NAZARIO N. MARIFOSQUE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Marifosque versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Marifosque versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review after the Sandiganbayan convicted a police sergeant of direct bribery. The petitioner, Nazario Marifosque, was a police officer of Legazpi City who received money from a gasoline station owner and his daughter in exchange for the recovery of stolen gas cylinders. The case matters because it fixes the elements of direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and because it teaches that a public officer who takes money for doing an act that is not itself a crime still commits bribery when the act is connected with his official duty.

Procedural History

The petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision on September 23, 2002, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of three years, six months, and five days of prision correccional as minimum, to seven years, eight months, and nine days of prision mayor as maximum, imposed a fine of three thousand pesos, and ordered special temporary disqualification. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion in a resolution dated January 3, 2003. He then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court, which decided the case on July 27, 2004.

Facts

On October 13, 1990, at around five in the afternoon, Hian Hian Yu Sy and her husband Arsenio Sy went to the office of Captain Alberto Salvo, Chief of the Intelligence and Operating Division of the Criminal Investigation Service in Region 5. They reported the robbery of Shellane gas cylinders at the gasoline station owned by Yu So Pong, and they reported that the petitioner, Police Sergeant Nazario Marifosque, had attempted to extort money in exchange for the recovery of the lost items. Captain Salvo and his men set up an entrapment. Hian Hian Yu Sy prepared four thousand eight hundred pesos as pay-off money and listed the serial numbers of the bills. The pay-off was set at seven in the evening at the Golden Grace Department Store, owned by Yu So Pong.

At around six fifteen in the evening, Captain Salvo and his men positioned themselves outside the store. The petitioner arrived on board a tricycle, went inside, and demanded the money from Hian Hian Yu Sy and Yu So Pong. They handed him the marked money wrapped in a newspaper. When he stepped out of the store, Arsenio Sy gave the pre-arranged signal, and the operatives arrested him. Hian Hian Yu Sy testified that the petitioner had demanded seven thousand two hundred pesos, but she bargained for four thousand eight hundred pesos because that was all she had, proposing that he return the following morning for the balance.

The petitioner's defense was that a police asset had reported the robbery to him, and that he relayed to Yu So Pong the asset's request for a reward of three hundred fifty pesos per cylinder tank. Yu So Pong agreed, saying he was amenable if that was the only way to recover the cylinders and apprehend the robbers. The asset, Elmer Arnaldo, testified that he had reported the robbery and discussed the reward with the petitioner, who gave him one thousand pesos and told him to return at six in the evening for the remainder. At seven in the evening, he and the petitioner went to the store to collect the balance. The petitioner went inside, and the asset, left outside, saw a woman hand him a folded newspaper. Armed men then apprehended the petitioner, and the asset ran away.

Issues

• Whether or not the act of the petitioner in receiving the sums of money for delivery to his asset constitutes the offense of direct bribery defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery.

Applicable Provisions

Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 210. Direct Bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not less than three times the value of the gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.

The second paragraph governs this case because the petitioner accepted the gift in consideration of an act that does not constitute a crime, namely the recovery of the stolen cylinders, and he executed that act.

Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, also quoted in the decision, defines who are public officers:

Article 203. Who are public officers. — In applying the provisions of this chapter, any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.

This provision establishes the first element of direct bribery, that the accused is a public officer, which the petitioner was as a police sergeant.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's receipt of the money did constitute direct bribery. The crime under Article 210 has four elements: first, that the accused is a public officer; second, that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; third, that such gift, present or promise was given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and fourth, that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The Court found all four present. The petitioner was a public officer under Article 203. He directly received the bribe money from Yu So Pong and his daughter in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the meaning of Article 210, and the act of receiving the money was connected with his duty as a police officer.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion, because the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case boiled down to credibility, and the prosecution witnesses gave clear and straightforward testimonies. The Court stressed several indicia of guilt. The petitioner never introduced his asset or mentioned his name to Yu So Pong or his daughter. His claim that he had given one thousand pesos to the asset was not corroborated, and he made no attempt to present the asset when arrested and interrogated. He even tried to give the money back when the arresting officers closed in, which showed he knew the transaction was illegal. His overzealous pursuit of the robbery incident, even though he was off duty and the case had been assigned to another investigator, betrayed a corrupt desire for pecuniary benefit. And he did not arrest Edgardo Arnaldo, in whose house the cylinders were found, on the flimsy excuse that Arnaldo promised to deliver more cylinders.

The Court also corrected the fine. Under the first paragraph of Article 210, in relation to the second, if the act does not constitute a crime, the fine shall not be less than three times the value of the amount received. The evidence showed the petitioner received an aggregate of five thousand eight hundred pesos, consisting of the one thousand pesos earlier received and the four thousand eight hundred pesos received at the time of arrest. A fine of eighteen thousand pesos was therefore deemed reasonable.

Doctrine

Direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code has four elements: the accused is a public officer; he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; the gift, present or promise was given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. When the gift is accepted in consideration of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes that act, the second paragraph of Article 210 applies, and the penalty is that of the first paragraph, which includes a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. The public officer's claim that the money was merely for delivery to an asset is no defense where the officer himself demanded and received it and the act was connected with his official duty.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery, with the modification that the fine was increased to eighteen thousand pesos, and with the penalty of special temporary disqualification.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of direct bribery and the rule that receiving money for an act that is not a crime still constitutes bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 when the act is connected with the officer's duty. Examiners use this case to test the elements of direct bribery, the distinction between the paragraphs of Article 210, and the computation of the fine at not less than three times the value of the gift.