Case Digest: Peligrino vs People, G.R. No. 136266, August 13, 2001
RA 3019 | Criminal Law
Facts:
(1) Eutiquio Peligrino is an Examiner II of Region IV-A of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
(2) An information was filed accusing Eutiquio Peligrino of demanding from taxpayer Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano the amount of P200,000.00 — found by the accused to have incurred an alleged deficiency income tax assessment of P500,000.00 for the calendar years 1988-1989.
(3) Information was amended to include his supervisor Atty. Buenaventura V. Buenafe. After full trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted Peligrino of the offense charged but acquitted Buenafe.
Version of prosecution:
(1) About the last week of July or early August of 1991, accused Atty. Buenafe delivered a letter of authority dated July 4, 1991 to complainant Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano stating inter alia that ‘x x x the bearer(s) hereof Revenue Officer Eutiquio Peligrino to be supervised by Buenaventura Buenafe is/are authorized to examine your books of accounts and other accounting records for income and business for the calendar/fiscal year(s) ending 1988 & 1989 x x x.’
(2) About two weeks later, complainant Dr. Feliciano received a telephone call from accused Atty. Buenafe asking him if his accountant had not told him anything, and when the complainant inquired from his accountant Ellen Quijano about the matter, he was informed that the accused were demanding half a million pesos.
(3) On October 10, 1991, accused Eutiquio Peligrino and Atty. Buenaventura Buenafe appeared in the complainant’s office and told the latter that his tax deficiencies would amount to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(4) Surprised since the books were not even examined, Dr. Feliciano entertained the idea that it was the beginning of an extortion, and he tried to negotiate for a smaller amount, and finally, the two (2) accused agreed to the amount of two hundred thousand, of which fifty thousand pesos would be paid to the BIR, and the rest to them.
(5) Dr. Feliciano immediately wrote a letter to the NBI requesting for assistance, and an NBI Agent Atty. Rafael Ragos, went to his office where they talked and arranged for an entrapment which was set on October 14. On the said entrapment date, October 14, 1991 neither accused appeared.
(6) On October 15, the NBI agents posted themselves at the different parts of the clinic and waited for the BIR examiners. By 4:00 p.m., only accused Eutiquio Peligrino arrived. When Dr. Feliciano handed the planted money in an envelope, he immediately pressed the buzzer and then the NBI immediately came out to arrest and body search accused Peligrino.
Version of defense:
Buenaventura Buenafe:
(1) Buenaventura V. Buenafe first came to know Dr. Feliciano when he served a letter of authority for the examination of the 1988-89 books of account of the doctor to establish his tax liability.
(2) After their examination, he found out that instead of the reported income of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) a year the doctor should have reported three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) per year. He told the accountant of his computation who retorted that she would inform the doctor of the same.
(3) About the end of August 1991, the accountant called him in his office and relayed the information that the doctor was amenable to pay fifty thousand ([P]50,000.00) pesos more or less, and so he consulted his superior and assessing that it was reasonable, an authority to issue payment order (ATIPO) was prepared.
Eutiquio A. Peligrino:
(1) On October 15, 1991 co-accused Buenafe gave Peligrino three (3) copies of Authority to Issue Payment Order and instructed him to deliver the same to Dr. Feliciano, and get the check if it is already prepared. He arrived at the Office of the Doctor with the purpose to inform Dr. Feliciano of the due date of the ATIPO, and to pick up the check if it was already ready.
(2) While waiting for the ATIPO to be xeroxed, Dr. Feliciano asked him if he would accept payment in cash to which he said 'No' and he would accept only check payable to the BIR. Thereafter, the Doctor took a brown envelope from his drawer, threw it in front of him and said 'yan ang bayad.' The envelope landed close to his arms and so he pushed it asking: 'What is that sir? My purpose in coming here is to get the check in payment for the BIR'.
(3) Instead of answering him, the Doctor stood up and told him he was going to get the xerox copy of the ATIPO. The Doctor returned followed by two (2) persons one of whom grabbed his hands from behind while the other standing behind him wanted him to hold the envelope but he resisted, placing his hands against his chest, and since the two men realized he could not be forced to hold the envelope, they let him go, picked the envelope and pressed it against his breast.
(4) He was brought to the NBI office where in one room, a chemist examined him to detect the presence of fluorescent powder. During the examination, he asked the chemist which of his hands was contaminated and the chemist answered ‘none’. Then, she looked up to the escort behind him, and after that, started examining his hands, shirt and pants, and then began encircling portions on the diagram in front of her. Then he was fingerprinted.
Defense:
(I) Petitioner denies that he received payoff money from the complainant. According to him, receive, as contemplated in the offense charged, connotes a voluntary act coupled with knowledge. Hence, where the giving of the money affords the accused no opportunity either to refuse or to return it to the giver, no punishable offense ensues.
Petitioner claims that the 40 seconds or less that the boodle money was in his hands was merely a momentary possession that could not prove “receipt,” which the law requires for the offense charged to be consummated.
Issues:
WoN the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that petitioner demanded and received the envelope with the boodle money;
Held:
On Demand and Receipt of “Boodle Money”
(1) Section 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes three distinct acts—(1) demanding or requesting; (2) receiving; or (3) demanding, requesting and receiving—any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party, wherein a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the law. These modes of committing the offense are distinct and different from each other.
Proof of the existence of any of them suffices to warrant conviction. The lack of demand is immaterial. After all, Section 3(b) of RA 3019 uses the word or between requesting and receiving.
(2) The duration of the possession is not the controlling element in determining receipt or acceptance. In the case at bar, the petitioner opened the envelope containing the boodle money, looked inside, closed it and placed the envelope beside him on the table. Such reaction did not signify refusal or resistance to bribery, especially considering that he was not supposed to accept any cash from the taxpayer. The proximity of the envelope relative to the petitioner, as testified to by NBI Agent Ragos, also belies the petitioner’s contention that he refused the bribe.
A person found in possession of a thing taken from the recent execution of a wrongful act is presumed to be both the taker and the doer of the whole act.
Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED.
Indeterminate prison term of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS as maximum, with all the accessories of the law, to suffer perpetual disqualification from office, and to pay the cost.
Notes:
Instigation v. Entrapment
In “instigation,” officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure the accused into committing an offense, which the latter otherwise would not commit and has no intention of committing.
In “entrapment,” the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the crime.
Comments
Post a Comment