A government collector demanded more than the fee fixed by law — what offense is that?

The demand alone completes the offence

The article reaches a public officer who, Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions: (a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law. Three points follow. The crime is the demand — you do not have to have paid, and the officer does not have to have pocketed anything. Directly or indirectly covers the hint, the runner, the fixer at the door and the officer who lets a colleague name the figure. And note the words different from: charging you less than the schedule, or charging a fee for something that carries none, is caught just as squarely as overcharging.

Who the article binds

It binds a public officer, and specifically one entrusted with collection. A private contractor, a security guard, or a fixer loitering outside a government office is not answerable under this article, though such a person may be answerable for estafa or for other offences. The article closes by providing that where the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied — those two services have their own regime. Note as well the companion offence in the same paragraph: Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially. The missing receipt is often the point of the exercise, and it is itself a crime.

The penalty, and the current peso range

Article 213 carries prisión correccional in its medium period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from forty thousand to two million pesos, or both. Those amounts were fixed by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older printings still carry the 1930 figures, which are a small fraction of these, so check which version any book or website you rely on is reproducing. If the officer actually took public money and kept it, that is a distinct and graver matter — malversation under Article 217 — and if he took money for himself in exchange for doing or not doing an official act, the anti-graft legislation comes into play as well.

What to do about it

Start with the schedule. Fees are published, and a printed or downloaded copy of the correct amount, set against what you were asked for, is the backbone of any complaint. Ask for an official receipt for whatever you do pay, and keep it — a refusal to issue one is evidence in itself. Note the date, the window or office, and the name on the desk plate or identification card, and record any message in which the demand was made. Complaints against public officers are commonly brought before the Office of the Ombudsman, and there is usually an internal route through the agency as well; the two can proceed together. No one can promise how a complaint will end, but a documented one is treated very differently from a recollection.

Related provisions

• Revised Penal Code, Article 213 — Frauds Against Public Treasury
• Revised Penal Code, Article 217 — Malversation Of Public Funds