Case Digest: Soriano vs Sandiganbayan, No. L-65952, July 31, 1984

RA 3019 | Criminal Law 

NameLauro G. Soriano, Thomas N. Tan
Charge/ViolationRA 3019 3(b) - Bribery in connection with a contract or transaction
WhenMarch 21, 1983 (Entrapment)
WhereQuezon City

Facts:

(1) Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft.

(2) In the course of the investigation the Assistant City Fiscal Lauro Soriano, as the Investigating Fiscal, demanded P4,000.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. 

(3) Tan reported the demand to the National Bureau of Investigation which set up an entrapment. Tan was hard put to raise the required amount only P2,000.00 in bills were marked by the NBI which had to supply one-half thereof. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan.

(4) Sandiganbayan found Lauro Soriano GUILTY.


Defense:

Sandiganbayan convicted him on the weakness of his defense and not on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. 

The facts make out a case of Direct Bribery defined and penalized under the provision of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and not a violation of Section 3, subparagraph (b) of Rep. Act 3019, as amended.

The prosecution showed that: the accused is a public officer; in consideration of P4,000.00 which was allegedly solicited, P2,000.00 of which was allegedly received, the petitioner undertook or promised to dismiss a criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation before him, which may or may not constitute a crime; that the act of dismissing the criminal complaint pending before petitioner was related to the exercise of the function of his office. Therefore, it is with pristine clarity that the offense proved, if at all is Direct Bribery.


Issue:

(I) WoN the investigation conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as a "contract or transaction" within the purview of Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019.

(II) WoN petitioner cannot be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of as constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.


Held:

(I) It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.

(II) Wrong. A reading of the information which has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed.

Guilty of bribery as defined and penalized by Article 210 of the RPC.

Indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay a fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos.


Principle:

REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered