AQUILINO ENCARNACION, COMPLAINANT, VS. CRISPIN I. PERALTA, RESPONDENT.

On April 21, 1976, Aquilino Encarnacion, barangay captain of barrio
Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur, farm manager of
Hacienda Sta. Rita, and attorney-in-fact of former Congressman Apolonio Marasigan,^[1]
filed a sworn complaint with the Secretary of Justice, charging Crispin I.
Peralta, a deputy provincial sheriff of Camarines Sur with (1) graft and corrup­tion, and (2) ignorance of
the law, gross inefficiency and abuse of authority.^[2]
The said complaint was forwarded to this Court by the Secretary of Justice, and
on September 30, 1976, the Court, sitting en banc, dismissed the charge
for ignorance of the law, inefficiency and abuse of authority for being prema­ture,
and referred the charge for graft and corruption against the respondent sheriff
to the Executive Judge of Camarines Sur for investigation, report and recommendation.^[3]

After hearing the parties, the Executive Judge submitted a report
of his investigation and recommended that the case be dropped and considered
closed since “There is no appre­ciable evidence to show that respondent
sheriff received P60.00 from the complainant Aquilino
Encarnacion; the petty cash voucher (Exhibit A) is
self-serving; the testimony of the witness Simeon Hernandez has no evidentiary
value; the alleged eye-witness to the alleged giving by Encarnacion
of P60.00 to respondent came from
a biased and a coached witness,” and that the complaint against the
respondent sheriff is “merely retaliatory – a revenge taken by the farm
manager Encarnacion against the sheriff of the
province.”^[4]

The Acting Judicial Consultant likewise recommends the dismissal
of the charge for insufficiency of evidence.^[5]

It appears that in RO6 WCU Case No. A-104 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Unit of the Department of Labor, entitled, “Carmen Vda. de Marasigan, claimant, versus Hacienda Sta. Rita”, the Hacienda Sta. Rita was adjudged
to pay the claimant the amount of P5,600.00. 
When the Hacienda Sta. Rita failed to satisfy the award, a writ of execution
was issued to enforce the judgment. 
Respondent deputy sheriff Crispin I. Peralta subsequently levied upon a
jeep with the markings “Hacienda Sta. Rita” by virtue of the said
writ of execution.

Former Congressman Apolonio V. Marasigan, claiming sole ownership of the jeep, filed a
third-party claim with the respondent deputy provincial sheriff which the
latter denied, resulting in the filing of Civil Case No. P-437 of the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Sur,
entitled, “Apolonio V. Marasigan
vs. Carmen Vda. de Marasigan,
et al.” The case is still pending consideration in the court below.

The charge for graft and corruption was allegedly com­mitted, as
follows:

“. . . That on or about January 24,
1976 while Crispin I. Peralta, and I (complainant) were taking snacks at the
Garden Restaurant at Naga City, Peralta proposed that
he will not pursue the levy on the passenger jeep if he (Encarnacion)
would give him (Peralta) Two Hundred Pesos, but I was able to give him only
P60.00.  That few days previous to
February 12, 1976, Peralta went to see me and requested for the balance of
P140.00 which I was not able to give as I did not have the money, besides
former Congressman Marasigan refused to give me the
money for the purpose.  In the afternoon
of February 12, 1976 while
the jeepney was parked by me as I was near the
capitol building while conferring with Atty. Reynaldo Borja
at the Provincial Capitol, Naga
City, Peralta levied upon and
confiscated the jeepney.”^[6]

In recommending the dismissal of the foregoing charges, the
Acting Judicial Consultant found that there is no suffi­cient evidence to
support the allegations.  He stated:

“Indeed, there appears
to be no sufficient evidence to support the allegation that Respondent
received P60.00 from Complainant.  The
testimony of the Cashier of the hacienda shows that Com­plainant had asked from
him P60.00 before said Complainant went to the Garden Restaurant,
alleging that the P60.00 would be given to Respondent as initial payment of the
P200.00 demanded by the latter.  However,
Complainant’s own testimony (TSN, October 28, 1976, p. 5) shows that Respondent
demanded from him P200.00 in the Gar­den Restaurant.  This is corroborated by Complainant’s
witness, Jaime Baldovia who testified that while they
were eating in the Garden Restaurant Respondent told Complainant to give him
P200.00 ‘because he had no money because if he will be given that amount he
will not take any more the jeep.’ (TSN, November 4, 1976, p. 5)

“If so, how did Complainant know before­hand that Respondent
would demand from him P200.00 in the Garden Restaurant?  How did Complainant know that he would be
giving P60.00 to Respondent as initial payment of the P200.00 demanded in the
Garden Restaurant before he dined with Respondent?  How could he foretell these in advance?

“Receiving bribe-money is a serious offense.  The same should be convincingly
established.  In the instant case there
is absence of strong evidence of such fact.”^[7]

We have reviewed the records and find agreement with the above
observations.  Accordingly, the charges
filed against Crispin I. Peralta by Aquilino Encarnacion for graft and corruption should be, as it is
hereby, dismissed.

Castro, C.J., Fernado, Barredo, Antonio, Martin, Santos, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Muñoz Palma, JJ., in the result.

Makasiar, Aquino,
and Fernandez, JJ., did not take part.

^[1] Exh. J, p. 67, Rollo.

^[2] Rollo, p. 1.

^[3] Id.,
pp-39-40.

^[4] Id.,
pp. 52-53.

^[5] Id.,
p. 191.

^[6] Rollo, p. 1.

^[7] Id.,
pp. 188, 190.