Short answer. Yes. A public officer who knowingly nominates or appoints a person lacking the legal qualifications for a public office commits a crime under the Revised Penal Code, punished by arresto mayor and a fine. The word doing the work is knowingly — an honest mistake is not this offence.
What the law says
Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor
Revised Penal Code, Article 244 — Unlawful Appointments. Read the full provision →
The elements, and who can commit it
Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code has four elements. The offender is a public officer. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office. That person lacks the legal qualifications for it. And the officer knew that when he acted. Only someone holding appointing or nominating power can commit it — a clerk who processes the paperwork does not. Both nomination and appointment are covered, so an officer who merely recommends a name to the appointing authority is within the article's reach if the recommendation carries legal effect. The appointee himself is not punished by this provision, though he may face other consequences.
What 'lacking the legal qualifications' means
The qualifications must be ones the law imposes: age, citizenship, residency, civil service eligibility, a professional licence, educational attainment, or the absence of a legal disqualification such as a prior conviction or a standing prohibition on nepotic appointments. Failing to meet an internal preference, or being less impressive than another candidate, is not a legal disqualification, and the article does not turn a poor appointment into a crime. Nor does it punish a temporary or acting designation where the law itself allows one to be made without the full qualifications — the question is always what the governing statute or civil service rule actually requires for that particular position.
Knowledge is the battleground
Because the article punishes only knowing conduct, prosecutions turn on what the appointing officer was told and what he had in front of him. Where the disqualification was on the face of the appointee's own papers, or where the officer was warned in writing and proceeded anyway, knowledge is not hard to establish. Where the appointee misrepresented his credentials and the officer relied on a certification, it is. Reliance on advice from a legal officer or from the civil service authorities, honestly sought and honestly followed, cuts against a finding of knowledge. Good faith is a real defence here in a way it is not for many offences.
The penalty, and what runs alongside it
The penalty is arresto mayor and a fine. That fine figure is the one set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the amounts throughout the Revised Penal Code; older reproductions still print the 1930 amounts and will understate it enormously. The criminal exposure is rarely the main consequence. An unlawful appointment is separately an administrative offence, it can void the appointment and unwind the appointee's salary, and it frequently draws an anti-graft complaint on the same facts. No outcome can be promised. This is general legal information rather than advice on a particular appointment; to have one reviewed, you can book a consultation.