Peligrino v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano, a practicing doctor, was subjected to an examination of his books of accounts for income and business tax returns for the years 1988-1989 by Eutiquio A. Peligrino, an Examiner II of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), supervised by Atty. Buenaventura V. Buenafe. The BIR officials allegedly demanded P200,000.00 from Dr. Feliciano, P51,858.57 of which was to be paid as deficiency income tax, with the balance of P148,141.43 to be appropriated by the accused. Dr. Feliciano, believing this to be extortion, sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for an entrapment operation. Procedural History: An Information was filed charging Peligrino and Buenafe with violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted Peligrino but acquitted Buenafe. Peligrino appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Peligrino filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution, raising issues regarding the alleged demand and receipt of money, the credibility of the complaining witness, and denial of equal protection.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that petitioner demanded and received the envelope with the boodle money. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner on the basis of the testimony of Dr. Feliciano, and whether Dr. Feliciano was a discredited witness. Whether the petitioner was denied his right to the equal protection of the law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan, finding petitioner Eutiquio A. Peligrino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Court upheld the conviction and the indeterminate prison term imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of demand and receipt of boodle money: The Court reiterated that Section 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes demanding or requesting, receiving, or both. Proof of any of these acts suffices for conviction, making the lack of express demand immaterial. The Court found that Peligrino's actions—opening the envelope, looking inside, closing it, and placing it beside him—demonstrated acceptance, not refusal, of the money. His claim that the possession was momentary and not voluntary was rejected, as his actions indicated an intent to take the gift. The positive result of the fluorescent powder test further corroborated the receipt of the marked money. On the credibility of the complaining witness: The Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan did not consider Dr. Feliciano a discredited witness. While the court noted the complainant's character and the numerous cases filed for and against him, it found his testimony, when corroborated by other evidence like the entrapment and the forensic examination, sufficient to establish guilt. The assessment of witness credibility is primarily within the trial court's purview, and the Supreme Court will not interfere absent arbitrariness or palpable error. On the right to equal protection of the law: The Court distinguished the cases of Peligrino and Buenafe. It found that the strongest evidence against Peligrino, particularly the entrapment evidence, was not applicable to Buenafe, who was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy. Therefore, the evidence against Peligrino and Buenafe was not at par, and Peligrino could not claim equal protection based on Buenafe's acquittal. The Court found no reversible error in the Sandiganbayan's judicious and correct action.
Main Doctrine
Mere receipt of a gift or benefit is sufficient for conviction under Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft Law, even without express demand. The duration of possession is not controlling; acceptance is shown by words, actions, and reactions indicating acceptance. Entrapment, where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused, is distinguished from instigation, where law enforcement officials induce the commission of the offense.