Chua v. Nuestro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rina V. Chua filed an administrative charge against respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro for allegedly delaying the enforcement of a writ of execution in her favor after demanding and receiving P1,500.00. The respondent denied the charge. Procedural History: The case was referred for investigation to Judge Bernardo P. Pardo. The investigating judge found that on September 12, 1988, the complainant and her husband/counsel agreed to give the respondent P1,000.00, aside from expenses, for the immediate enforcement of the writ of execution. The respondent received the P1,000.00. The next day, September 13, 1988, the respondent was seen talking with the defendant's counsel and appeared hesitant to proceed. The respondent asked for an additional P500.00. Later that day, the respondent went to the premises but was informed by neighbors of a call from the judge to not proceed due to a filed supersedeas bond. Upon insistence from the complainant, they broke a padlock and entered the premises. The defendant's counsel then arrived and showed proof of payment for the supersedeas bond, leading the respondent to discontinue the execution proceedings. The Petition: The investigating judge found that while the sheriff's hesitation to immediately carry out the writ was understandable given the possibility of filing a supersedeas bond, the respondent deputy sheriff received P1,500.00 from the complainant and her lawyer as consideration for his work, distinct from sheriff's fees and expenses. This amount was deemed a bribe.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro is guilty of direct bribery. Whether the complainant Rina V. Chua and her counsel Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. should be investigated for corruption of a public official.
Ruling
The Court Resolved to (a) DISMISS respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro from the service with forfeiture of retirement privileges, if any; (b) DIRECT the City Prosecutor of Manila to investigate and, if warranted, charge complainant Rina V. Chua and Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut with corruption of a public official under Art. 212 of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) REFER this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the investigation of Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut on the same charge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of respondent Deputy Sheriff Edgardo D. Nuestro for direct bribery: The Court found the respondent guilty of direct bribery. The investigating judge's findings, substantiated by the testimony of the complainant and her husband/counsel, established that the respondent received P1,500.00 from the complainant and her lawyer. This amount was clearly distinct from the legitimate sheriff's fees and expenses for the execution of the writ. The evidence showed that this sum was given and received as a bribe, intended as consideration for the performance of the respondent's duty in executing the writ of ejectment. While a sheriff may exercise some discretion, especially when a supersedeas bond is filed, the acceptance of a bribe corrupts the performance of such duty. The Court agreed with the findings that the respondent received the bribe in consideration for the execution of the writ. On the investigation of complainant Rina V. Chua and Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. for corruption of a public official: The Court directed the City Prosecutor of Manila to investigate Rina V. Chua and Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. for corruption of a public official under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. This action is based on the finding that they gave the bribe to the respondent deputy sheriff. The act of giving a bribe constitutes corruption of a public official, and both the giver and the receiver can be held liable under the law. Furthermore, Atty. Yabut was also referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for appropriate disciplinary action for the same offense, highlighting the gravity of his involvement as both counsel and participant in the bribery.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff found guilty of direct bribery for receiving P1,500.00 in consideration for the execution of a writ of ejectment is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement privileges. The complainant and her counsel are directed to be investigated for corruption of a public official.