Maniego vs.

People (Direct Bribery)

Facts:

Accused Maniego was appointed as laborer but was in charged of issuing subpoena and summons for
traffic violations and he is permitted to write motions for dismissal of the cases for the accused without a
counsel.

Sometime, Rabbai inquired to Maniego about the summons which he received and if the penalty of P15
can be reduced since he has no money. Maniego informed Rabbai that if he will pay him P10, he will fix
the case which Rabbai did.

The case was dismissed since the crime has already prescribed. As a result, he was charged of Bribery
under the RPC.

In his defense, he alleged that the Doctrine of Temporary Performance of Public function as a Loborer
should not apply in his case.

Issue: W or N Maniego is guilty of Bribery?

Held: Yes. The elements of the crime of Bribery are as follows:

a. The accused is a Public Officer within the scope of Art. 203 of RPC;
b. That the accused received gifts, present offer, or promise;
c. That such gift or promise is given in consideration of commission of some crime or in any act
constituting a crime; and
d. That the crime or act relates to his function of a Public officer.

First element, The court held that even the Temporary performance of a public function is sufficient to
constitute a person as public official and Laborer in the Bureau of Post for filer or money is within the
scope of Art. 203 of RPC.

2nd and 3rd element, it is undisputed that he received a P10 from Rabbai in consideration of fixing the
case.

Last element, since he is permitted to write motions for dismissal of the case, the same has been
dismissed by the court.

Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan (Indirect Bribery)

Facts:. Oro Asian Automotive Corporations has transactions with LTO Cagayan De Oro City for securing a
Conduct Permit for the purpose of conducting a Road test permit and afterwards the vehicle will be
properly registered with the LTO. In which, Garcia as Director of LTO will be the approver of those
permits. In those occasions, Garcia will always ask Yungao the Liason Officer of Oro Asia to borrow motor
vehicles for his personal used as evidence with the Delivery Receipts.

According to Yungao, their transactions with LTO was granted because they comply with the
requirements.

As a result of the frequent borrowing of Garcia, he was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act but he was acquitted because it was not proved that he approved or interfere with
the approval of Oro’s transactions with their office for him to borrow the said vehicle from Oro.

The question remains is whether Garcia can be convicted of Direct or Indirect Bribery?

Held: No. In Direct Bribery. the following are three acts that constitutes it:
a. By agreeing to perform or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present an
act constituting a crime, in connection with performance of his official duties;
b. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime in
performance of his official duty;
c. By agreeing to refrain or from refraining in doing something which his official duty to do, in
consideration of any gift or promise.

In this case, it does not constitute Direct Bribery because there is no evidence that he refrain from
doing or doing his official duty in consideration of any gift or promise. Mere borrowing not in
connection with his performance as LTO Director does not constitute bribery.

While in Indirect Bribery, the public officer who accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office (Art
211). The essential ingredient of Indirect bribery is the public officer must have accepted the gift or
consideration. The prosecution failed to show that the borrowed or received motor vehicles was
received by Garcia nor it was received by his representatives. The delivery receipts does not contain
his signature.

Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan (Direct Bribery)

Soriano as an Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City demanded Php 4,000.00 from Thomas N. Tan
accused for qualified theft as a price for dismissing Tan’s case. In view of this, Tan reported the
incident to the NBI and an entrapment operation was made.

After the entrapment operations, he was charged with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act sec. 3(b) by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift or present in connection with any
contract or transaction between any other government or any other party, wherein the public officer
has to intervene under the law.

The Sandiganbayan convicted Soriano for the same. However, he contends that Sandiganbayan erred
in convicting him for violation of Anti-Graft, instead he claims that the same act constitute Direct
Bribery.

Issue: W or N he can be charged for Direct Bribery?

Held: Yes. The accused as a Public Prosecutor solicit 4,000.00 and received 2,000.oo for dismissing
the case during preliminary investigation pending before him. Such, dismissing the case is related to
his official function.

Hence, liable for Direct Bribery.

Formilleza vs. Sandiganbayan (Indirect Bribery)

Formilleza is a service personnel in National Irrigation Administration ho was in charge with the
promotion and appointment of employees. Sometime, Ms. Mutia was employee of NIA but her
appointment is project based. During the renewal of his appointment, she approached Formilleza but
her appointment papers was not attended unless she gives money to her.

An entrapment operations was held at the Canteen of NIA office wherein Ms. Mutia handed over
underneath the table the folded marked money to Formilleza. With that, the police took photographs
of the same and arrested her.

Formilezza posted as a defense that Ms. Mutia is taking her revenge against her because she refused
to help her in her appointment. Moreover, the persons with them in the table witness that they saw
nothing handed over to Formilezza.
The Sandiganbyan convicted Formileza for Indirect Bribery.

Issue: W or N Formilleza is guilty of Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code?

Held: No. The essential ingredient of Indirect Bribery is that a public officer accepted gift or material
consideration. There must be a clear intention that the public officer to take the gift offered and
considered the same as his own property from then on such as putting it away or safekeeping or
pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign or circumstance is not
sufficient to conclude that the crime of Indirect Bribery has been committed.

The photographs were taken after she accepted the money but not during the time that she accepted
it. Formilleza does not know that it is a money and put it in her pocket, after she found out that it is a
money, she threw it away. Who would ever accept bribes or money in a crowded place like a canteen.

Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery

- Committed by a Public Officer.
- Relative to his official duty or function.
- The acceptance of gift, promise or
material consideration is in connection
with his official duty or function.
- Three acts punished under Direct
Bribery:
a. By agreeing to perform or by
performing in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present an act
constituting a crime, in connection
with performance of his official
duties;
b. By accepting a gift in consideration of
the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime in performance
of his official duty;
c. By agreeing to refrain or from
refraining in doing something which
his official duty to do, in
consideration of any gift or promise.
- Committed by a Public Officer.
- Acceptance of gifts must be by reason of
his office.
- Accepting any gift promise or material
consideration.
- Should be accompanied with the
intention to receive such and considered
it as his own property from then on by
putting it away, safekeeping it, or
pocketing the same.
- Mere acceptance of the gift without it
intention does not constitute Indirect
Bribery.