Short answer. Yes. Article 228 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any public officer who, without proper authority, opens or allows to be opened any closed papers, documents, or objects entrusted to his custody. The penalty includes imprisonment, temporary special disqualification, and a fine of up to ₱400,000.
What the law says
without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects entrusted to his custody
Revised Penal Code, Article 228 — Opening Closed Documents. Read the full provision →
What the law punishes
Article 228 of the Revised Penal Code imposes criminal liability on a public officer who, without proper authority, opens or permits the opening of closed papers, documents, or objects that are entrusted to his custody. The article covers both active opening by the officer and passive permission — allowing someone else to open what has been sealed or closed. The penalty under the current text (as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 in 2017) is arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification, and a fine of up to ₱400,000. Older versions of the Code still carry the original 1930 amounts, which are far lower — always verify which version a source is citing.
Who this article covers
The article expressly applies to public officers not included in the provisions of the next preceding article. That prior article deals with revealing secrets by an officer who has knowledge by reason of his official position. Article 228 is narrower — it targets the specific act of physically opening sealed or closed material in custody, without the requisite authorization. Any public officer who holds sealed material in a custodial capacity — court personnel, law enforcement, administrative officers, registry officials — can fall under this article.
The key element: 'without proper authority'
Whether authority existed is the central factual question. Proper authority typically means a court order, a lawful directive from a superior with jurisdiction, or a specific statutory authorization. Curiosity, urgency, or the belief that the contents are relevant does not substitute for actual authority. If the sealed documents were opened under an order that was later found to be defective, or if the officer exceeded the scope of the authorization, exposure under this article may remain. The burden of showing proper authority falls on the officer.
What the disqualification means
Beyond imprisonment and the fine, a conviction carries temporary special disqualification. This means the convicted officer loses the right to hold any public office or employment for the period the court specifies. It is not an automatic permanent bar, but it is a real career consequence — a conviction under this article does not end at imprisonment or a fine. For anyone in public service, the disqualification is often the most practically serious part of the penalty.
If you believe sealed documents were opened without authority
If you are a party to a proceeding and you have reason to believe that sealed documents in official custody were opened without authorization, the incident should be documented and raised promptly — both with the office or court concerned and, if warranted, through a criminal complaint. The strength of any complaint depends heavily on evidence of the opening, the absence of an authorizing order, and the identity of the officer who opened or permitted the opening. A lawyer can help you assess what evidence is available and the proper process for pursuing it.