Direct bribery

Acejas III vs PP, G.R. No. 156643, June 27, 2006

Facts
 Accused: Vladimir S. Hernandez and Victor Conanan, both
Immigration officers, and Senior Police Officer 3 Expedito S. Perlas.
 Date and Location: On or about January 12, 1994, in the City of
Manila, Philippines.
 Accusation: Hernandez and Conanan, as public officers, conspired
with Perlas, Atty. Francisco S.B. Acejas III, and Jose P. Victoriano to
commit an offense in relation to their office.
 Alleged Crime: The accused demanded, asked, and extorted One
Million Pesos from Bethel Grace Pelingon, Japanese Takao Aoyagi,
and Filomeno Pelingon, Jr., in exchange for returning Takao Aoyagi's
confiscated passport.
 Confiscation of Passport: Earlier, Vladimir S. Hernandez confiscated
Takao Aoyagi's passport.
 Marked Money: The complainants produced and gave Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos in marked money to the accused at a designated
place, the Coffee Shop, Ground Floor, Diamond Hotel, Ermita,
Manila.
 Damage: The actions of the accused caused damage to the
complainants in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos and to
the prejudice of government service.
 December 17, 1993: Hernandez and a reporter visited Takao Aoyagi's
house to serve a Mission Order from the BID and confiscated his
passport.
 December 18, 1993: Bethel Grace Aoyagi informed Perlas about the
confiscated passport, leading to a meeting with Atty. Danton
Lucenario.
 December 22, 1993: Takao Aoyagi engaged the Lucenario Law Firm's
services and signed a contract with Atty. Acejas.
 January 5, 1994: Meetings were held between the accused,
discussing the return of Aoyagi's passport and negotiations for its
release.
 January 8, 1994: Another meeting occurred where Hernandez
promised to return the passport by January 12, 1994.
 January 11, 1994: Aoyagi's brother-in-law contacted the BID
Commissioner seeking help regarding the passport issue.
 January 12, 1994: Hernandez returned the passport to Aoyagi at the
Diamond Hotel Coffee Shop during an entrapment operation.
 During the meeting, Bethel Grace attempted to give the remaining
balance of the legal fees to Acejas, but he left hurriedly.

Issue
Did the accused commit the crime of direct bribery?

Ruling
The crime of direct bribery exists when a public officer 1)
agrees to perform an act that constitutes a crime in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present; 2) accepts the gift in consideration of the
execution of an act that does not constitute a crime; or 3) abstains from the
performance of official duties.32
Petitioners were convicted under the second kind of direct bribery, which
contained the following elements: 1) the offender was a public officer, 2)
who received the gifts or presents personally or through another, 3) in
consideration of an act that did not constitute a crime, and 4) that act
related to the exercise of official duties.33
Hernandez claims that the prosecution failed to show his involvement in the
crime. Allegedly, he was merely implementing Mission Order No. 93-04-12,
which required him to investigate Takao Aoyagi. 34 The passport was
supposed to have been voluntarily given to him as a guarantee to appear at
the BID office, but he returned it upon the instruction of his superior. 35
The chain of circumstances, however, contradicts the contention of
Hernandez. It was he who had taken the passport of Takao Aoyagi. 36 On
various dates,37 he met with Takao and Bethel Grace Aoyagi, and also
Pelingon, regarding the return of the passport. Hernandez then asked for a
down payment on the payoff,38 during which he directed Bethel Grace to
deliver the money to Acejas.

Finally we reiterate that, as a rule, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan

are conclusive upon this Court.73 We are convinced that these were clearly
based on the evidence adduced in this case.
In sum, we find that the prosecution proved the elements of direct bribery.
First, there is no question that the offense was committed by a public
officer. BID Agent Hernandez extorted money from the Aoyagi spouses for
the return of the passport and the promise of assistance in procuring a visa.
Petitioner Acejas was his co-conspirator. Second, the offenders received
the money as payoff, which Acejas received for the group and then gave to
Perlas. Third, the money was given in consideration of the return of the
passport, an act that did not constitute a crime. Fourth, both the
confiscation and the return of the passport were made in the exercise of
official duties.
For taking direct part in the execution of the crime, Hernandez and Acejas
are liable as principals.74 The evidence shows that the
parties conspired to extort money from Spouses Aoyagi. A conspiracy
exists even if all the parties did not commit the same act, if the participants
performed specific acts that indicated unity of purpose in accomplishing a
criminal design.75 The act of one is the act of all.

 Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Balderama v. PP, G.R. Nos. 147578-85, January 28, 2008

FACTS
This case involves two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari
seeking to reverse the Joint Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated
November 17, 2000, and its Resolution dated March 20, 2001. The
petitioners, Rolando L. Balderama and Rolando D. Nagal, were employed
with the Land Transportation Commission (LTO) and were part of a team
called the "Flying Squad." The respondent, Juan S. Armamento, operates a
taxi business.

The LTO team, including the petitioners, flagged down and impounded one
of Armamento's taxis on July 14, 1992, alleging that its meter was
defective. However, after inspection, it was found that the meter was
functioning normally, and the vehicle was released. In response to the
impounding, Armamento filed a complaint with the Office of the
Ombudsman, accusing the LTO officers of bribery and violation of Republic
Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

According to Armamento's complaint, the LTO officers, including the

petitioners, had been collecting "protection money" from him. They
allegedly demanded P400.00 every 15th and 30th day of the month to
refrain from apprehending his drivers and impounding his vehicles for LTO
rule violations. After negotiations, they agreed to receive P300.00 instead.
Armamento started giving them the agreed amount until June 15, 1992,
when he stopped due to his business's poor performance.

As a result of the complaint, the Office of the Ombudsman filed nine

Informations for violations of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code against
the petitioners and other members of the LTO team. All Informations were
identically worded, except for the dates of the alleged crimes. The charges
were related to bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.

ISSUE
Did the accused violate Section 3 (e) of R.A 3019

RULING
Yes, The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code contains the following elements: (1) that the accused is a
public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or
present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been
given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official
duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his
functions as a public officer.4

The Sandiganbayan found the above elements of direct bribery present. It

was duly established that the accused demanded and received P300.00 as
"protection money" from respondent on several dates. As against the
prosecution’s evidence, all that the accused could proffer was alibi and
denial, the weakest of defenses.

Anent Criminal Case No. 20678, to hold a person liable under Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019, the concurrence of the following elements must be
established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution: (1) that the
accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with
the former; (2) that the said public officer commits the prohibited acts
during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her
public positions; (3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party,
whether the government or a private party; and (4) that the public officer
has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.5 The Sandiganbayan found that petitioners and Lubrica
participated directly in the malicious apprehension and impounding of the
taxi unit of respondent, causing him undue injury.6

Settled is the rule that findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan in cases

before this Court are binding and conclusive in the absence of a showing
that they come under the established exceptions, among them: 1) when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3) there is a
grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts; 5) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; and, 6) the findings of fact of the
Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.7 We
found none of these exceptions in the present cases.

Petitioners’ prayer for complete acquittal on the strength of respondent’s

affidavit of recantation fails to impress us.

A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and

reservation.8 The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies
previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by
a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only
scant attention.9 The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction
can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a
monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable.
There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.10 Only when
there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the
retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given,
can retractions be considered and upheld.11 As found by the
Sandiganbayan, "(t)here is indubitably nothing in the affidavit which creates
doubts on the guilt of accused Balderama and Nagal."
 People vs. Ting Lan Uy Jr., GR 157399, November 17, 2005
Facts
In this case, Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto Gamus, Jaime Ochoa, and Raul
Gutierrez were indicted before the Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of
Malversation through Falsification of Commercial Documents. They were
accused of diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation
(NPC) that were intended for the purchase of US Dollars from the United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB).

The amended Information in Criminal Case No. 19558 alleged that the
accused, taking advantage of their positions in the NPC, conspired and
falsified the NPC's application for manager's checks with the Philippine
National Bank (PNB), NPC Branch, in the amount of P183,805,291.25.
They inserted the account number of Raul Gutierrez in the application
when the Payment Instructions (PI) issued by NPC did not indicate such an
account number. As a result, they diverted, collected, and received the said
amount from the NPC, which they subsequently malversed, embezzled,
misappropriated, and converted for their own benefit, causing damage and
prejudice to the NPC.

During the trial, Ernesto Gamus, Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., and Jaime Ochoa
pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Defenses:
That accused Gamus does not have any custody to (sic) public funds;

That accused Ochoa’s position as Sr. Financial Analyst did not require him
to take custody or control of public funds;

That the application forms for cashier’s check or Manager’s check are not
accountable forms of the NAPOCOR.

The prosecution theorizes that the accused diverted the funds covered by
the two PNB Manager’s checks by falsifying a commercial document called
an "Application for Cashier’s Check" (ACC) by inserting an account number
(A/C #111-1212-04) of a private individual after the name of the payee,
UCPB, T.M. Kalaw Branch. It claims that NPC did not authorize the
insertion considering that the Payment Instruction (PI) issued by NPC
instructing PNB to prepare a Manager’s check to be charged to NPC’s
savings account did not contain any account number. Through the
insertion, the accused allegedly succeeded in diverting the funds from the
UCPB, T.M. Kalaw Branch in favor of Raul Gutierrez @ Raul Nicolas @
George Añonuevo @ Mara Añonuevo, who is still at large.

On May 28, 2002, the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision, finding Jaime
Ochoa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation through
falsification of commercial documents. He was sentenced to suffer
reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay a fine equal to the amount
malversed, solidarily with Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr. Additionally, Ochoa was
subjected to perpetual disqualification. However, Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr. was
acquitted of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
Commercial Document due to reasonable doubt but was found civilly liable
for damages suffered by the NPC in the same amount as Ochoa. Raul
Gutierrez, one of the accused, remained at large, and an alias warrant of
arrest was issued against him.

On appeal, Ochoa contested his conviction, arguing that the

Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him based on the allegations in the
information and in considering certain pieces of evidence, including his
alleged sworn statements, transcripts of stenographic notes, and the NBI
report.]

Issue
Did the accused commit the crime of Malversation of Public Funds?

Ruling
To be found guilty of malversation, the prosecution must prove the following
essential elements:

a.] The offender is a public officer;

b.] He has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the

duties of his office;

c.] The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he
is accountable; and

d.] He has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or

through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another
person of, such funds or property.

Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of

misappropriation of public funds or property or passively through
negligence by allowing another to commit such misappropriation.9 To
sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or
criminal negligence10 and while the prevailing facts of a case may not
show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not
preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence
because both are equally punishable in Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Wa-acon vs. PP, G.R. No. 164575, December 6, 2006

Facts
Accused Robert P. Wa-acon served as a Special Collecting Officer of the
National Food Authority (NFA) from July 19, 1979, to September 28, 1981.
As part of his duties, he received grains, specifically rice and mongo, to be
sold to the public on a retail basis. The proceeds from the grain sales were
also collected by him.

On September 28, 1981, a team of Auditors from the Commission on Audit

(COA) conducted an examination of the accountabilities of various Special
Collecting Officers of the NFA, including accused Robert P. Wa-acon

During the examination, the audit team demanded the presence of accused
Robert P. Wa-acon based on a demand letter dated September 1981. He
was asked to produce cash, cash items, stocks, empty sacks, and other
pertinent documents related to his accountability as a Special Collecting
Officer. Robert P. Wa-acon informed the audit team that he had no cash on
hand at that time pertaining to his accountability as a Special Collecting
Officer. Consequently, the Cash Count Sheet indicated that no cash was
counted during the cash examination.

Based on the examination of various Warehouse Stock Issues, Empty

Sacks Receipts, Official Receipts, and the Certificate of Inventory of Stocks
and Empty Sacks dated September 18, 1981, which bore the signature of
accused Robert P. Wa-acon and was witnessed by Virgilio Cacanendin,
Special Investigator, Manolito Diaz, Bookkeeper, Louie Pastofide, Proceso
A. Saavedra, and Gloria T. Reyes, the audit team rendered a Report of
Examination (Form 74-A) of the Cash and Accounts of Robert P. Wa-acon.

The report indicated that Robert P. Wa-acon incurred a cash shortage

amounting to One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Three
Pesos (P114,303.00). However, in the Revised Summary of the Cash
Examination, the cash shortage was adjusted to One Hundred Two
Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos and Twenty Centavos
(P102,199.20) after deducting the cost of sixty (60) bags of regular milled
rice valued at Six Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P6,900.00) and the
monetary value of the empty sacks returned by Robert P. Wa-acon, which
amounted to Five Thousand Two Hundred Three Pesos and Eighty
Centavos (P5,203.80). Additionally, Robert P. Wa-acon made a refund of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Therefore, the total cash shortage was
Ninety-Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos and Twenty
Centavos (P92,199.20).

He was charged with Malversation of public funds or property. –

Presumption of malversation.

Petitioner further claimed that the only reason he signed for the sacks of
rice, despite the shortage, was because he was told that he would not be
paid his salary if he would not sign, added to the fact that he was then
hungry—all of which prompted Wa-acon to sign the audit report of the Audit
Team.7 As to the missing empty sacks, petitioner argued that those were in
the custody of the delivery man who had a logbook where Special
Collecting Officers sign as proof that the delivery man had taken the sacks.

Issue
Did he commit the crime of Malversation of public funds or property. –
Presumption of malversation.

Ruling
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code whereas provides:

Malversation of public funds or property. – Presumption of malversation. –

Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable
for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence,
shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly
or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property x x x

xxxx

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized
officer shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or
property to personal uses