Marifosque Vs People 435 SCRA 332
Marifosque Vs People 435 SCRA 332
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
SO ORDERED.[7]
CASE DIGEST:
DIRECT BRIBERY
Facts:
Held:
Petitioner cannot feign innocence and profess good faith since all
the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent. Petitioner did
not introduce his asset or mention his name to Yu So Pong or his
daughter at the time of the illegal transaction. His claim that he
previously gave 1000 pesos to his asset, which purportedly
represented a partial payment of the reward money, was not
corroborated by his asset. One of the arresting CIS officers
testified that petitioner attempted to give back the money to Yu
So Pong when they were about to arrest him, which showed that
he was well aware of the illegality of his transaction because had
he been engaged in a legitimate deal, he would have faced
courageously the arresting officers and indignantly protested the
violation of his person, which is the normal reaction of an
innocent man. His solicitous and overly eager conduct in pursuing
the robbery incident, even though he was no longer on duty,
betrays an intention not altogether altruistic and denotes a
corrupt desire on his part to obtain pecuniary benefits from an
illegal transaction. The petitioner's persistence in obtaining the
monetary reward for the asset although the latter was no longer
complaining about the 1000 pesos that he supposedly received
earlier.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not err in giving full weight and
credence to their version of the events. Petitioner's conviction
must be affirmed. The act of receiving money was connected with
his duty as a police officer. With regard to the fine, the amount of
the fine is erroneous. Paragraph 1 of Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code, in relation to paragraph 2 thereof, provides that if the
act does not constitute a crime, the fine shall not be less than 3
times the value of the amount received. Evidence shows that
petitioner received an aggregate amount of 5800 pesos. He
should, therefore, be ordered to pay a fine not less than 3 times
its value, which is a fine of 18000 pesos.
EN BANC
FERNANDO, J.:
We do not view the matter thus and accordingly reverse the lower
court.
The decision, now on appeal, came on July 19, 1962, the lower
court declaring "unconstitutional, null and void Section 7, Republic
Act No. 3019, insofar as it required periodical submittal of sworn
statements of financial conditions, assets and liabilities of an
official or employee of the government after he had once
submitted such a sworn statement upon assuming office; . . . ." 12
CASE DIGEST :
MORFE V MUTUC
BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES DECEMBER 29,
2011 SALN
Declaratory relief (Appeal)
Ponente: Fernando, J.
Facts:
Issue/s:
Ratio:
1. Presumption of validity
Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a reasonable
requirement for employment so a public officer can make of record
his assets and liabilities upon assumption of office. Plaintiff did not
present evidence to rebut the presumption of validity.
It has been held that due process may be relied upon by public
official to protect the security of tenure which in a limited sense is
analogous to property. Therefore he could also use due process to
strike down what he considers as an infringement of his liberty.
1. Right to privacy