Victoriano vs.

Alvior

FACTS

Alvior, a clerk of court, solicited the assistance of Garbanzos, a private individual representing Ernado
Commercial, to facilitate a requisition. Being a representative of Ernado Commercial, Garbanzos used the
opportunity to manipulate the canvass to insure that Ernado Commercial would be declared the lowest bidder.
After confirming the fact of delivery of the items covered by subject requisition voucher by Ernado Commerce
and the signing of the Abstract Quotation of Price, an inspection was made, and it was discovered that the 100
bundles of braided abaca twine were overpriced at P12.00 per unit.
Then Garbanzos gave Alvior 200 pesos as a token of gratitude for allowing the former to do what he did.
ISSUE

A public officer who accepts a gift in the form of money offered to him by reason of his office is chargeable with indirect
bribery punishable under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code. The fact that the evidence is wanting as to direct
connivance between the public officer or employee and the third person is of no moment since in indirect bribery" it is
not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts
gifts offered to him by reason of his office."

RULING

The charge against respondent Alvior for misconduct in office for having received money, in connection with the
performance of his official duty, from Garbanzos, as token of the latter's gratitude, is clearly meritorious. Respondent's
acceptance of money under the circumstances is a dishonest act.

Being a public officer, and having accepted a gift in the form of money which was offered to him by reason of
his office, herein respondent Alvior is chargeable with indirect bribery punishable under Article 211 of the
Revised Penal Code. The fact that the evidence is wanting as to direct connivance between Alvior and
Garbanzos is of no moment since in indirect bribery "it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular
act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office"
POZAR vs. CA
Petitioner, an American citizen and a permanent resident of the Philippines, was charged in an Information,
with the crime of Corruption of a Public Official. AsThe petitioner was an applicant for probation. He went to the
office looking for a Probation Officer named Danilo Ocampo. Since the latter was not around at that time. Two
days later, he was able to give such envelope to the said Ocampo which contained some official papers
connected with the appellant’s application for probation and attached thereto was a P100 bill. Such bill was
given under the circumstance which would make the receiving public officer liable for bribery.
ISSUE
Whether the act constitutes indirect bribery.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court said that the circumstance attending the alleged commission of the crime would not
show that the petitioner is guilty. The said petitioner is a foreigner, and is unfamiliar with the said transaction.
Such bill might be for advancing the expenses of whatever documentation might be needed in the application
for probation. Hence, the Supreme Court acquitted such person for the crime of corruption of public officials

In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains from doing something, because
of the gift or promise; in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even
promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
GARCIA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Garcia and Nabo, being then public officers or employees of the LTO, borrow units Asian Automotive Center’s
Service Vehicle knowing that said corporation regularly transacts with the accused’s LTO Office for the
registration of its motor vehicles, in the reporting of its engine and chassis numbers as well as the submission
of its vehicle dealer’s report and other similar transactions which require the prior approval and/or intervention
of the said accused Regional Director and employee.
Ma. Lourdes Miranda, the complainant, whose child was run over an killed in a vehicular accident; the driver of
the ill-fated motor vehicle was accused Nabo, subordinate of Garcia. Miranda successfully traced the said
vehicle and eventually discovered the existence of numerous delivery receipts in the files and possession of
the Company own by certain Aurora Chiong; and that said discovery led to the institution of the subject criminal
cases against herein accused.
Mrs Chiong recounted that accused Garcia has a farm, and he would need a vehicle to transport water thereto.
For this purpose, he would, on a weekly basis, borrow from the Company a motor vehicle, either by asking
from her directly through telephone calls or through Yungao, her Liaison Officer. Every time accused Garcia
would borrow a motor vehicle, the Company would issue a delivery receipt for such purpose, which has to be
signed by the person whom accused Garcia would send to pick up the motor vehicle. Yungao testified that the
names and signatures of the persons who actually received the Company’s vehicles were reflected on the
faces of the delivery receipts.
The Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed decision convicting petitioner of fifty-six counts of violation of
Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty of indirect bribery.
RULING

No. Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. The
essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officer
concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration. The alleged borrowing of a vehicle by petitioner from
the Company can be considered as the gift in contemplation of the law. To prove that petitioner borrowed a vehicle
from the Company for 56 times, the prosecution adduced in evidence 56 delivery receipts allegedly signed by
petitioner’s representative whom the latter would send to pick up the vehicle. The Supreme Court however, find that
the delivery receipts do not sufficiently prove that petitioner received the vehicles considering that his signatures do not
appear therein. In addition, the prosecution failed to establish that it was petitioner’s representatives who picked up the
vehicles. If the identity of the person who allegedly picked up the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner is uncertain, there
can also be no certainty that it was petitioner who received the vehicles in the end.

Go vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS
An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging Vicente C. Rivera, as then DOTC Secretary, and petitioner Go,
as Chairman and President PIATCO, with violation of Section 3 (g) 4 of RA 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. This was in connection with the PIATCO contracts, where the Government awarded in favor of PIATCO the
project for the development of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III under a build-operate-and-
transfer scheme. However, these contracts were later on declared null and void for being contrary to public policy
because Paircargo Consortium, PIATCO's predecessor-in-interest, was not a qualified bidder as it failed to meet the
financial capability requirement under the BOT Law.

Whether Article 212 or corrupt practices act (RA 3019) can be committed by a private individual.

RULING
Yes. 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:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. As earlier mentioned, the elements of this
offense are as follows:
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
3. That such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to
the government.

The fact that one of the elements of Sec. 3 (g) of RA 3019 is "that the accused is a
public officer" does not necessarily preclude its application to private persons who, like
petitioner Go, are being charged with conspiring with public officers in the commission
of the offense thereunder.

Disini vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner Disini was charged and convicted in Sandiganbayan for corruption of public officials and violation of section 4
of Anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

During the period from 1974 to February 1986 Disini unlawfully conspired with President Marcos by promising gifts by
way of stock in a mining corporation in consideration of contracts for engineering and architectural services which Disini
subsequently received.

In another criminal case this time for violation of sec 4 of Anti-graft and corrupt practices act it was alleged that
President Marcos was a golf partner and a close personal friend of Disini and that Disini’s wife Paciencia Disini was
actually the first cousin of the first Lady Imelda Marcos.

In the said complaint it was alleged that Disini took advantage of such close personal relation to gain projects for the
National Power Corporation (NPC) at Morong, Bataan wherein Disini managed to obtained projects for the said
corporation and others through the direct intervention of then President Marcos.

ISSUE

Whether there is sufficiency of information to hold Disini guilty of said crime.

RULING

Yes.The information were sufficient in form and substance. For the corruption of public officer complaint: The
information stated that: (1) Disini made an offer and promise, and gave gifts to President Marcos, a public officer; and
(2) in consideration of the offers, promises and gifts, President Marcos, in caused the award of the contracts in favor of
Disini by taking advantage of his position and in committing said act in relation to his office, was placed under
circumstances that would make him liable for direct bribery. The second element of corruption of public officers simply
required the public officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make him liable for
director indirect bribery. Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini's offers,
promises and gifts — an essential element in direct bribery — the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of
the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him under circumstances of being liable for direct
bribery.

For the complaint regarding the violation of Sec 4 of R.A 3019 the information contained if hypothetically admitted,
would establish the elements of the offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini,
the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, and at the same time the family physician of the Marcoses, had
close personal relations and intimacy with and free access to President Marcos, a public official; (2) Disini, taking
advantage of such family and close personal relations, requested and received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and
$17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the entities then having business, transaction, and application with the
Government in connection with the PNPPP; (3) President Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had family or close
personal relations, intervened to secure and obtain for Burns & Roe the engineering and architectural contract, and for
Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP.

PDIC vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioner PDIC filed a Joint-Affidavit charging private respondents Cu (as the 85.99% owner of Bicol Development Bank, Inc. (BDBI),
Zate (as Chairman/President of BDBI), and Apelo (as a former employee of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) who acted as Bank
Officer-In-Charge that examined BDBI’s books and records, of the crimes of Direct Bribery and Corruption of Public Officials, as well
as violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause, finding that while it may be said that certain amounts
were indeed deposited to Apelo's bank account, there is no proof that Apelo subsequently withdrew the same.

ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the dismissal of the petition,

RULING

Yes. Gomez's affidavit outlines such scheme as follows: (a) Apelo would provide Cu an "advance warning" of any impending surprise
bank examinations on BDBI by BSP; (b) upon receipt of the "advance warning," Cu would then make the necessary steps to
misrepresent BDBI's status, such as instructing BDBI employees on how to cover the possible findings/exceptions of the BSP
examiner on the books of BDBI, as well as infusing cash into BDBI's vault in order to make it appear that the cash listed in the books
reflect the actual cash in vault, and thereafter returning such cash to the source; (c) in exchange for such "advance warnings," Cu
and/or Zate gave Apelo as "professional fees" the aggregate amount of P140,000.00 by depositing the same to the latter's bank
account; and (d) to cover up such amounts given to Apelo, Cu and/or Zate, instructed Gomez to initially cover the unofficial and
unbooked cash disbursements in favor of Apelo by placing such amounts in BDBI's books as "Other Cash I tems," and thereafter,
regularize and remove from BDBI 's books such disbursements by including them in the other accounts of BDBI until they were
completely covered. To support such statements, Gomez provided copies of deposit slips showing that such amount was indeed
deposited to Apelo's bank account. She likewise asserted that in the course of her employment at BDBI, she does not know of any
official or legitimate transactions that BDBI had with Apelo that would warrant the disbursement of the aforesaid amount in the
latter's favor.

In sum, the Court is convinced that there is probable cause to indict private respondents of the crimes charged against them.

US. Vs. Lopez

That the said Marcos Lopez, Juan Alarcon, and Narciso Sagal, the former being the municipal treasurer and
deputy of the provincial treasurer, at Escalante, Occidental Negrosand the latter being clerks of the municipal
treasury of Escalante, duly appointed and qualified and discharging their respective offices, collected from
several residents of their municipality greater fees than those prescribed by Act No. 1147 for branding and
registering of cattle, with prejudice to the owner, to the amount of P174.50.

Whether the crime is estafa and not illegal exaction.

Ruling

Yes. The defendant committed the acts charged in said complaint, in the manner and form as therein
charged. These facts constitute the crime of estafa and not that of illegal exaction. (no explanation as
to why it is estafa and not illegal exaction)
The offender is limited to those public officers entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses fees and other imposts. He is
thus an accountable public officer If otherwise, the crime would be estafa.