People v. Marifosque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 13, 1990, Hian Hian Yu Sy and her husband Arsenio Sy reported the robbery of Shellane gas cylinder tanks and an alleged extortion attempt by Police Sergeant Nazario Marifosque to Captain Alberto Salvo. Captain Salvo orchestrated an entrapment operation. Hian Hian Yu Sy prepared P4,800.00 as pay-off money, with serial numbers recorded. The pay-off was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the Golden Grace Department Store. Petitioner Marifosque arrived, demanded the money from Yu Su Pong and Hian Hian Sy, received the marked money wrapped in a newspaper, and was arrested as he exited the store. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan found petitioner Nazario Marifosque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and a fine. His motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution. He argued that his act of receiving money for delivery to a police asset did not constitute direct bribery and that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the act of receiving money for delivery to a police asset constitutes direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery, and modified the fine imposed. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term and ordered to pay a fine of P18,000.00, in addition to the penalty of special temporary disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the act constitutes direct bribery: The Court held that the elements of direct bribery were present. Petitioner was a public officer (Police Sergeant). He directly received money from Yu Su Pong and Hian Hian Yu Sy. This receipt was in consideration for the recovery of stolen cylinder tanks, which is an act not constituting a crime but related to his official functions as a police officer. The Court emphasized that petitioner's claim of merely relaying the asset's request for a reward was uncorroborated and contradicted by his conduct. His solicitous and overly eager pursuit of the incident, his failure to apprehend the suspect found in possession of the stolen goods, and his attempt to return the money upon arrest all indicated a corrupt intent. The Court found his justification for receiving the money as a mere conduit for an asset to be a hollow afterthought, especially since he denied previously asking owners for incentives for assets and claimed he voluntarily gave rewards to assets himself. The Court found his actions betrayed a corrupt desire to obtain pecuniary benefits from an illegal transaction. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan did not err in giving full weight and credence to the clear and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court found that all indicia pointed to the petitioner's guilt and malicious intent. His conduct, including his failure to present his asset to explain the receipt of money and his meek submission to arrest, was characteristic of a culprit caught red-handed. The Court also noted the suspicious coincidence that the prime suspect, Edgardo Arnaldo, was the brother of the police asset who directed the police to the stolen items, suggesting a possible conspiracy. Therefore, the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
A public officer who receives a gift or present in consideration of performing an act which does not constitute a crime, but is related to the exercise of his official functions, is guilty of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.