

[I]intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce

Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed

Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is a friend and formerassociate, the motive for the act is completely different. But if the

act is committed with political or social motives, that is in

furtherance of rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of

the crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.

It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is established and proved, the accused

should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive

relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of

rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice. The burden of proof that the act committed was

impelled by a political motive lies on the accused. Political motive must be alleged in the

information. It must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence.

C. People v. Medina and Carlo s

PD 1829 was applied only tangentially in the case of People v. Medina and Carlos.[46] In this

case, Jaime B. Medina and accused Virgilio Carlos were apprehended by members of the

Narcotics Intelligence and Suppression Unit (NISU) under the Philippine National Police

Narcotics Command (PNP-NARCOM) for selling Methamphetamine hydrochloride without

authority of law. The two were brought before Assistant City Prosecutor Lillian H. Ramiro for

inquest. Carlos denied any involvement in the transaction by claiming that he merely

accompanied appellant to the place of the sale, while Medina stated that he was only supposed to

buy the regulated drug at the agreed price of P250,000.00 when the policemen arrived and

arrested them. Appellant added that, at his request, Carlos merely drove the car used by them.They were however charged in an Information where they were alleged to have conspired

and confederated together and mutually helped each other, not having been authorized by law to

sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there wilfully and

unlawfully sell or offer for sale 306.71 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a

regulated drug.


15/23

The court below rendered judgment holding that appellant conspired with accused Carlos

in the illegal sale of 306.71 grams of shabu. As the trial court appreciated the presence of craft,

fraud or disguise as aggravating circumstances against herein appellant, he was sentenced to

suffer the supreme penalty of death. In the same decision, an alias warrant of arrest was issued

by the court for the arrest of accused Virgilio Carlos.

Medina sought the reversal of the ruling, saying that the lower court erred in finding a conspiracy

between him and Virgilio Carlos.

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the trial court. It held that in the case at bar,

appellant was not merely present in a passive manner at the scene of the crime as he contends.

He definitely took an active participation in the sale of the shabu. He was positively identified as

the driver of the car carrying accused Carlos and the regulated drugs. When the duo arrived at the

agreed place, appellant went down to check if the buyer brought the money while Carlos waited

inside the car. Then, upon learning that the poseur-buyer had the money, appellant signaled to hiscompanion indicating such fact.

No other conclusion could follow from appellant's actions except that he had a prior

understanding and community of interest with Carlos. His preceding inquiry about the money

and the succeeding signal to communicate its availability reveal a standing agreement between

appellant and his co-accused under which it was the role of appellant to verify such fact from the

supposed buyer before Carlos would hand over the shabu. Without such participation of

appellant, the sale could not have gone through as Carlos could have withdrawn from the deal

had he not received that signal from appellant. It is undeniable, therefore, that appellant and hisco-accused acted in unison and, moreover, that appellant knew the true purpose of Carlos in

going to the restaurant.

But the lower court considered the ruling sentencing the appellant to death due to its

appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or disguise. The Supreme Court

found that a comprehensive search in the records of this case do not reveal these circumstances:The reason for this can be found in the very rationale

adopted by the lower court in appreciating the said circumstances

against appellant in the dispositive portion of its decision. The

court stated that craft, fraud or disguise led to the escape and non-

arrest of Virgilio Carlos, hence it apparently imputes the same toappellant.

While we share the trial court's disgust over the still

unexplained escape of accused Carlos, we cannot approve its

attribution to herein appellant as the author of such craft, fraud or

disguise or even that the same should aggravate his liability in thepresent case. For, even assuming ex gratia argumenti that appellant


16/23

had a part in the release of Carlos, it is obvious that the aggravating

circumstances involved do not pertain to the offense charged in the

information and are completely unrelated to the crime of illegalsale of shabu.

The court a quo should have borne in mind that the chargeagainst appellant is for illegal sale of shabu and not forobstructing the apprehension and prosecution of a criminal

offender or, for that matter, perjury. In fact, if such circumstances

in themselves constitute punishable crimes, or are included by thelaw in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor, they

cannot be considered as aggravating circumstances.

To be considered as an aggravating circumstance andthereby resultantly increase the criminal liability of an offender,

the same must accompany and be an integral part or concomitant

of the commission of the crime specified in the information; andalthough it is not necessarily an element thereof, it must not be

factually and legally discrete therefrom. Besides, it is highly

problematical whether the Spanish legal concept of astucia, fraude

and disfraz, adopted in our Revised Penal Code, can findapplication at all to the dismissal of the case against Carlos.

[47]

In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in

considering against herein appellant the supposed aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or

disguise. The violation of Section 15 subject of the amended indictment was consequently

committed without any aggravating circumstance.The Supreme Court here verified that acts punishable under Presidential Decree No. 1829

cannot be construed or constituted as mere aggravating circumstances, if indeed they were

present in the case. They are penalized under the law as liable under PD 1829 and they must be

made liable as such.

D. Soller v. Sandig anbayan

The most recent case applying PD 1829 isPrudente D. Soller v. Sandiganbayan andPeople.

[48] This was a case forcertiorari, prohibition and mandamusraising the issue of the

propriety of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases entitled

People of the Philippines vs. Prudente D. Soller, Preciosa M. Soller, Rodolfo Salcedo, Josefina

Morada, Mario Matining and Rommel Luarca wherein petitioners are charged with Obstruction


17/23

of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders as defined and penalized under P.D.

No. 1829.

It appears that in the evening of March 14, 1997, Jerry Macabael a municipal guard, was

shot and killed along the national highway at Bansud, Oriental Mindoro while driving a

motorcycle together with petitioner Sollers son, Vincent M. Soller. His body was brought to a

medical clinic located in the house of petitioner Dr. Prudente Soller, the Municipal Mayor, and

his wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who is the Municipal Health Officer. An autopsy was conducted on

the same night on the cadaver by petitioner Dr. Preciosa Soller with the assistance of petitioner

Rodolfo Salcedo, Sanitary Inspector, and petitioner Josefina Morada, Rural Health Midwife.

A complaint was later filed against the petitioners by the widow of Jerry Macabael with

the Office of the Ombudsman charging them with conspiracy to mislead the investigation of the

fatal shootout of Jerry Macabael by:

(a) altering his wound ;(b) concealing his brain;

(c) falsely stating in police report that he had several gunshot wounds when in truth he

had only one; and

(d) falsely stating in an autopsy report that there was no blackening around his wound

when in truth there was.

Petitioners Soller denied having tampered with the cadaver of Jerry Macabael, and

claimed, among others that Jerry Macabael was brought to their private medical clinic because it

was there where he was rushed by his companions after the shooting, that petitioner Prudente

Soller, who is also a doctor, was merely requested by his wife Preciosa Soller, who was the

Municipal Health Officer, to assist in the autopsy considering that the procedure involved sawing

which required male strength, and that Mrs. Macabaels consent was obtained before the

autopsy.

But two Information were indeed filed with the Sandiganbayan charging the petitioners

for criminally alter and suppress the gunshot wound and conceal the brain of Jerry Macabael

with intent to impair its veracity, authenticity, and availability as evidence in the investigation of

criminal case for murder against the accused Vincent Soller, the son of herein respondents.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on the principal ground that the Sandiganbayan had

no jurisdiction over the offenses charged. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners Motion to

Quash on the ground that the accusation involves the performance of the duties of at least one of

the accused public officials, and if the Mayor is indeed properly charged together with that

official, then the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the entire case and over all the co-accused.


18/23

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. The court held that the rule is that in

order to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be

inquired into. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law

or it will not be held to exist. It cannot be presumed or implied. For this purpose in criminal

cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the law at the time of the commencement of

the action.

The Court found:

The action here was instituted with the filing of the Informations

on May 25, 1999 charging the petitioners with the offense ofObstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal

Offenders as defined and penalized under Section 1, Paragraph b

of P.D.1829.

x x x x x x x x x

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positionscorresponding to salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the

said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned

above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in theproper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial

court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be,

pursuant to their jurisdictions as provided by Batas Pambansa Blg.

129, amended.

The Supreme Court observed that the bone of contention here is whether the offenses

charged may be considered as committed in relation to their office as this phrase is employed

in Section 4 of PD 1892.

As early asMontilla vs. Hilario,[49]

the Supreme Court interpreted the requirement that an

offense be committed in relation to the office to mean that the offense cannot exist without the

office or that the office must be a constituent element of the crime.[50]

People vs.

Montejo[51]

enunciated the principle that the offense must be intimately connected with the office

of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance, though improper or irregular of

his official functions.

In this case, the Informations subject of Criminal Cases Nos. 25521 and 25522 quoted

earlier, fail to allege that petitioners had committed the offenses charged in relation to their

offices. Neither are there specific allegations of facts to show the intimate relation/connection

between the commission of the offense charged and the discharge of official functions of the

offenders, i.e. that the obstruction of and apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders was

committed in relation to the office of petitioner Prudente Soller, whose office as Mayor is
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn51http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn51http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftn49


19/23

included in the enumeration in Section 4 (a) of P.D. 1606 as amended. Although the petitioners

were described as being all public officers, then being the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Health

Officer, SPO II, PO I, Sanitary Inspector and Midwife, there was no allegation that the offense

of altering and suppressing the gunshot wound of the victim with intent to impair the veracity,

authenticity and availability as evidence in the investigation of the criminal case for murder

(Criminal Case No. 25521) or of giving false and fabricated information in the autopsy report

and police report to mislead the law enforcement agency and prevent the apprehension of the

offender (Criminal Case No. 25522) was done in the performance of official function. Indeed

the offenses defined in P.D. 1892 may be committed by any person whether a public officer or a

private citizen, and accordingly public office is not an element of the offense. Moreover, the

Information in Criminal Case No. 25522 states that the fabrication of information in the police

and autopsy report would indicate that the victim was shot by Vincent Soller, the son of herein

petitioners spouses Prudente and Preciosa Soller. Thus there is a categorical indication that thepetitioners spouses Soller had a personal motive to commit the offenses and they would have

committed the offenses charged even if they did not respectively hold the position of Municipal

Mayor or Municipal Health Officer.

Consequently, for failure to show in the informations that the charges were intimately

connected with the discharge of the official functions of accused Mayor Soller, the offenses

charged in the subject criminal cases fall within the exclusive original function of the Regional

Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan. So the petition was granted and the orders were set aside for

being void for lack of jurisdiction.

III. Analyzing the Seeming Non-Use of the Law

PD 1829s purposes are admirable and the acts they penalize should truly be proscribed in order

for the efforts of law enforcers to bear fruit. Persons who obstruct the acts of administration of

justice do not harm society as much as the acts of the criminal who is sought to be brought to

justice. Nevertheless, it is necessary for there to be a meaningful exercise of law enforcement,

for citizens not to hamper the acts of law enforcers.The provision of PD 1829 which has been used in the cases has been that in subsection

(c) of Section 1 of the law which penalizes the act of harboring, 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. But the cases surveyed reveal that there has hardly been any conviction even under


20/23

this act of obstructing justice, even as it appears to be the most commonly committed

ground. There can be two reasons for the seeming non-use of this provision of the law. The first

is that the criminals who are themselves in conspiracy with each other do not obtain aid from

those who are not in conspiracy with them. Thus, they do not need third persons who have not

participated in the crime to aid them in their escape. The second is that the cultural norms that

move Philippine society has made it common, or even accepted, that relatives will harbor,

conceal or facilitate the escape of other relatives who have committed crimes, regardless of the

criminal nature of the act, because of the strong filial bonds that exist among families. Because

perhaps of this ground, law enforcement agencies hardly use this ground to penalize those who

help out other relatives, since such persons would merely be doing what is natural for them

under the given circumstances.

But this is dangerous, because law enforcement agencies have no choice as to the law

which they are to enforce, or even the fact of whether or not to enforce a particular piece oflegislation. The act of drafting legislation is in the realm of another political body and the

Executive is mandated to apply the law, as it is found. The fact that PD 1829 has not been

prosecuted may reveal the reasons why the high rates of criminality have not been abated,

despite the efforts of law enforcement agencies.

The other acts penalized under PD 1829 which would 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;

[52]

or altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, orobject, 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.[53]

Such acts are logically those which

are performed in the course of the prosecution of a criminal. It would be inconceivable that these

acts have never been performed in the course of criminal trials in the Philippines. But the fact

still remains that hardly has any case been tried and reviewed in the Supreme Court regarding PD

1829, the law which penalizes such acts which constitute the obstruction of justice. Does this

mean that litigation has descended to such a level that these acts which should actually constitute

obstruction of justice are no longer prosecuted, because both sidesthe prosecution and defense

routinely resort to them anyway, and anyone who complains of such acts by the other party

would be asking for relief from the court with unclean hands?

Conclusion: A Law Whose Time Has Come


21/23

PD 1829 is essential to the effective functioning of the courts and the effective action of law

enforcement agencies. If the pillars of the criminal justice system are to attain the ends by which

they were created for, it is necessary that society does not thwart the efforts of the criminal

justice system in providing a solution for crimes.

The law on obstruction of justice is a law which is actively used in American courts to

prosecute those individuals who impede the administration of justice by the performance of

certain acts. It is inconceivable that these same acts are not performed in the Philippines. But

despite of this inconceivability, there are hardly any cases elevated up to the Supreme Court

which charges persons for violations of PD 1829. The law that prohibits obstruction of justice is

good law even up to the present time as the government intensifies its campaign against

crime. In order to do so, private citizens and other third parties must not deter in the arrest,

prosecution and trial of these persons who are charged with crimes. This is no recommendation

that the government do everything in order to convict. Rather, this is merely a call on citizensnot to impede in the just prosecution of criminal cases. PD 1829 seeks to penalize such behavior

that constitutes the obstruction of justice when private citizens are remiss in this duty which they

owe to other members of society.

But the good aims of the law cannot be met when there has been an observed non-use of

the law. Has this arisen out of the reluctant of public officers to involve themselves in charging

other with crimes which they find that they themselves could have committed in the first

place? This cannot be the case because justice should be blind, in order for it to be fair. And to

be fair, law enforcement agencies have to be hard hearted in order to bring about the ends that iscontemplated by all criminal laws, that of bring order to society, for the betterment of all that

belong to that society.

[1]Mahatma Gandhi, Seven Blunders of the World That Lead to Violence,available athttp://www.quincy.edu/~

hardeja/flag.html (last accessed Aug. 27, 2003).[2]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 1.[3]PD 1829, Whereas Clauses 1.[4]Id. 2.[5]Id.[6]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 2 (citing People v. Ormsby, 310 Mich 291, 17 NW2d 187; People v. Somma,

123 Mich App 658, 333 NW2d 117, Shackelford v. Commonwealth, 185 Ky 51, 214 SW 788).[7]PD 1829, Sec. 2.[8]Id. Sec. 1 (a).[9]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 34.[10]PD 1829, Sec. 1 2.
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref1http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref1http://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref2http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref3http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref3http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref4http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref4http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref5http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref5http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref6http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref6http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref7http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref7http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref8http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref8http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref10http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref9http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref8http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref7http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref6http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref5http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref4http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref3http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref2http://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.quincy.edu/~%20hardeja/flag.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref1


22/23

[11]Revised Penal Code, Art. 180 penalizes false testimony against a defendant, Art. 181 penalizes giving of false

testimony favorable to the defendant, Art. 182 penalizes the giving of false testimony in civil cases, Art. 183

penalizes the giving of false testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation, and Art. 184 penalizes the

offering of false testimony in evidence.[12]Florenz Regalado, Criminal Law Compendium 387-88 (2003).[13]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (b).[14]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 43.[15]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (c).[16]Revised Penal Code, Art. 19.[17]Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code 558-59 (14d ed. 1998).[18]Republic Act 7659, An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for That

Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes, imposes the

penalty of death on all these crimes, to wit, treason, parricide, murder, kidnap for ransom, destructive arson,

qualified rape, and crimes related to prohibited drugs.[19]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (d).[20]Regalado, supra note x, at 379.[21]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (e).[22]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 26.[23]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (f).[24]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 40.[25]Id. (citing State v. Latimer, 9 Kan App 2d 728, 687 P2d 648.[26]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 24.[27]Id. 41.[28]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (g).[29]Revised Penal code, Art. 210 1.[30]Id. 3.[31]Id. 4.[32]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (h).[33]58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 43.[34]Id. (citing US v. Vixie 532 F2d 1277).[35]Id. (citing US v. Mitchell 372 F Supp 1239).[36]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (i).[37]Id. Sec. 1 (c).[38]

58 AmJur 2d Obstructing Justice 27.[39]Id.[40]G.R. No. 93335, Sept. 13, 1990.[41]99 Phil. 515 (1956).[42]Enrile v. Amin,supra.[43]G.R. No. 112235, Nov. 29, 1995.[44]99 Phil. 515, 535-536 (1956).[45]189 SCRA 573 (1990).[46]GR 127157, July 13, 1998.[47]Id.[48]G.R. No. 144261-62, May 9, 2001.[49]90 Phil. 49.[50]As defined and punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code, (referring to the crimes

committed by the public officers).[51]108 Phil. 613.[52]PD 1829, Sec. 1 (a).[53]Id. Sec. 1 (b).

http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref11http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref11http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref19http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref19http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref20http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref20http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref43http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref43http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref46http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref46http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref47http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref47http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref48http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref48http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref51http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref51http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref52http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref52http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref53http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref53http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref53http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref52http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref51http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref50http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref49http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref48http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref47http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref46http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref45http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref44http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref43http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref42http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref41http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref40http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref39http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref38http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref37http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref36http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref35http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref34http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref33http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref32http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref31http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref30http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref29http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref28http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref27http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref26http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref25http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref24http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref23http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref22http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref21http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref20http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref19http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref18http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref17http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref16http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref15http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref14http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref13http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref12http://www.angelfire.com/ks/cybertarget/SPL_paper.htm#_ftnref11


23/23

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	april-dream-mendoza-pugon
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Obstruction of Justice Report

Documents