DACUMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN business and it was Samia requesting his assistance.

G.R. No. 95000 / April 16, 1991 /CRUZ, J. /GYATCO 3. Petitioner holding the respondent court at fault for misappreciating evidence
NATURE Appeal will also not merit him a reversal of the assailed decision. It is within the
PETITIONERS Alfonso C. Dacumos discretion of respondent court to weigh the evidence of both parties and to
RESPONDENTS The Hon. Sandiganbayan And The People Of The Philippines
admit such of it as it regarded as credible and reject those that it considered
SUMMARY. Petitioner offered Samia (manager of Revilla Interiors) a tax
fabricated.
clearance in exchange of money consideration. The latter pretended to go along
with it leading to the petitioner’s arrest during an entrapment operation by NBI. 4. Petitioner claims in conclusion to his petition that judgment was rendered
SC affirmed the decision of conviction by Sandiganbayan stating that the against him because he happens to be a tax collector whom he says is
petitioner failed to support his claims with substantial evidence. unpopular and vilified by all as proven by history. This plea does not
DOCTRINE. Elements of direct bribery: (1) that the accused is a public officer; persuade since he was convicted not because he is a tax collector, but
(2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or because he accepted a bribe.
promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been 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 (4) that the crime or
act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The promise of a
public officer to perform anact or to refrain from doing it may be express or
implied

FACTS.
1. Petitioner, a revenue examiner of the BIR, offered to settle the tex liability
of Revilla Interiors in the amount of P73k by pulling out its assessments
papers and procuring a tax clearance. Gregorio Samia, manager of the firm,
pretended to go along with him but reported the matter to NBI, which
arranged an entrapment.
2. On Oct 28, 1986, Samia met petitioner in Rizal Café and told him he only
had P1000 but would deliver the P9000 that same evening at his residence
and that the balance of P20k will be paid in November. Petitioner agreed
and received a white envelope containing the marked peso bills. NBI
arrested him to which he reacted by trying to dispose of the envelope, but
one of the agents retrieved it. He was brought to the NBI headquarters
wherein he was found positive with fluorescent powder from the marked
money in the envelope.
3. Petitioner claimed that the charges against him were fabricated. He said that
he met with Samia because he was irritatingly insistent on securing his help
regarding the firm’s tax amnesty. He further contended that he could not
have promised to pull out the assessment papers as he had no access to that
place.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON accused committed direct bribery? - YES
1. Petitioner failed to prove that respondent court’s decision is tainted
arbitrariness or is not supported by substantial evidence. His claim that he
was framed is not convincing at all. It is belied by his own acts. The
implausibility of his promises does not mean they were not made, coming
from one who has long experience in BIR and appeared to know his way
around.
2. The court also finds it remarkable that he met Samia a private place instead
of his office at the BIR, considering that they were discussing official