CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO TITLE SEVEN (ARTICLES 203-245): Crimes Committed by Public Officers PDF

Preview

Summary

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO TITLE SEVEN (ARTICLES 203-245): Crimes Committed by Public Officers FRANCISCO SALVADOR B. ACEJAS III v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 156643; 156891 | June 27, 2006 TICKLER: Bureau of Immigration; ...

Description

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO TITLE SEVEN (ARTICLES 203-245): Crimes Committed by Public Officers FRANCISCO SALVADOR B. ACEJAS III v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 156643; 156891 | June 27, 2006 TICKLER: Bureau of Immigration; Japanese passport; yakuza big boss DOCTRINES: 1. 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. 2. Elements of the second kind of bribery: 1) the offender was a public officer, 2) who received 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. 3. A private person may be held guilty of direct bribery if it was shown that conspiracy exists between him and the public officer/s who committed direct bribery. FACTS: These are consolidated petitions for review assailing the decision of the Sandiganbayan. On December 17, 1993, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation Agent Vladimir Hernandez, together with a reporter went to the house of Takao and Bethel Aoyagi to serve Mission Order No. 93-04-12. Hernandez told Takao, through his wife Bethel, that there were complaints against him in Japan that he was a suspected to be a Yakuza big boss, a drug dependent and an overstaying alien. Takao showed his passport and signed an undertaking issued by Hernandez, stating his promise to appear in an investigation at the BID and that as a guarantee of his appearance, he was entrusting his passport to Hernandez. Bethel called Expedito Perlas and informed him of the taking of Takao’s passport. Perlas referred them to Atty. Lucenario of the Lucernario, Margate, Mogpo, Tiongco and Acejas III Law firm. Following the advice of the latter, they did not appear before the BID.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

Meanwhile, Hernandez prepared a progress report and submitted it to the Chief of Operations and Intelligence Division, Ponciano Ortiz, who recommended that Takao be placed under custodial investigation. On December 22, 1993, the Aoyagis met accused Atty. Francisco Acejas and were informed that Acejas would handle their case. On January 5, 1994, Jun Pelingon (Bethel’s brother), Perlas, Atty. Acejas, Hernandez, Vic Conanan and Akira Nemoto met at the Aristocrat Restaurant. Another meeting was set at the Manila Nikko Hotel on January 8 with Pelingon, Perlas, Acejas and Hernandez attending. On January 11, on account of the alleged demand of 1million pesos for the return of Takao’s passport, Pelingon called BID Commissioner Zafiro Espicio of Davao. The latter referred him to Atty. Angelica Somera, an NBI agent. An entrapment operation was arranged. On January 12, Hernandez returned the passport at the coffee shop of the Diamond Hotel. The NBI team arrested Perlas, Atty. Acejas and Jose Victoriano after the latter picked up the brown envelope containing marked money.

CRIME CHARGED: Direct Bribery Sandiganbayan: Hernandez, Conanan, Perlas and Acejas were found GUILTY of DIRECT BRIBERY. Hernandez and Conanan shall also suffer the p[enalty of special temporary disqualification. Joise Victoriano is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. Motion for New Trial was denied. CA: N/A ISSUE: Are the accused guilty of direct bribery? SC: YES, accused are guilty of Direct Bribery. 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. Petitioners were convicted under the second kind of bribery, which contained the following elements: 1) the offender was a public officer, 2) who received gifts o 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.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

Hernandez took the passport of Takao Aoyagi. On various dates, he met with the Aoyagi spouses and also Pelingon, regarding the return of the passport. Hernandez then asked for a down payment on the payoff, during which he directed Bethel to deliver the money to Acejas. Even assuming that Acejas negotiated for the return of the passport on his clients behalf, he still failed to justify his actions during the entrapment operation. The witnesses all testified that he had received the purported payoff. It would be illogical to sustain his contention that the envelope represented the balance of his firm’s legal fees. It was given to Hernandez immediately after the return of passport. In sum, the Court found that the prosecution proved the elements of direct bribery. First, the offense was committed by BID Agent Hernandez who extorted money from Aoyagi for the return of the passport and the promise of assistance in procuring visa. Second, the offenders received the money as payoff, which Acejas received for the group and gave it 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. 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. DECISION: Petitions are DENIED and the assailed Decisions of the Sandiganbayan are hereby AFFIRMED. GREGORY JAMES POZAR v COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-62439 | October 23,1984 TICKLER: Application for probation. Envelope with 100-peso bill. DOCTRINE: The procedure for processing petitioner's application for probation in the Probation Office at Angeles City was not precise, explicit and clear cut. And since the accused petitioner is a foreigner and quite unfamiliar with probation rules and procedures, there is reason to conclude that petitioner was befuddled, if not confused so that his act of providing and advancing the expenses for whatever documentation was needed further to complete and thus hasten his probation application, was understandably innocent and not criminal. There being no criminal intent to corrupt the Probation Officer, the accused petitioner is entitled to acquittal of the crime charged. FACTS: Petitioner, an American citizen and a permanent resident of the Philippines, was charged in an Information, with the crime of Corruption of a Public Official. As

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

stated in the Information, petitioner "did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously give to the complainant, Mr. Danilo Ocampo, the City Probation Officer, the sum of one hundred (P100.00) pesos in a paper bill with serial No. BC530309, under circumstances that would make the said City Probation Officer, Mr. Danilo Ocampo, liable for bribery.” Manalo, Clerk at the Probation Office of Angeles City, declared that he started working at the Probation Office since May 2, 1978 and came to know appellant because the latter had gone to said office in connection with his application for probation. At about noontime of December 17, 1979, appellant came to the office looking for Probation Officer Danilo Ocampo and since the latter was out at the time, appellant gave him a closed envelope bearing the name of Ocampo for delivery to the latter. Two days later, he gave the envelope to Ocampo who opened the same in his presence. The envelope contained some official papers connected with appellant's application for probation and attached thereto was a hundred-peso bill. Ocampo then remarked: “This is something bad that the opening of the envelope was done on December 19, 1979.” Ocampo kept the envelope and its contents, including the one hundred-peso bill, but within a week's time gave them to him with instructions to give the same to appellant but the latter never came to the office and so he returned them to Ocampo. Although he later saw appellant about two weeks after December 17, 1979, when the latter came to the office to sign some papers, he never mentioned to appellant the one hundred-peso bill. ANOTHER PROSEC WITNESS: Mrs. Primitiva Francisco, Assistant Probation Officer of the Angeles City Probation Office, declared that she knows appellant because the latter was one of the applicants for probation in 1979 and she was the one assigned to investigate appellant's case. As Assistant Probation Officer in the Investigation of applications for probation and in the case of appellant, she requested him to submit certain pertinent documents required by their office, such as barangay, police and court clearances, residence certificate, etc. Mrs. Francisco further declared that at the time she saw appellant on December 21, 1979, the latter was asking person to leave for Baguio City but she told him to talk with Probation Officer, Mr. Ocampo, anent the matter. She then prepared a draft of the PostSentence Investigation report and thereafter had a conference with Ocampo who told him not to delete the bribery incident from the report. It was first from Manalo and later from Ocampo that she became aware of the bribery or more accurately corruption of a public official committed by appellant. DEFENSE’S VERSION:

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

The one hundred-peso bill the accused-appellant placed in the envelope delivered to the Probation Officer was allegedly intended to take care of the expenses in the xerox copying or reproduction of documents that may be needed by the Probation Office. BACK STORY: Accused was convicted of the crime of less Serious Physical Injuries, and the crime of Oral Defamation of the City Court of Angeles City, Branch 1, and the said accused was sentenced to an imprisonment of 15 days of Arresto Menor and to pay a fine of P50.00 and to pay the complaining witness the amount of P500.00 as moral and exempt damages. After he was sentenced, he, on November 28, 1979 filed an Application for Probation. After filing the application for Probation, the accused, together with his lawyer Atty. Reynaldo Suarez, went to the Probation Office purposely to inquire for the requirements need for his client's petition for probation. Unfortunately, Atty. Suarez and his client did not reach the Probation Officer Mr. Danilo Ocampo. It was Mr. Manalo, a clerk of the Probation Office, whom they reached, and they were requested to come back to the office regarding their inquiry inasmuch as the Probation Officer was not in the office. He was inquiring from Mrs. Francisco the necessary documents regarding the application for probation of his client and Mrs. Francisco suggested that he would come over the office in order to give him all the necessary information. CRIME CHARGED: Corruption of a public official RTC: GUILTY as charged CA: AFFIRMED RTC ruling in toto ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of the direct bribery? RULING: NO, the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of Corruption of Public Official as consummated offense (which is affirmed by the respondent appellant court) for it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution as recited in both decisions of the trial and appellate courts, that the complainant Probation Officer did not accept the one hundred-peso bill Hence, the crime would be attempted corruption of a public official (to be the correct charge). However, petitioner was required by the Assistant Probation Officer, Primitive Francisco, to submit in connection with his probation application the Court Information (complaint) Court decision, Custody Status (recognizance or bail bond), clearances from the Police, the Court, Barangay Certificate, I.D. pictures (3 copies), residence certificate, and told to report once a week on Mondays. when the latter was asking permission to go to Baguio to submit to the office a copy of his visa and passport. During all the time he was applying for probation, he made more or less 12 visits in the office as he was directed to report every Monday at 10:00 o'clock in the morning. He reported

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

for 6 to 7 consecutive weeks and there were times that he went there unscheduled for conference and clarification of the various requirements he needed. From the foregoing, the Supreme Court fairly deduced that the procedure for processing petitioner's application for probation in the Probation Office at Angeles City was not precise, explicit and clear cut. And since the accused petitioner is a foreigner and quite unfamiliar with probation rules and procedures, there is reason to conclude that petitioner was befuddled, if not confused so that his act of providing and advancing the expenses for whatever documentation was needed further to complete and thus hasten his probation application, was understandably innocent and not criminal. There being no criminal intent to corrupt the Probation Officer, the accused petitioner is entitled to acquittal of the crime charged. DECISION: Accused was ACQUITTED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JOSELITO C. BARROZO A.C. No. 10207 | July 21, 2015 TICKLER: Hong Kong letter DOCTRINE: Elements of Direct Bribery: 1. The offender is a public officer; 2. The offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; 3. Such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and 4. The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties. FACTS: Jennie Valeriano, a respondent in several cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which were assigned to respondent as Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dagupan City, Pangasinan. According to Valeriano, respondent told her that he would resolve the cases in her favor in exchange for ₱20,000.00. Valeriano went to the Office of Regional State Prosecutor to report the matter. The Regional State Prosecutor introduced her to agents of the NBI, who, after being told of respondents’ demand, immediately planned an entrapment operation. During the operation, respondent was caught red-handed by the NBI agents receiving the amount of ₱20,000.00 from Valeriano. Information for direct bribery under paragraph 2, Article 210 of the RPC was filed. The case, however, was later on indorsed to the Sandiganbayan as respondent was occupying a position with a salary grade 27 or higher.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda College of Law Manila

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, Bustillos, Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng, Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren, Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday, Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor, Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

Sandiganbayan found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery and sentence him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prison correctional maximum, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison mayor medium, as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱60,000.00. in addition, it imposed upon him the penalty of special temporary disqualification. Respondent filed a MR but was denied. Undeterred, respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC but was also denied for failure to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in its challenged issuances as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Respondent thrice moved for reconsideration. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Wat & Co. of Hong Kong stating that its client in Hong Kong received a letter from the Philippines signed by "Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo," asking for long service payment from the employers of domestic helper Anita G. Calub who passed away. Upon checking online and discovering that said person was convicted of direct bribery, Wat & Co. requested the OBC to inform it if respondent is still a lawyer qualified to practice law. OBC inquired from the DOJ whether respondent is still connected thereat. The DOJ informed OBC that respondent had already resigned from his position effective 2005. OBC wrote Wat & Co. to confirm that respondent was indeed convicted of direct bribery by final judgment and that the Philippine Court has yet to rule on his disbarment. Barrozo argued that he did not engage in the practice of law as his act of signing the claim letter does not constitute such practice. He averred that he signed it not for any monetary consideration, but out of his sincere desire to help the claimants. And since there is no payment involved, no lawyer-client relationship was established between him and the claimants. This therefore negates practice of the law on his part. Subsequently, upon Order of the Court, the OBC evaluated the case and came up with its Report and Recommendation recommending the disbarme...