Marifosque vs. People

A public officer who directly receives a gift or present in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and who subsequently executes that act, commits direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen is the receipt of the consideration for an act connected with the officer’s official duties, even if the act itself is not criminal. The corrupt intent need not be negated by a claim that the money was intended for an alleged civilian asset, especially when that claim is uncorroborated and contradicted by the officer’s own conduct.

On October 13, 1990, a robbery occurred at the gasoline station of Yu So Pong in Legazpi City, where 18 Shellane gas-filled cylinder tanks were taken. Later the same day, the victims reported to the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) that petitioner Police Sergeant Nazario Marifosque had demanded money from them in exchange for the recovery of the stolen items. An entrapment operation was thereupon planned.

• The Entrapment Operation: On October 13, 1990, at around 5:00 p.m., Hian Hian Yu Sy and her husband, Arsenio Sy, went to the CIS office in Region 5 and reported the robbery at her father Yu So Pong’s gasoline station. They alleged that petitioner, a police sergeant, was demanding money for the recovery of the stolen Shellane tanks. Captain Alberto Salvo, Chief of the Intelligence and Operating Division, devised an entrapment. Hian Hian Yu Sy prepared P4,800.00 in marked bills and listed their serial numbers. The pay‑off was set for 7:00 p.m. the same evening at Yu So Pong’s Golden Grace Department Store.

• The Arrest: At around 6:15 p.m., Captain Salvo and his men positioned themselves outside the store. Shortly after, petitioner arrived by tricycle, went inside, and demanded the money. Yu So Pong handed him the marked money wrapped in a newspaper. Petitioner was arrested as he stepped out of the store, after Arsenio Sy gave the pre‑arranged signal. Upon arrest, petitioner attempted to return the money to Yu So Pong.

• Prosecution’s Account: Hian Hian Yu Sy testified that petitioner initially demanded P7,200.00 for the recovery of 21 stolen tanks. She bargained for P4,800.00 because it was all she had, and petitioner agreed to return the following morning for the balance. The marked money was the P4,800.00 handed over at the store. The total amount received from complainants was P5,800.00—an initial P1,000.00 earlier and P4,800.00 at the arrest.

• Defense’s Version: Petitioner claimed that on the morning of October 13, 1990, a police asset, Elmer Arnaldo, came to his house and reported having witnessed the robbery at Yu So Pong’s gasoline station. Petitioner went to Yu So Pong to relay the information and later accompanied him to the police station to officially report the incident. The desk officer assigned petitioner and another officer to investigate. As they left the station, the asset approached petitioner requesting P350.00 per recovered cylinder tank as a reward. Petitioner communicated this to Yu So Pong, who allegedly agreed. Based on information from the asset, the team proceeded to the house of Edgardo Arnaldo (the asset’s brother), where 18 stolen gas tanks were recovered. Edgardo Arnaldo was not arrested because he promised to lead them to other stolen tanks. Petitioner asserted that he gave the asset P1,000.00 as partial reward and later went to Yu So Pong’s store solely to collect the balance for the asset, not for himself. Elmer Arnaldo corroborated that he was the asset and that the reward was for him, but he testified that he ran away upon seeing the operatives arrest petitioner.

• Sandiganbayan’s Findings: The Sandiganbayan gave full credence to the prosecution’s version. It found that petitioner directly received the money for the recovery of the stolen tanks, an act not constituting a crime but connected with his duties. The trial court rejected the asset‑intermediary defense as implausible, noting petitioner’s failure to introduce the asset to the complainants at the time of the transaction, his attempt to return the money upon arrest, and his passive conduct during the investigation—all indicative of a consciousness of guilt.

• Act Not Constituting Direct Bribery: Petitioner contended that the receipt of money for delivery to his asset does not fall within the acts punishable under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. He emphasized that the Sandiganbayan itself found that (1) it was the asset, not petitioner, who requested the reward, and (2) complainant Hian Hian Yu Sy had no direct knowledge of the alleged transaction between Yu So Pong and the accused.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money was truly intended for him and not for his asset. He maintained that he merely relayed the asset’s reward request to Yu So Pong, who agreed to it, and that such ministerial act of receiving money for another cannot constitute direct bribery.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Proof: The People maintained that all elements of direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 were established. Petitioner, a public officer, directly received marked money from the complainants in consideration of the recovery of stolen property—an act not constituting a crime but integrally linked to his official functions.

• Lack of Credible Defense: Respondent underscored that petitioner’s uncorroborated claim of mere intermediation was belied by his conduct: he never introduced the asset to the complainants, attempted to return the money upon apprehension, and could not present the asset during the subsequent investigation. These circumstances, together with the straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, supported the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• Elements of Direct Bribery: Whether the act of a police officer receiving money for delivery to an alleged civilian asset, in exchange for the recovery of stolen property, constitutes direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of competent evidence showing that the money was intended for the petitioner and not for his asset.

• Elements of Direct Bribery: The receipt constituted direct bribery. All elements were satisfied: (1) petitioner was a public officer, being a police sergeant; (2) he directly received the bribe money wrapped in newspaper from Yu So Pong and Hian Hian Yu Sy; (3) the money was given in consideration of the recovery of stolen Shellane tanks, an act that does not constitute a crime; and (4) the act related to the exercise of petitioner’s functions as a police officer. The fact that petitioner claimed to be acting as a conduit for a civilian asset did not remove the act from the ambit of Article 210. His solicitous pursuit of the matter while off duty, his failure to present the asset to the complainants, his attempt to return the money upon arrest, and his passive acceptance of the situation betrayed a corrupt intent inconsistent with a legitimate intermediary transaction.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Sandiganbayan’s assessment of credibility was given full respect. The prosecution witnesses presented clear and straightforward testimony, while petitioner’s defense was uncorroborated and riddled with inconsistencies. His claim of prior payment to the asset was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the asset’s own non‑complaint. The evidence, taken together, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Elements of Direct Bribery under Article 210, second paragraph: (1) The offender is a public officer; (2) the public officer directly (or through another) receives a gift, present, offer, or promise; (3) the gift or present is given in consideration of the officer’s performance of an act that does not constitute a crime, or of refraining from doing something it is his official duty to do; and (4) the act relates to the exercise of the officer’s official functions. In this case, the act of recovering stolen property—though not a crime itself—was performed because the consideration was received, triggering the second paragraph’s penalty provision when the act is actually executed.

• Public Officer Defined (Article 203, RPC): The term includes all persons who, by direct provision of law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government or perform public duties in any branch or rank. A police sergeant assigned to a city police station falls squarely within this definition.

• Fine in Direct Bribery: Under the first and second paragraphs of Article 210, when the object of the bribe is an act not constituting a crime, the fine shall not be less than three times the value of the gift received. The Court accordingly modified the Sandiganbayan’s fine to P18,000.00, which is three times the proven total amount of P5,800.00.

• “Petitioner cannot feign innocence and profess good faith since all the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent.” — The Court underscored that the totality of circumstances—the absence of any introduction of the asset, the attempt to return the money, and the lack of indignation—conclusively established corrupt intent.

• “When he was arrested… he attempted to give back the money to Yu So Pong when they were about to arrest him. This was a clear showing that he was well aware of the illegality of his transaction.” — This act of restitution was taken as a potent indicator of consciousness of guilt.

• “The act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a police officer.” — This highlights that the bribery nexus lies in the connection between the consideration and the officer’s official functions, irrespective of the non‑criminal character of the promised act.

N/A — The decision rests primarily on the direct application of the Revised Penal Code provisions and on the factual appreciation of the evidence; no specific prior Supreme Court decisions are cited as controlling or distinguished.

• Article 210, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes direct bribery where the gift is accepted in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes that act. Applied because petitioner, a public officer, received money and recovered stolen tanks, an act not a crime but connected with his duties.

• Article 203, Revised Penal Code — Defines “public officer” for purposes of the bribery provisions. Used to confirm that petitioner, as a police sergeant, was a public officer within the contemplation of the law.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied by the Sandiganbayan in fixing the prison term; not contested on appeal. The minimum and maximum periods were properly imposed.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were recorded.