Short answer. A public officer who removes, destroys or conceals documents officially entrusted to them is criminally liable under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty depends on whether serious damage was caused to a third party or to the public interest, and a fine plus disqualification from office are imposed in either case.
What the law says
Any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him
Revised Penal Code, Article 226 — Removing Or Destroying Official Documents. Read the full provision →
Three acts, one offence
The article reaches removal, destruction and concealment alike. Shredding a file, taking it home, and burying it where nobody can find it are treated as the same wrong, because each denies the public and the persons concerned the use of the record. What matters is that the document was officially entrusted to the officer by reason of the position — custody, not ownership, is the trigger. An officer who removes a paper that never came into their official care may face other charges, but not this one.
Serious damage decides the penalty
The Code splits the offence in two. Where serious damage results to a third party or to the public interest, the penalty is prision mayor with a fine. Where the damage is not serious, it drops to prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods with a fine. In both situations the offender additionally suffers disqualification, running from temporary special disqualification in its maximum period up to perpetual disqualification, which is often the more lasting consequence because it closes the door on public service. Damage need not be financial; the loss of a record that a citizen needed to prove a right can qualify.
Fines were rewritten in 2017, and other laws overlap
The fine figures in this article are those set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised money amounts throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reprints still carry the 1930 figures, so check which edition any source you rely on is using before quoting a number.
This is also rarely the only exposure. The same conduct can support administrative charges for grave misconduct or dishonesty, liability under the anti-graft laws, and a civil claim by the person harmed. If a record you need has gone missing from a government office, ask for a written certification of its loss before anything else: that document is where any remedy starts.
What the article does not cover
Two limits are worth knowing. The article binds public officers, so a private contractor, consultant or volunteer who handles government files without holding a public position is generally outside it, though the officer who allowed the access is not. And it punishes removal, destruction and concealment — not falsification. Altering the contents of a document while leaving it in place is a different offence with its own elements and its own penalty.
Routine disposal of records under an authorised retention schedule is likewise not the crime. What the article condemns is the officer acting outside that authority.