Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TAD-Y V PEOPLE
TAD-Y V PEOPLE
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
475
476
477
own property from then on, such as putting away the gift for
safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such
acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude that the
crime of indirect bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will
encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by
simply putting within their physical custody some gift, money or
other property. The foregoing ruling of this Court applies not only to
charges of indirect bribery but also to direct bribery. The
respondentÊs contention that the petitioner handed the envelope to
Velez under the table is belied by the testimonies of the petitioner
and Velez.
The Antecedents
_______________
478
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tad-y vs. People
„That on or about the 24th day of July 1995, in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
herein accused, public officers, being then engineers at the City
EngineerÊs Office, Bacolod City, with corrupt intent and motivated
with pecuniary interest for themselves, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously receive and accept marked money in the
amount of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos from Julio Encabo,
electrical contractor and duly-authorized representative of Mildred
Wong, offended party and owner of Atrium Building located at
Gonzaga Street, Bacolod City, in an entrapment operation
conducted by the PNP Criminal Investigation Service Command at
AndreÊs Bakeshop, Bacolod City, which amount was earlier solicited
by said accused from the offended party in exchange for the
signing/approval of permit for building occupancy of the building
owned by the offended party, the signing/approval of said building
permit is in connection with the performance of the official duties of
said accused as engineers in the Office of the City Engineer, Bacolod
City, in violation of the aforementioned law.
3
Acts contrary to law.‰
_______________
3 Records, p. 1.
4 . . . (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present
or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from
any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or
license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without
prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
479
_______________
480
_______________
481
16
envelope, and the
17
envelope was turned over to Encabo for
the entrapment. The police officers and Encabo had
agreed that the police officers would position themselves
within the vicinity of the AndreÊs Bakeshop, and after
giving the envelope to Tad-y, Encabo would place his
eyeglasses in front of his shirt collar
18
to indicate that Tad-y
had already received the money.19
After two aborted attempts, Encabo informed Muñoz
by telephone that he and Tad-y would inspect the building
at about 3:00 p.m. on July 24, 1995, and that Tad-y 20
would
sign the certificate of final inspection afterwards. Police
officers Eriberto Castañeda and Muñoz, along with civilian
agents, proceeded to 21 Gonzaga Street and positioned
themselves as planned.
Encabo and Tad-y, accompanied by OCE building
inspector Engr. Nestor Velez, arrived at the building at
about 5:00 p.m.
22
on July 24, 1995. Encabo brought with him
the envelope containing the forty P100.00 bills and the
certificate of final inspection bearing the signatures of all
the other OCE officers concerned, which Tad-y was to sign
after the inspection of the building. Tad-y was then
wearing his orange OCE bowling team t-shirt. Encabo and
Tad-y inspected the building together for about ten to
twenty minutes. Velez, on his own, made a separate
inspection of the building. After the inspection, Encabo,
Tad-y and Velez agreed to have a snack and proceeded to
the AndreÊs Bakeshop at the 23 ground floor of the Atrium
Building along Gonzaga Street. Velez and Tad-y
_______________
16 Exhibit „M.‰
17 TSN, 7 March 1996, p. 97.
18 Id., at pp. 96-97; TSN, 29 July 1996, p. 28.
19 Id., at p. 97.
20 TSN, 29 July 1996, p. 30.
21 Id., at p. 27.
22 Exhibit „M.‰
23 TSN, 7 March 1996, pp. 97-98.
482
24
walked side by side while Encabo followed. By then,
Muñoz, Castañeda and the other police officers were
already in the vicinity to await EncaboÊs signal.
Inside the bakeshop, Encabo brought out the certificate
25
of final inspection, which Tad-y forthwith signed. Encabo
then gave the envelope containing the forty P100.00 bills to
Tad-y. The latter asked Encabo, „What is it for?‰ Encabo 26
replied that it was the money Tad-y had been waiting
27
for.
Tad-y opened the envelope and saw its contents. He asked
Encabo if it was dangerous for him to receive 28the envelope,
and the latter answered that it was not. Instead of
putting the envelope in his pocket, Tad-y handed the same
to Velez under the table. Velez asked29
Tad-y what it was,
and Tad-y told Velez to just keep it. Thereafter, Tad-y and
Velez, followed by Encabo, exited from the bakeshop.
Encabo then removed his eyeglasses and placed it on his 30
shirt collar, the signal that Tad-y had received the money.
The police officers then accosted Velez and Tad-y, and asked
the latter where the white envelope was. Tad-y denied that
he received the envelope. Encabo 31
told the police officers
that Velez had the envelope. When asked where the
envelope was,
32
Velez brought it out from the right pocket of
his pants. Muñoz told Velez to open the envelope and
inspected its contents. Velez did as he was 33
told, and saw
that the envelope contained P100.00 bills. Tad-y and Velez
were arrested and34brought to the CIS Headquarters, PNP
Crime Laboratory. Tad-yÊs shirt was turned over by the
_______________
24 Id., at p. 104.
25 Id., at p. 101.
26 Id., at p. 102.
27 Id., at pp. 102-103.
28 Id., at p. 102.
29 Id., at p. 103.
30 TSN, 7 March 1996, p. 104.
31 TSN, 29 July 1996, pp. 31-32.
32 Id., at p. 32.
33 Id., at p. 33.
34 Id., at pp. 33-34.
483
_______________
484
_______________
43 Id., at p. 28.
44 Id., at pp. 29-31.
45 Id., at pp. 34-35.
46 TSN, 5 June 1997, pp. 40-41.
47 Exhibit „8.‰
48 Records, p. 332.
485
49
lio. With EncaboÊs assurance, he then50 affixed his
signature in the certificate of final inspection.
Momentarily, Encabo told him that he had another
document, and forthwith handed a white envelope to him.
Believing that the envelope contained the requisite
certificate of final inspection signed by the other officers in
the OCE, he received the envelope and, without opening it,
immediately handed it over to Velez who would examine its
contents. He then left the bakeshop with Velez ahead of
him, followed by Encabo. He was crossing Gonzaga Street
on his way to the bowling tournament when he was
arrested by policemen, who asked him where the white
envelope he had earlier received from Encabo
51
was. He told
them that the envelope was with Velez.
Tad-y then saw Velez being held by a policeman, and
that the envelope was already opened. A policeman forced
Velez to go near him. Another policeman forced him (Tad-y)
to touch the envelope, but he parried the arm of the 52
policeman with his right forearm and refused to touch it.
They were then brought to the PNP headquarters where
they were tested for ultraviolet powder.
Encabo filed a complaint against him because on four (4)
prior occasions, he refused to sign the certificate of final
inspection of a house owned by a certain Nelson Señores, as
well as the application for a building permit of Joey Yao,53
unless the latter paid a 100% surcharge for deficiencies.
Señores and Yao were the principals of Encabo. In the
evening of April 25, 1995, after he, Tuvida, Baja and
Tordesillas had their initial inspections of the building,
they had dinner at the Tasty Treat. When he was about to
pay the bill for
_______________
486
_______________
487
_______________
488
_______________
67 Exhibit „B.‰
489
_______________
490
491
_______________
72 Exhibit „C.‰
73 Exhibit „C.‰
492
_______________
493
_______________
494
76
tioner is the perpetrator thereof.
Official duties include any action authorized. It is
sufficient if the officer has the official power, ability or
apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired
end. The acts referred to in the law, which the offender
agrees to perform or execute, must be ultimately related to
or linked with the performance of his official duties. It is
sufficient if his actions, affected by the payment of the
bribe, are parts of any established procedure77 consistent
with the authority of the government agency. However,
where the act is entirely outside of the official functions of
the officer
78
to whom the money is offered, the offense is not
bribery.
The agreement between the public officer and the
bribegiver may be express or implied. Such agreement may
be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Proof of
such an agreement may rest upon relevant and competent
circumstantial evidence. To hold, otherwise, would allow
the culprit to escape liability with winks and nods even
when the evidence as a whole proves that there has been a
meeting 79
of the minds to exchange official duties for
money.
It is not necessary that the money is received by the
offender before or at the time he agreed to perform or
execute an act. It is sufficient if he received the money
afterwards 80 in pursuance of a prior arrangement or
agreement.
Indisputably, the petitioner is a public81 officer under
Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no
allegation in the
_______________
76 People v. Maguing, G.R. No. 144090, 26 June 2004, 405 SCRA 71.
77 Cohen v. United States, 144 F.2d. 984 (1944) cert writ denied; 327
US 797, 65 S.Ct. 440 (1945).
78 Taylor v. State, 156 S.E.623 (1931).
79 United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433 (1996).
80 Ibid.
81 ART. 203. Who are public officers.·For the purpose of applying the
provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any person who,
by direct provisions of the law, popular election or ap-
495
All the elements above are present in the case at bench. Petitioner
Ruben Tad-y was an employee at the City EngineerÊs Office of
Bacolod City. That petitioner-accused accepted the amount of
P4,000.00 which he demanded from Julio Encabo, a representative
of Mildred Wong who will secure a certificate of occupancy for the
building of the latter and handed it over to his subordinate Nestor
Velez, petitionerÊs co-accused, on April 24, 1995 at Andre Bakeshop.
And in consideration of the amount thus given, petitioner would
sign the certificate of occupancy, which is his duty as engineer in
charge of structural designs at the City EngineerÊs Office of Bacolod
City. It must be added that petitioner signed the certificate of
occupancy, the original of which was kept at the records section of
the City EngineerÊs Office, after receiving the envelope containing
82
P4,000.00. . .
_______________
496
_______________
497
_______________
86 Italics supplied.
498
Atty. Sorbito:
On April 25, 1995, when you went there accused
Ruben Tad-y refused to sign?
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir.
ATTY. SORBITO:
You mean to say Mr. Encabo that even without final
inspection any of the signatories to the occupancy
permit can affixed (sic) their signatures without
inspection?
WITNESS:
They have to inspect.
ATTY. SORBITO:
So when Ruben Tad-y refused to sign the permit on
April 25, 1995, its because there was no final
inspection made yet?
_______________
499
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir.
ATTY. SORBITO:
It is not because there was no money or P4,000.00?
WITNESS:
No, Sir.
ATTY. SORBITO:
In short, Ruben Tad-y did not ask for anything
because only there in (sic) no inspection was (sic)
made?
WITNESS:
89
Yes, Sir.
Encabo could not have asked the petitioner or any of the
officers in the OCE for that matter to sign the certificate of
occupancy because only the building official has the
authority to sign the same. Moreover, the city building
official could not have signed the certificate because no
final inspection of the building had been conducted, and no
certificate of final inspection had been signed by the OCE
officers.
EncaboÊs claim that the petitioner agreed to make a final
inspection of the building if he was paid P4,000.00 is belied
by his testimony in the court a quo, that, during the second
week of May 1995, the petitioner and the other officers
90
of
the OCE conducted an inspection of the building. Encabo
did not give any centavo to the petitioner on that occasion.
However, the petitioner and Encabo had a quarrel in the
course of which 91
the petitioner tried, in anger, to squeeze
EncaboÊs neck. As testified to by the petitioner, Encabo
insisted on paying for the food and drinks consumed by him
and the other OCE officers after their inspection of the
building, despite the petitionerÊs insistence that he should
pay for the bill:
_______________
500
_______________
501
Q When you went to the City Mayor, you are yet thinking
that you will go to the CIS?
A I have already reported that.
Q What is your reason of not telling the mayor that
Ruben Tad-y demanded money?
A Being the government employee and he is93 my kumpare,
I do not want to cause very bad occasion.
Q So, you are now certain you have not inspected the
building and several other officials of the City
EngineerÊs Office in the afternoon of April 25, 1995,
when you went to the office?
A We do the inspection together with the accused and
others during and after April 25 and October 1995.
_______________
502
_______________
503
tioner and Mrs. Mutia when the latter allegedly handed the money
to the petitioner. There were other persons in the premises like the
PC agents whose identities petitioner possibly did not know. Under
the circumstances and in such a public place it is not probable that
petitioner would have the nerve to accept bribe money from Mrs.
Mutia even under the table. If the petitioner knew and was
prepared to accept the money from Mrs. Mutia at the canteen, the
petitioner would not have invited her officemate Mrs. Sevilla to join
them. Mrs. Sevilla stated she did not see the alleged passing of the
money. She could not have seen the money as it was passed on
under the table or when, as petitioner said, it was quickly placed in
her hand when she stood up. What Mrs. Sevilla is sure of is that
when they were about to leave the canteen, two (2) men approached
petitioner, one of whom took pictures, and the petitioner shouted at
Mrs. Mutia, „What are you trying to do to me?‰ The reaction of
petitioner is far from one with a guilty conscience.
504
_______________
97 Supra.
505
506
Q How far was Engr. Tad-y when they brought you there?
A Maybe ten to fifteen meters.
Q And when you were already near Engr. Tad-y, did you
notice what was happening to Engr. Tad-y?
A When I was there going toward Engr. Tad-y, I saw one
person holding his hands.
Q When you were near him, what happened next?
A When I was near Engr. Tad-y, they let me open that
particular envelope.
Q Who was handling that particular envelope towards
Engr. Tad-y?
A ItÊs myself holding it while he was holding me towards
Engr. Tad-y.
Q You mean the very hand he was holding, squeezing, itÊs
also the hand holding the envelope?
A Yes.
Q Was it [the] left or right hand?
A At first left, when he pulled me it was already his right
hand.
Q What happened when you were near Engr. Tad-y?
A When I have already opened the envelope and when
they saw the content of that envelope, the money, they
try (sic) to pull that so that Engr. Tad-y will receive the
money from me.
Q How did you open that envelope in that stage, was it
already opened or did you have to exert some efforts to
open?
A I opened it because it was closed.
Q Did Engr. Tad-y received (sic), take hold of that money?
A When he found out that the content is money, he did
not hold it.
Q What did he do?
A He tried not to receive it but he was forced by one
arresting officer.
Q What else took place at that stage on that day?
507
_______________
508
A It is a big lie.
Q Why do you say that it is a big lie?
A It will be subject of the evidence in the Police
Laboratory. It was only shown that there was
fluorescent powder. (Witness, at this juncture is
pointing to his right arm.)
Q You are referring to Exhibit „4-A‰?
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. SERFINO:
I would like to manifest, your Honor that on Exhibit
„4,‰ there is nothing there that indicates that there was
any powder marks in the hands of this accused.
Q Now, what else happened when your co-accused was
already near you?
A They tried to let the hands of Nestor come towards me
but I was trying to move away.
Q On the basis of what you saw, if you know what was the
reason that (sic) they were trying to let you hold the
envelope?
ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR CENTENO:
Asking for a conclusion, your Honor.
COURT:
Sustained.
COURT:
Reform.
ATTY. SERFINO:
Q From that stage, what else happened?
A Since they cannot do the thing of letting the hands of
Nestor Velez go near me, it was the person who picked
the white envelope and tried to give it to me, but I was
trying to parry it. (Witness is pointing to his right
forearm.)
Q Thereafter, what happened?
A (Witness, at this juncture is trying to hold the left hand
at his waist.) I do not know whether it was a camera or
a gun.
509
_______________
510
··o0o··