Obstruction of Justice

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What exactly is “obstruction of justice” under Philippine law?

In plain terms, it is any deliberate act that interferes with the government’s ability to catch, investigate, or prosecute criminal offenders. The primary law covering this is Presidential Decree No. 1829, signed in 1981, which expressly declares as State policy the discouragement of “public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.” (PD 1829, Whereas Clauses)

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) also covers related offenses such as bribery of witnesses (Art. 184), falsification of public documents (Art. 171), and perjury (Art. 183), all of which can overlap with PD 1829 charges.

Q. What specific acts does P.D. 1829 actually prohibit?

The law lists nine (9) punishable acts. A citizen can be charged for any of the following, done knowingly and willfully:

Q. What is the penalty?

Imprisonment ranging from prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (approximately 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), and/or a fine of ₱1,000 to ₱6,000.

If the offender is a public official or employee, the law imposes an additional punishment: perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. This means a government official convicted under PD 1829 is permanently barred from public service — a career-ending consequence beyond the prison term itself.

While PD 1829 itself prescribes imprisonment and/or a fine, the decree expressly provides that when the obstructive act is punished more severely under another law, the higher penalty governs. In modern practice, obstruction-related conduct may therefore expose a person to substantially heavier penalties under specialized statutes (e.g. violations involving drug evidence under Republic Act No. 9165; cyber-related destruction or manipulation of electronic evidence under Republic Act No. 10175)

Q. If someone has a court-issued warrant of arrest, can a person legally shield them from being taken into custody?

No. When a judge has issued a valid warrant of arrest, anyone who knowingly hides the subject, provides them refuge, or takes steps to prevent their apprehension is committing a crime under Section 1(c) of PD 1829 — often called the “harboring” provision.

The keyword is knowingly. The prosecution must prove that the person shielding the fugitive knew the arrest warrant existed or had reasonable ground to believe the individual was wanted by the law.

Food for thought: in this day and age of social media where news travel fast, what do you think are examples of instances when it can be easily shown that someone knows or has reasonable ground to believe that someone else is wanted, for them to be guilty of this?

Q. What if the arrest attempt itself is unlawful — done without a valid warrant and without proper grounds?

The Supreme Court has ruled that P.D. 1829’s harboring provision does not apply when the attempted arrest is itself illegal.

Q. Can a sitting public official be charged with obstruction of justice?

Yes. P.D. 1829 applies to all persons, and public officials face harsher consequences than private citizens, including perpetual disqualification from office on top of imprisonment.

The law explicitly recognizes the heightened duty of public officials. The Supreme Court has noted that public officials who misuse their office to shield offenders “may be held liable under P.D. 1829” and that they carry “the duty to enforce justice impartially.” No position, elected or appointed, provides immunity from this law.

Q. What counts as “tampering with evidence” under the law?

Under Section 1(b) of PD 1829, it is unlawful to alter, destroy, suppress, or conceal any object, document, or record — or induce another person to do so — when that material is relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding.

The Revised Penal Code adds further liability. Under Article 171 (Falsification of Public Documents), any public officer who falsifies an official document — such as a police report, an autopsy record, or a sworn affidavit — faces up to 12 years of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office.

Although PD 1829 predates the digital era, its prohibition against altering, suppressing, concealing, or destroying evidence may logically apply to electronic records relevant to a criminal investigation — including text messages, CCTV files, emails, or other digital data.

Related Legal Framework: P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1(b); R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act); Rules on Electronic Evidence.

Q. In summary, what is the key principle a citizen should remember?

The overarching principle is this: a validly issued and lawfully enforceable warrant of arrest is a judicial command that citizens and public officials alike are generally not permitted to obstruct. Knowingly harboring fugitives, concealing evidence, intimidating witnesses, or otherwise interfering with criminal investigations may give rise to criminal liability under PD 1829.

Remember: staying silent in the face of obstruction, while not a crime for ordinary citizens in most cases, leaves justice unserved. The declared purpose of P.D. 1829 is precisely to counter public indifference to criminal accountability.

The post What is Obstruction of Justice under Philippine Law? (PD 1829) appeared first on Peralta Jimenez Law Firm.