Crim Case Assigned_briberyv2.docx

Maniego vs. People (Direct Bribery) Facts: Accused Maniego was appointed as laborer but was in charged of issuing subpoena and summons for traffic violations and he is permitted to write motions for dismissal of the cases for the accused without a counsel. Sometime, Rabbai inquired to Maniego about the summons which he received and if the penalty of P15 can be reduced since he has no money. Maniego informed Rabbai that if he will pay him P10, he will fix the case which Rabbai did. The case was dismissed since the crime has already prescribed. As a result, he was charged of Bribery under the RPC. In his defense, he alleged that the Doctrine of Temporary Performance of Public function as a Loborer should not apply in his case. Issue: W or N Maniego is guilty of Bribery? Held: Yes. The elements of the crime of Bribery are as follows: a. The accused is a Public Officer within the scope of Art. 203 of RPC; b. That the accused received gifts, present offer, or promise; c. That such gift or promise is given in consideration of commission of some crime or in any act constituting a crime; and d. That the crime or act relates to his function of a Public officer. First element, The court held that even the Temporary performance of a public function is sufficient to constitute a person as public official and Laborer in the Bureau of Post for filer or money is within the scope of Art. 203 of RPC. 2nd and 3rd element, it is undisputed that he received a P10 from Rabbai in consideration of fixing the case. Last element, since he is permitted to write motions for dismissal of the case, the same has been dismissed by the court.

Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan (Indirect Bribery) Facts:. Oro Asian Automotive Corporations has transactions with LTO Cagayan De Oro City for securing a Conduct Permit for the purpose of conducting a Road test permit and afterwards the vehicle will be properly registered with the LTO. In which, Garcia as Director of LTO will be the approver of those permits. In those occasions, Garcia will always ask Yungao the Liason Officer of Oro Asia to borrow motor vehicles for his personal used as evidence with the Delivery Receipts. According to Yungao, their transactions with LTO was granted because they comply with the requirements. As a result of the frequent borrowing of Garcia, he was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act but he was acquitted because it was not proved that he approved or interfere with the approval of Oro’s transactions with their office for him to borrow the said vehicle from Oro. The question remains is whether Garcia can be convicted of Direct or Indirect Bribery? Held: No. In Direct Bribery. the following are three acts that constitutes it:

a.

By agreeing to perform or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with performance of his official duties; b. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime in performance of his official duty; c. By agreeing to refrain or from refraining in doing something which his official duty to do, in consideration of any gift or promise. In this case, it does not constitute Direct Bribery because there is no evidence that he refrain from doing or doing his official duty in consideration of any gift or promise. Mere borrowing not in connection with his performance as LTO Director does not constitute bribery. While in Indirect Bribery, the public officer who accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office (Art 211). The essential ingredient of Indirect bribery is the public officer must have accepted the gift or consideration. The prosecution failed to show that the borrowed or received motor vehicles was received by Garcia nor it was received by his representatives. The delivery receipts does not contain his signature.

Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan (Direct Bribery) Soriano as an Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City demanded Php 4,000.00 from Thomas N. Tan accused for qualified theft as a price for dismissing Tan’s case. In view of this, Tan reported the incident to the NBI and an entrapment operation was made. After the entrapment operations, he was charged with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act sec. 3(b) by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift or present in connection with any contract or transaction between any other government or any other party, wherein the public officer has to intervene under the law. The Sandiganbayan convicted Soriano for the same. However, he contends that Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him for violation of Anti-Graft, instead he claims that the same act constitute Direct Bribery. Issue: W or N he can be charged for Direct Bribery? Held: Yes. The accused as a Public Prosecutor solicit 4,000.00 and received 2,000.oo for dismissing the case during preliminary investigation pending before him. Such, dismissing the case is related to his official function. Hence, liable for Direct Bribery.

Formilleza vs. Sandiganbayan (Indirect Bribery) Formilleza is a service personnel in National Irrigation Administration ho was in charge with the promotion and appointment of employees. Sometime, Ms. Mutia was employee of NIA but her appointment is project based. During the renewal of his appointment, she approached Formilleza but her appointment papers was not attended unless she gives money to her. An entrapment operations was held at the Canteen of NIA office wherein Ms. Mutia handed over underneath the table the folded marked money to Formilleza. With that, the police took photographs of the same and arrested her. Formilezza posted as a defense that Ms. Mutia is taking her revenge against her because she refused to help her in her appointment. Moreover, the persons with them in the table witness that they saw nothing handed over to Formilezza.

The Sandiganbyan convicted Formileza for Indirect Bribery. Issue: W or N Formilleza is guilty of Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: No. The essential ingredient of Indirect Bribery is that a public officer accepted gift or material consideration. There must be a clear intention that the public officer to take the gift offered and considered the same as his own property from then on such as putting it away or safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign or circumstance is not sufficient to conclude that the crime of Indirect Bribery has been committed. The photographs were taken after she accepted the money but not during the time that she accepted it. Formilleza does not know that it is a money and put it in her pocket, after she found out that it is a money, she threw it away. Who would ever accept bribes or money in a crowded place like a canteen.

-

Direct Bribery Committed by a Public Officer. Relative to his official duty or function. The acceptance of gift, promise or material consideration is in connection with his official duty or function. Three acts punished under Direct Bribery: a. By agreeing to perform or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with performance of his official duties; b. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime in performance of his official duty; c. By agreeing to refrain or from refraining in doing something which his official duty to do, in consideration of any gift or promise.

-

-

Indirect Bribery Committed by a Public Officer. Acceptance of gifts must be by reason of his office. Accepting any gift promise or material consideration. Should be accompanied with the intention to receive such and considered it as his own property from then on by putting it away, safekeeping it, or pocketing the same. Mere acceptance of the gift without it intention does not constitute Indirect Bribery.