JUANI1O 1. MLRLNCILLO v.

PLOPLL OI 1HL PHILIPPINLS

G.R. Nos. J42369-70, J3 April 2007, J. Corona (Iirst Division)



1be riotatiov of ectiov ;b) of R. 01 i. veitber iaevticat vor vece..arit, ivctv.ire of airect briber,. !bite
tbe, bare covvov etevevt., vot att tbe e..evtiat etevevt. of ove offev.e are ivctvaea avovg or forv art of tbo.e evvveratea
iv tbe otber. !berea. tbe vere reqve.t or aevava of a gift, re.evt, .bare, ercevtage or bevefit i. evovgb to cov.titvte a
riotatiov of ectiov ;b) of R. 01, accetavce of a rovi.e or offer or receit of a gift or re.evt i. reqvirea iv airect
briber,. Moreorer, tbe avbit of ectiov ;b) of R. 01 i. .ecific. t i. tivitea ovt, to covtract. or trav.actiov. ivrotrivg
vovetar, cov.iaeratiov rbere tbe vbtic officer ba. tbe avtborit, to ivterreve vvaer tbe tar. Direct briber,, ov tbe otber
bava, ba. a riaer ava vore geverat .coe: ;a) erforvavce of av act cov.titvtivg a crive; ;b) eecvtiov of av vv;v.t act
rbicb aoe. vot cov.titvte a crive ava ;c) agreeivg to refraiv or refraivivg frov aoivg av act rbicb i. bi. officiat avt, to ao.
.ttbovgb tbe tro cbarge. agaiv.t etitiover .tevvea frov tbe .ave trav.actiov, tbe .ave act gare ri.e to tro .earate ava
ai.tivct offev.e.. ^o aovbte ;eoara, attacbea .ivce tbere ra. a rariavce betreev tbe etevevt. of tbe offev.e. cbargea. 1be
cov.titvtiovat rotectiov agaiv.t aovbte ;eoara, roceea. frov a .ecova ro.ecvtiov for tbe .ave offev.e, vot for a aifferevt
ove.


Petitioner Juanito Merencillo, Group Superising Lxaminer o the Bureau o Internal Reenue
,BIR, o 1agbiliran City, was charged in two separate Inormations or iolation o Section 3,b, o the
Anti-Grat and Corrupt Practices Act ,R.A. 3019, and or direct bribery. 1he charges were iled by Ma.
Angeles Ramasola Cesar.

On 13 September 1995, Cesar`s agent asked the BIR oice o 1agbiliran City or the
computation o taxes due on the sale o real property to Ramasola Superstudio, Inc., and applied or a
certiicate authorizing registration ,CAR,. Merencillo approed the computation. On the same day,
Cesar receied a call rom Merencillo, asking her to go to his oice. \hen she was at his oice,
Merencillo allegedly demanded P20, 000 in exchange or the approal o the CAR. She went to the
Reenue District Oicer ,RDO, and complained about Merencillo`s reusal to release the CAR unless
his demand was met. 1he RDO assured her that he would look into her complaint. Subsequently, she
receied a call rom Merencillo inorming her that she could get the CAR but reminded her o his
demand. She sought the help o the Proincial Director o the Philippine National Police ,PNP, in
Bohol, Senior Superintendent Dionaid Baraguer. Merencillo was apprehended in an entrapment set up
by the PNP o Bohol.

During the trial, Merencillo`s eidence consisted o nothing more than a general denial o the
charges against him. 1he trial court ound him guilty o the charges, which was airmed by the
Sandiganbayan where he appealed the case. In his appeal to the Court, Merencillo maintained that he
was placed twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted or iolation o Section 3 ,b, o R.A. 3019 and or
direct bribery.

ISSUL:

\hether or not Merencillo was placed in double jeopardy when he was prosecuted or iolation
o Section 3 ,b, o R.A. 3019 and or direct bribery

HLLD:

1he petition is DLNILD.

1he rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy o punishment or
the same oense. 1he test is whether one oense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it
or a rustration thereo, or whether one oense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
other, as proided in Section o Rule 11 o the Rules o Court. An oense charged necessarily
includes that which is proed when some o the essential elements or ingredients o the ormer, as
alleged in the complaint or inormation, constitute the latter, and an oense charged is necessarily
included in the oense proed when the essential ingredients o the ormer constitute or orm a part o
those constituting the latter.

A comparison o the elements o the crime o direct bribery deined and punished under Article
210 o the Reised Penal Code and those o iolation o Section 3,b, o RA 3019 shows that there is
neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two oenses. 1he elements o the crime penalized
under Section 3,b, o RA 3019 are: ,1, the oender is a public oicer, ,2, he requested or receied a git,
present, share, percentage or beneit, ,3, he made the request or receipt on behal o the oender or any
other person, ,4, the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the
goernment, and ,5, he has the right to interene, in an oicial capacity under the law, in connection
with the contract or transaction.

On the other hand, direct bribery has the ollowing essential elements: ,1, the oender is a
public oicer, ,2, the oender accepts an oer or promise or receies a git or present by himsel or
through another, ,3, such oer or promise be accepted or git or present be receied by the public
oicer with a iew to committing some crime, or in consideration o the execution o an act which does
not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to rerain rom doing something which it is his
oicial duty to do, and ,4, the act which the oender agrees to perorm or which he executes is
connected with the perormance o his oicial duties.

Clearly, the iolation o Section 3,b, o RA 3019 is neither identical nor necessarily inclusie o
direct bribery. \hile they hae common elements, not all the essential elements o one oense are
included among or orm part o those enumerated in the other. \hereas the mere request or demand o
a git, present, share, percentage or beneit is enough to constitute a iolation o Section 3,b, o RA
3019, acceptance o a promise or oer or receipt o a git or present is required in direct bribery.
Moreoer, the ambit o Section 3,b, o RA 3019 is speciic. It is limited only to contracts or transactions
inoling monetary consideration where the public oicer has the authority to interene under the law.
Direct bribery, on the other hand, has a wider and more general scope: ,a, perormance o an act
constituting a crime, ,b, execution o an unjust act which does not constitute a crime and ,c, agreeing to
rerain or reraining rom doing an act which is his oicial duty to do.

Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed rom the same transaction, the same act
gae rise to two separate and distinct oenses. No double jeopardy attached since there was a ariance
between the elements o the oenses charged. 1he constitutional protection against double jeopardy
proceeds rom a second prosecution or the same oense, not or a dierent one.

Moreoer, section 3 ,b, o R.A. 3019 proides that in addition to the acts or omissions o public
oicers already penalized by existing law they may still be punished i ound guilty o the corrupt
practices enumerated in this section. One may thereore be charged with iolation o R.A. 3019 in
addition to a elony under the Reised Penal Code or the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently
or subsequent to being charged with a elony under the reised Penal Code. 1here is no double jeopardy
i a person is charged simultaneously or successiely or iolation o Section 3 o RA 3019 and the
Reised Penal Code.