Department of Justice Undersecretary Ian Norman Evaristo Dato clarified that under the Anti-Plunder Law, a public officer may be held criminally liable for amassing ill-gotten wealth either alone or in conspiracy with family members, business associates, or private individuals.

He said those who knowingly participate in the unlawful scheme may likewise be prosecuted as co-conspirators.

"The offender is a public officer, acting alone or with others," Dato said in outlining the elements of the offense.

Prosecutors must establish that the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated through a series or combination of criminal acts defined by law, including the direct or indirect receipt of gifts or other pecuniary benefits by reason of the official's position.

Dato said the prosecution must further prove that the aggregate amount of the ill-gotten wealth reaches at least P50 million and that the assets are connected to the public officer's official functions.

The DOJ conducted the public legal education briefing on the country's anti-corruption laws and criminal procedures as issues of public accountability took center stage with the opening of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte and the government's intensified anti-corruption campaign.

Dato, who oversees the National Prosecution Service (NPS), emphasized that the briefing was intended to educate the public on the legal principles governing corruption cases involving public officials.

While he did not refer to any pending investigation or specific public official, his discussion centered on the elements of plunder, the prohibition against gifts to public officers, indirect bribery, jurisdiction over criminal defendants, and the constitutional rights of the accused.

The briefing came as corruption and accountability have become major issues in national discourse. The Senate on Monday convened as an impeachment court for the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, while the Marcos administration has also stepped up its anti-corruption drive through the recently launched National Anti-Corruption Strategy, which seeks to strengthen transparency, integrity, and accountability across government.

The DOJ official also discussed Presidential Decree No. 46, a 1972 anti-graft measure that remains in force.

"In plain terms, the law punishes any public official who receives, or any person who gives, a gift or benefit by reason of the official's position, even without proof that the gift was tied to one specific official act," he said.

Both the giver and the recipient may be held criminally liable, and each separate gift transaction may constitute a distinct criminal offense, Dato said.

He likewise explained the crime of indirect bribery under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code.

"One does not need a deal to commit indirect bribery—just a gift accepted because of the office," Dato said, noting that, unlike direct bribery, the offense does not require proof of an agreement to perform a specific official act.

He said indirect bribery is committed when a public officer accepts a gift given by reason of the office he or she holds, even if no particular favor is expected in return.

Dato also outlined the legal procedures governing criminal prosecutions, particularly how courts acquire jurisdiction over an accused.

He said jurisdiction is acquired either through the arrest of the accused under a warrant issued following a judicial finding of probable cause or through the accused's voluntary submission to the court's authority, such as by posting bail.

"Probable cause is not proof of guilt. It is a threshold finding that a trial should proceed," he said.

He emphasized that all individuals charged with crimes enjoy the same constitutional protections regardless of their position in government.

"Every person charged, regardless of position, is entitled to be heard, to counsel, to confront the evidence, and to be presumed innocent until a court says otherwise. Those are constitutional guarantees," he said.

Public legal education briefings are being conducted by the DOJ as part of its efforts to improve public understanding of Philippine laws and the justice system, alongside the government's broader campaign to strengthen integrity and accountability in public service.