Article 212. Corruption of public officials. - The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles. (Revised Penal Code)
Elements:

(1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer;

(2) The offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.


Person liable:

The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise.


Penalty:

The crime of corruption of public officials is punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the "same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted."


When the offer is not accepted

If the public offer refuses to accept the offer, the crime is merely attempted corruption of public officer.


Cases:

● The information in Criminal Case No. 28001 alleging corruption of public officers specifically put forth that Disini, in the period from 1974 to February 1986 in Manila, Philippines, conspiring and confederating with then President Marcos, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offered, promised and gave gifts and presents to President Marcos, who, by taking undue advantage of his position as President, committed the offense in relation to his office, and in consideration of the gifts and presents offered, promised and given by Disini, President Marcos caused to be awarded to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse the respective contracts to do the engineering and architectural design of and to construct the PNPPP. The felonious act consisted of causing the contracts for the PNPPP to be awarded to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by reason of the gifts and promises offered by Disini to President Marcos.

The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are:

1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and

2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

The allegations in the information for corruption of public officials, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime. The information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise, and gave gifts to President Marcos, a public officer; and (2) in consideration of the offers, promises and gifts, President Marcos, in causing the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse by taking advantage of his position and in committing said act in relation to his office, was placed under circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery.

The second element of corruption of public officers simply required the public officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make him liable for direct or indirect bribery. Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini’s offers, promises and gifts – an essential element in direct bribery – the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him under circumstances of being liable for direct bribery. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24, September 11, 2013