Short answer. Yes. Article 227 punishes a public officer with custody of sealed papers or property the same way whether that officer personally breaks the seals or merely permits someone else to break them. Both acts carry the identical penalty: prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, disqualification, and a fine under Republic Act No. 10951's current amounts.
What the law says
Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000).
Revised Penal Code, Article 227 — Officer Breaking Seal. Read the full provision →
Breaking the seal or merely permitting it to be broken — same offense
Article 227 is written to cover two distinct ways an officer can commit this offense, and it treats them identically. It punishes any officer who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken. The word 'or' places these on equal footing: personally breaking a seal placed by proper authority is one way of violating the article, and permitting — that is, allowing — someone else to break it is the other, and both trigger the same criminal liability under this provision.
Who this article covers
The article applies specifically to a public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper authority. So the offense is tied to a custodial duty: the officer must be the one entrusted with keeping the sealed papers or property safe. It is that position of custody, combined with either breaking the seal or letting it be broken, that the article is aimed at.
The penalty, and why the amount needs a caveat
The penalty prescribed is prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, together with temporary special disqualification and a fine. The peso figure printed in the current text reflects Republic Act No. 10951, enacted in 2017, which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older copies of the Code in circulation may still show the original 1930 figure, so anyone checking the fine amount should confirm they are reading a source updated for RA 10951 rather than the pre-2017 text.
What this doesn't require: personal action
What the article does not require is that the officer be the one physically responsible for damaging or opening the seal. Because 'permit them to be broken' is written as an alternative to 'break the seals,' an officer who had custody of the sealed items and allowed another person to break the seal — through action or a failure to prevent it consistent with the officer's duty — falls within the same provision as one who broke the seal personally.