PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NG PEK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the Court of First Instance of Manila
appellant was Accused of, and pleaded guilty to, attempted bribery Forthwith he
was sentenced to suffer two months and one day of arresto mayor and to
pay a fine of P3, with subsidiary Imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the costs.

From that sentence he appealed to this Court, contending that
(1) “the lower court erred in considering that the statement given by the
accused during his arraignment to the court interpreter that he gave a peso to
the complaining witness is a manifestation or a declaration of a plea of
guilty,” and (2) “the lower court erred In forthwith sentencing the accused to a
prison term of two months and one day and to pay a fine if P3 on the day of the
arraignment, without giving him a chance to defend himself.”

Appellant’s first assignment of error is premised upon allegations of fact
which were not proven during the trial and do not appear in the record before
us. We cannot sustain an assignment of error based on such allegations.

The record shows that when the case was called for the arraignment of the
accused on November 3, 1947, the accused waived his right to be assisted by
counsel and then and there entered the plea of guilty. That plea necessarily
foreclosed the right of the accused to defend himself and left the court with no
other alternative than to impose the penalty prescribed by law. Therefore the
second assignment of error is also devoid of merit.

The only questions for us to determine in this appeal are (1) the nature of
the crime committed and (2) the propriety of the penalty imposed.

1. The offense charged in the information falls under article 212 of the Revised
   Penal Code, entitled “Corruption of Public Officials,” in relation to the third
   paragraph of article 210 of the same Code. The trial court found the accused
   guilty of the crime charged in the information, according to the contention of
   the Solicitor General, is frustrated corruption of a public official.
   We note, however, that the penalty imposed by the trial court corresponds to
   that of consummated corruption of a public official, as penalized in
   article 212, in relation to the third paragraph of article 210, of the Revised
   Penal Code. Was the crime alleged in the information attempted, frustrated, or
   Consummated?

   The information charged the appellant with attempted bribery, alleging that
   on September 23, 1947, in the city of Manila, he wilfully, unlawfully, and
   feloniously did offer and deliver the amount of one peso to Patrolman M. Garcia
   in order to dissuade him from complying with his duty of arresting said accused
   for a violation of City Ordinance No. 2646 and filing charges against him,
   adding, however (using the language of article 6 of the Revised Penal (Code,
   which defines an attempt to commit a felony), that “the said accused did not
   perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of
   bribery as a consequence by reason of a cause other than his own voluntary
   desistance, that is, because the said police officer did not allow himself to be
   corrupted. This additional allegation seems to contradict the main allegation
   that the accused offered and delivered the money to the police officer. Be that
   as it may, and assuming that the accused really offered sand delivered the money
   to the police officer, there is no question that the latter refused to bo
   corrupted. In similar cases this court has repeatedly held the crime to be
   attempted. (U.S. vs. Paua, 6 Phil. 740; U.S. vs. Camacan, 7
   Phil. 329; U.S. vs. Tan Gee, 7 Phil. 738; U.S. vs. Sy-Suikao,
   18 Phil. 482; and U.S. vs. Te Tong, 26 Phil. 453.)

   In the last of the cases herein cited, it appears that the accused Te Tong
   offered and delivered P500 to a police bfficer in consideration of the latter’s
   agreeing to deliver to the Chinaman certain books, which the police officer had
   seized from hin and which showed that he was guilty of playing the prohibited
   game of jueteng, and to substitute said books with others fraudulently concocted
   for the purpose. Immediately after the delivery and substitution of the books
   and the receipt of P500, the police officer arrested the Chinaman. The court
   said that the only question was whether the crime was attempted, frustrated, or
   consummated bribery. Following the previous cases above cited, which Involved
   similar facts, the court held that “while there is some authority to the
   contrary, we are of the opinion that we should follow the substantially uniform
   holding of this court which declares the crime to be attempted bribery.”

   We do not feel inclined to disturb that ruling in this case in the absence of
   compelling reasons and in view of the ambiguity of the information to which the
   herein appellant pleaded guilty, which ambiguity should be resolved in this
   favor. We therefore hold that the crime committed was attempted corruption of a
   public official.

2. The penalty prescribed in the third paragraph of article 210, in relation to
   article 212, of the Revised Penal Code for the consummated crime of
   corruption of a public official is arresto mayor in its medium and
   maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not snore
   than three times such value. In accordance with article 51 of the Revised Penal
   Code, a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
   consummated felony should be imposed upon the principal in an attempt to commit
   a felony. Two degrees lower than arresto mayor in its medium and
   maximum periods is destierro in its minimum and medium periods.
   (Article 71, Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No.
   217.)

Conformably to articles 27 (paragraph 4) and 87 of the Revised Penal Code,
the accused-appellant should be as he is hereby sentenced to suffer six months
and one day of destierro or banishment, during which period he shall
not be permitted to enter or be in any place within the radius of twenty-five
kilometers from his present place of residence, 419 T. Pinpin, Manila. As thus
modified, the sentence appealed from is affirmed in all respects, with costs.

SO
ORDERED.

Moran, C. J., Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones,
Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur