People vs. Nicolas

A public officer who demands and receives money in exchange for facilitating the dismissal of pending complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman is guilty of direct bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, even if the promised act does not constitute a separate crime, so long as the act is unjust and relates to the exercise of his official functions; however, conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and mere presence at meetings without evidence of active participation or an overt act contributing to the execution of the crime is insufficient to establish conspiracy.

Leonardo Rosario Nicolas, Jr. served as Associate Graft Investigation Officer III of the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, a position entailing the evaluation of criminal and administrative complaints and the preparation of evaluation reports with findings and recommendations for his superior's signature. Isagani Laurence de Guzman Nicolas was a Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1, Pangasinan, and was Leonardo's cousin. Representative Amado T. Espino, Jr., a former governor and incumbent representative of Pangasinan, had known Isagani since 2001, and Isagani's wife was a member of the representative's staff. Mayor Jumel Anthony I. Espino is Representative Espino's son. Geraldine Ubana-Baniqued was the provincial legal officer of Pangasinan and a confidant of the Espino family, while Arturo V. Soriano was the provincial accountant of Pangasinan and a trusted aide of Representative Espino on financial matters. Anonymous complaints had been filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against both Espinos concerning alleged irregularities flagged by the Commission on Audit, and Leonardo had received one such complaint against Mayor Espino sometime in May 2017.

Around the second week of May 2017, Leonardo called Baniqued, the provincial legal officer of Pangasinan, using a mobile phone number and introduced himself as an employee of the Office of the Ombudsman. He informed her that a complaint had been filed against Mayor Espino and offered to help facilitate its dismissal. When Baniqued relayed the matter to Mayor Espino, the latter was already aware of the complaint, which he himself had lodged with the Commission on Audit regarding payments made by the past administration, and the municipality's problem with the COA had been resolved. Baniqued communicated this to Leonardo, but the latter persisted, warning that the matter could lead to preventive suspension and insisting on a meeting to show documents from the Office of the Ombudsman recommending the mayor's preventive suspension for six months. He bragged that those documents would have already been released had it not been for his timely intervention. Mayor Espino agreed to see the documents, and Baniqued met Leonardo at Consuelo's Restaurant in Lingayen, Pangasinan at around 12:00 p.m. on May 26, 2017, accompanied by Municipal Administrator Amado Aquino and a policeman known as "Tuazon." During the meeting, Leonardo showed Baniqued several documents including an "Evaluation Report" and, after much prodding, allowed her to photograph some of them. When asked how he could help, Leonardo answered that they could settle the case by providing PHP 150,000 to PHP 250,000 per allegation, totaling at least PHP 1,350,000.

Mayor Espino refused to deal with Leonardo, calling him a crook. Baniqued relayed the message, but Leonardo was undeterred, texting and calling her daily to settle the alleged case. When he failed to get a positive response from the mayor, Leonardo mentioned that cases were also filed against Representative Espino. Irritated by the incessant communications and upon Representative Espino's instruction, Baniqued gave Leonardo the mobile phone number of Soriano, the provincial accountant, and told him to contact Soriano instead. Meanwhile, Representative Espino had asked Isagani — whose wife was on his staff and whom he had known since 2001 — to talk to Leonardo, who was Isagani's cousin. Isagani agreed and later reported to Representative Espino that there were three cases filed against him and that they were asking for PHP 3 million. Representative Espino, furious, told Isagani he would buy time to find out how deep Isagani's involvement was, and directed him to talk to Soriano.

On July 14, 2017, Soriano received a text message from Isagani requesting a meeting to discuss complaints filed against the Espinos. They agreed to meet at Star Plaza Hotel in Dagupan City at 7:30 p.m. When Soriano arrived, Isagani introduced himself and, because the hotel was packed, they transferred to Lenox Hotel. After 20 minutes, Leonardo arrived and was introduced by Isagani. Leonardo showed Soriano documents purporting to be three separate complaints against the Espinos and demanded PHP 1 million per complaint, or PHP 3 million total, in exchange for facilitating their dismissal. He assured Soriano that it was not his first such transaction, claiming he had previously facilitated the dismissal of a complaint against a mayor in Pangasinan. On July 16 and 18, 2017, Leonardo followed up via text messages. On July 19, 2017, he called Soriano warning that the complaints would be docketed and Mayor Espino suspended. Soriano relayed this to Representative Espino, who directed him and Baniqued to seek assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Ombudsman.

After coordination with the NBI and the Office of the Ombudsman, an entrapment operation was planned for July 21, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. at the Capitol Resort Hotel in Pangasinan. Entrapment money amounting to PHP 3 million in PHP 1,000 bills was prepared, of which only PHP 200,000 — sourced from Representative Espino — was genuine. Fifty pieces of the genuine bills were marked by Agent Balba with his initials "ZHB." Agent Espino of the NBI was to pose as Soriano's assistant, and the pre-arranged signal was for him to open the function room door once the exchange was made. When Soriano, Baniqued, and Agent Espino arrived at the hotel, they found Leonardo and Isagani at the cafeteria and invited them to the function room. Inside, Leonardo asked "dala mo na?" to which Soriano responded "eto na." Soriano inquired about the document promised, and Leonardo produced an Evaluation Report. After reading it, Soriano handed Leonardo a light brown expandable envelope containing the money. Leonardo opened it slightly and peered through its contents. Agent Espino then opened the door, and the operatives rushed in and arrested both Leonardo and Isagani. Among the items recovered were the marked money and the signed Evaluation Report.

Isagani denied involvement, claiming he introduced Leonardo to Soriano only at Representative Espino's request, that he was busy eating during the meetings and could not hear the conversations between Leonardo and Soriano, and that he attended the July 21 meeting only because Leonardo insisted, having transferred his previously scheduled meeting with Teachers Association of the Philippines Inc. officers to the same hotel. Leonardo corroborated much of Isagani's account, admitting that Isagani had nothing to do with the transaction and was only there to accompany him. Leonardo himself denied demanding money, claiming the operation was a frameup and that he never touched the envelope. The Sandiganbayan found both guilty of direct bribery, concluding that Isagani conspired with Leonardo by acting as a bridge between the Espinos and Leonardo, his repeated presence at the July 14 and July 21, 2017 meetings indicating willing participation.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Isagani argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, pointing out that the affidavits of Representative Espino, Baniqued, and Soriano never mentioned him as a perpetrator of the crime, and that the NBI operatives' joint affidavit of arrest mentioned him only as part of the narration leading to the transaction, not as a perpetrator.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Isagani maintained that the Sandiganbayan erroneously treated his presence at the July 14 and July 21, 2017 meetings as indication of willing participation and complicity, when he introduced Leonardo to Soriano only upon Representative Espino's request and had no knowledge of the ongoing transaction between Leonardo and Soriano. He contended that the prosecution stretched the truth to make it appear that he conspired with Leonardo.
• Contradictory Prosecution Evidence: Isagani argued that Representative Espino's claim that he was trying to find out how deep Isagani's involvement was contradicted the representative's admission that he was the one who "opened the topic" to Isagani and requested his help about his son's case. He noted that Soriano confirmed the representative's instruction was to coordinate with the NBI for the entrapment solely of Leonardo.
• Lack of Overt Acts: Isagani contended that out of the four elements of direct bribery, only one — his being a public officer — was proven, and that the Sandiganbayan had no basis to conclude he acted as a bridge between the Espinos and Leonardo. He pointed out that Leonardo himself admitted Isagani had nothing to do with the transaction and acted on his own without Isagani's knowledge or participation.
• Innocent Explanation for Presence: Isagani claimed he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, present at the July 21, 2017 meeting due to Leonardo's insistent prodding and the coincidence that his TAPI meeting was moved to the same hotel. His statements during the meetings — "O kayo na ang bahala dyan" and "we should ask from Mr. Soriano" — were taken out of context and did not pertain to the bribe money.

• All Elements of Direct Bribery Established: The Office of the Ombudsman argued that the Sandiganbayan correctly found both accused guilty, as Leonardo, in conspiracy with Isagani — both indubitably public officers — demanded and received PHP 3 million from Representative Espino through Soriano in exchange for the dismissal of three complaints pending investigation with the Office of the Ombudsman against the Espinos.
• Conspiracy Demonstrated: The Office of the Ombudsman contended that conspiracy was demonstrated by Isagani's willing assent to and facilitation of the meetings between Leonardo and Soriano despite the impropriety of Leonardo's request to deal with public officials with pending Ombudsman cases. Isagani's transfer of his TAPI meeting venue to the Capitol Resort Hotel to accommodate Leonardo's request validated his positive acquiescence to the corrupt scheme.
• Knowledge and Cooperation: The Office of the Ombudsman argued that despite Isagani's foreknowledge of Leonardo's plan to extort money from the Espinos' emissary, Isagani did not stop Leonardo but willingly cooperated in the consummation of the plan.

• Direct Bribery (Leonardo): Whether Leonardo Rosario Nicolas, Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Conspiracy (Isagani): Whether Isagani Laurence de Guzman Nicolas conspired with Leonardo in committing direct bribery, such that his conviction by the Sandiganbayan should be sustained.

• Direct Bribery (Leonardo): Yes. All four elements of direct bribery were proven beyond reasonable doubt: Leonardo was a public officer, he personally received PHP 3 million in boodle money in a valid entrapment operation, the money was received in consideration of facilitating the dismissal of complaints against the Espinos, and that act relates to the exercise of his functions as Associate Graft Investigation Officer III.
• Conspiracy (Isagani): No. The prosecution failed to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Isagani's presence at the July 14 and July 21, 2017 meetings, without any overt act demonstrating active cooperation in the extortion, was insufficient to establish a community of criminal design.

• Direct Bribery (Leonardo): The four essential elements of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code were all established. First, Leonardo admitted he was an Associate Graft Investigation Officer III of the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, satisfying the public officer element. Second, the prosecution clearly established that Leonardo personally received the PHP 3 million boodle money through Soriano on July 21, 2017 in a valid entrapment operation organized by the NBI. The criminal intent originated from Leonardo's own mind — he initiated contact with Baniqued, demanded money in exchange for facilitating the dismissal of complaints, and persistently followed up on his demand through text messages and phone calls. The operatives merely facilitated his apprehension through ruses and schemes, which constitutes lawful entrapment, not instigation. Third, the money was received in consideration of facilitating the dismissal of the complaints against the Espinos. While Leonardo's act of facilitating the dismissal was neither alleged nor proved to be violative of any penal law, the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that dismissing a criminal complaint or recommending its dismissal without regard to the facts and evidence constitutes an unjust act falling within the second paragraph of Article 210. Fourth, Leonardo's promised act directly related to the exercise of his functions, as his position description form showed that part of his duties was to evaluate complaints referred to the Office of the Ombudsman and prepare evaluation reports with findings and recommendations. His capacity to recommend investigation or dismissal was made manifest in the May 9, 2017 memorandum and the June 30, 2017 Evaluation Report he showed to Baniqued and Soriano. Leonardo's unsubstantiated denial failed against the overwhelming evidence, including the straightforward testimonies of Baniqued, Soriano, and the NBI agents. Since the facilitation of dismissal was not successfully carried out due to the entrapment operation, the penalty falls under the second paragraph of Article 210, which prescribes prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of the gift.

• Conspiracy (Isagani): Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt like the offense itself. While conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, the evidence must be strong enough to show a community of criminal design. A conspirator must have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime; mere presence at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without active participation, is insufficient for conviction. The Sandiganbayan pointed to Isagani's presence, demeanor, and actuations at the July 14 and July 21, 2017 meetings as manifesting concurrence of wills and unity of purpose. However, the Court found this insufficient. First, Isagani's presence at the July 14 meeting was attributable not only to Leonardo's insistence but also to Representative Espino's request that he introduce Leonardo to Soriano. There was no evidence that Isagani personally and actively sought out either Leonardo or the Espinos to cook up an extortion scheme. The testimonies of Baniqued and Soriano showed that only Leonardo contacted them, pressured them, and demanded money. Isagani's statement "O kayo na ang bahala dyan" merely proved his presence was limited to getting the two acquainted, especially since Soriano testified that after the introduction, Isagani never called or texted him again. Second, while Isagani had no more business attending the July 21 meeting after the introduction was accomplished, his mere presence and prioritization of that meeting was insufficient to establish conspiracy. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient; evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval is required. Soriano admitted the July 21 meeting was supposed to be only between him and Leonardo. Isagani's remark "we should ask from Mr. Soriano" in response to Baniqued's jesting question to the waiter about cash was made in banter, as Baniqued herself testified she was joking and presumed Isagani was also joking. Third, Representative Espino's testimony revealed that when Isagani mentioned the PHP 3 million demand and the mayor's possible suspension, it was not of Isagani's own accord but was relayed information from Leonardo, produced at the behest of Representative Espino who had asked Isagani to see what could be done about the cases. Representative Espino admitted under cross-examination that it was Leonardo who was demanding the money, as relayed by Isagani, and that he merely assumed Isagani was involved. While Isagani's acquiescence was less than honorable given his stature as a labor arbiter, a conviction premised on conspiracy must be founded on facts, not mere inferences and presumption. The prosecution's evidence pointed to Leonardo and no other as solely responsible for demanding the bribe.

• Elements of Direct Bribery — The essential elements of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the offender accepts an offer or promise, or receives a gift or present, directly or through another; (c) such offer or promise was accepted, or gift or present was received, by the public officer as a consideration for committing some crime, or executing an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or refraining from doing something which is his official duty to do; and (d) the crime or act which the offender agrees to perform or execute relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. All four elements were proven as to Leonardo.

• Unjust Act in Direct Bribery — Dismissing a criminal complaint or recommending its dismissal, without regard to the facts and evidence, constitutes an unjust act falling within the purview of the second paragraph of Article 210, even if the act is not itself violative of a separate penal law. The second paragraph applies when the gift was accepted in consideration of executing an act which does not constitute a crime but is unjust, and if the act was not accomplished, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of the gift.

• Conspiracy Must Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, the evidence must be strong enough to show a community of criminal design. It is essential that there be a conscious design to commit an offense — conspiracy is the product of intentionality. A conspirator must have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime. Mere presence at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without active participation, is not enough for conviction. Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy; evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Entrapment is a lawful mode of apprehension where law enforcement agencies employ ruses and schemes to facilitate the arrest of a criminal whose criminal intent originated from his own mind. Instigation occurs when the criminal design originates from the law enforcers. The operatives' conduct in facilitating Leonardo's apprehension through pre-arranged signals and boodle money constituted valid entrapment because the criminal intent to demand and receive bribe money originated from Leonardo himself.

• Denial as Defense — A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters. In entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

• "Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design." — This passage, drawn from Rimando vs. People, articulates the controlling standard for proving conspiracy and forms the analytical foundation for Isagani's acquittal.

• "The mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction." — This formulation defines the outer limit of conspiratorial liability and was the decisive principle applied to Isagani's case, whose presence at the meetings was attributable to requests by Representative Espino and Leonardo rather than to a conscious design to commit the felony.

• "[A] conviction premised on a finding of conspiracy must be found on facts, not on mere inferences and presumption." — This statement underscores the evidentiary burden the prosecution must discharge and explains why the Sandiganbayan's inference-based finding of conspiracy as to Isagani could not stand.

• "A defense of denial, which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters." — This passage states the doctrinal rule on the evidentiary weight of bare denial, applied to reject Leonardo's claim that he never demanded or received money.

• Mangulabnan vs. People, G.R. No. 236848, June 8, 2020 — Cited for the formulation of the essential elements of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court adopted and applied to determine whether the prosecution had established each element as to Leonardo.

• Rimando vs. People, 821 Phil. 1086 (2017) — Cited as the controlling authority on the definition and requisites of conspiracy, including the requirement that a conspirator must perform an overt act contributing to the execution of the crime and that mere presence is insufficient. This case was central to the Court's acquittal of Isagani.

• People vs. Mateo, 582 Phil. 369 (2008) — Cited for the doctrine that an unsubstantiated denial is negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, applied to reject Leonardo's denial of demanding and receiving the bribe money.

• People vs. Pacis, 434 Phil. 148 (2002) — Cited for the principle that in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, applied to uphold the testimonies of the NBI agents.

• People vs. Bartolome, 703 Phil. 148 (2013) — Cited via People vs. Bayani for the distinction between entrapment and instigation, supporting the Court's conclusion that the NBI operation was a valid entrapment because the criminal intent originated from Leonardo.

• People vs. Lababo, 832 Phil. 1056 (2018) — Cited for the requisites of conspiracy: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a crime, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon.

• People vs. Jesalva, 811 Phil. 299 (2017) — Cited for the principle that a conviction premised on conspiracy must be founded on facts, not mere inferences and presumption.

• Dado vs. People, 440 Phil. 521 (2002) — Cited for the proposition that like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Article 210, Revised Penal Code (Direct Bribery) — Defines and penalizes direct bribery. The second paragraph, under which Leonardo was convicted, applies when the gift was accepted in consideration of executing an act which does not constitute a crime but is unjust, and if the act was not accomplished, prescribes prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of the gift. The Court applied this provision because Leonardo's act of facilitating the dismissal of complaints was an unjust act but not itself a separate crime, and the act was not accomplished due to the entrapment operation.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code (Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony) — Defines conspiracy as existing when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The Court applied this provision in analyzing whether Isagani conspired with Leonardo, ultimately finding the prosecution failed to establish the requisite agreement and conscious design beyond reasonable doubt.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine Leonardo's penalty. The maximum term was taken from the medium period of prision correccional (two years, 11 months and 11 days to three years, six months and 20 days), and the minimum was taken from the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its minimum period (two years, four months and one day to two years, 11 months and 10 days).

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.