Soriano, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

A preliminary investigation conducted by a Fiscal is not a “contract or transaction” within the meaning of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, because the term “transaction” must be construed as analogous to “contract” and involves consideration, which is absent in such an investigation. The information, however, may still support a conviction for bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code where its allegations clearly make out that offense, and the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is not violated.

Petitioner Lauro G. Soriano, Jr. was then an Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City. A qualified theft complaint against Thomas N. Tan was lodged with the City Fiscal of Quezon City, docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964, and assigned to Soriano for preliminary investigation. The case implicated Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, which penalizes a public officer who directly or indirectly requests or receives any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit 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. Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes bribery, was also drawn into the proceedings.

Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft in a complaint lodged with the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964 and assigned for investigation to Lauro G. Soriano, Jr., who was then an Assistant City Fiscal. The information later identified the case as that of Marianne Z. Lacambra vs. Thomas N. Tan, docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964, for qualified theft.

During the investigation, Soriano demanded P4,000.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. Tan reported the demand to the National Bureau of Investigation, which set up an entrapment. Because 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.

An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 7393. It charged Soriano with violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 3019. The information alleged that on or about March 21, 1983, in Quezon City, Soriano, a public officer and Assistant City Fiscal detailed as Investigating Fiscal in the case of Marianne Z. Lacambra vs. Thomas N. Tan, docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964 for qualified theft, took advantage of his official position and with grave abuse of authority demanded and requested P4,000.00 from Tan and actually received P2,000.00, in consideration for a favorable resolution by dismissing the case, wherein he had to intervene in his official capacity as Investigating Fiscal. The information was dated Manila, March 22, 1983, and signed by Edgardo C. Labella, Special Prosecutor.

The Sandiganbayan’s decision explicitly stated the facts establishing Soriano’s guilt and the competence of the witnesses who testified against him.

• Not a Contract or Transaction: Petitioner argued that the preliminary investigation conducted by him was not a “contract or transaction” within the purview of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Offense Proved Is Direct Bribery: Petitioner maintained that, assuming his guilt, the facts made out Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, not a violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019; the evidence showed he was a public officer who solicited P4,000.00 and received P2,000.00 in consideration for dismissing a criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation before him, an act related to the exercise of his official functions.
• Right to Be Informed: Petitioner claimed that convicting him of bribery under the Revised Penal Code would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Factual Question: Petitioner contended that the Sandiganbayan convicted him on the weakness of his defense and not on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

• Scope of “Transaction”: Respondent argued that the term “transaction” in Section 3(b) is not limited to a commercial or business transaction but includes all kinds of transaction, whether commercial, civil, or administrative in nature, pending with the government.
• Statutory Purpose: Respondent maintained that because Republic Act No. 3019 did not limit the term “transaction” in its Definition of Terms, the Act’s purpose and object is to embrace all kinds of transaction between the government and any other party wherein the public officer would intervene under the law.

• Contract or Transaction: Whether the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint conducted by a Fiscal is a “contract or transaction” within the ambit of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Proper Offense and Right to Be Informed: Whether petitioner may be convicted of bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, despite the information charging violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, without violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Factual Findings: Whether the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner on the weakness of his defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

• Contract or Transaction: No. The investigation conducted by petitioner was not a contract; neither was it a transaction because “transaction” must be construed as analogous to “contract” and involves consideration, which is absent in the investigation.
• Proper Offense and Right to Be Informed: Yes. Petitioner may be convicted of bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code; the information clearly made out a case of bribery, so his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was not violated.
• Factual Findings: No. The claim is not meritorious; factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are not for review, and its decision explicitly stated the facts establishing guilt and the competence of the witnesses who testified against petitioner.

• Contract or Transaction: Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 penalizes 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. The investigation conducted by petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it a transaction because the term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, involves some consideration as in credit transactions, and this element is absent in the investigation conducted by petitioner. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of violating Section 3(b).
• Proper Offense and Right to Be Informed: Petitioner’s claim that he could not be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because it would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was rejected. A reading of the information clearly makes out a case of bribery, so petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed. The facts alleged—that petitioner was a public officer, that he demanded and received money, and that he did so in consideration for dismissing a case pending before him in his official capacity—sufficiently charged bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The conviction was therefore modified to bribery.
• Factual Findings: The factual claim that the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner on the weakness of his defense rather than the strength of the prosecution’s evidence was not meritorious. It is not for the Supreme Court to review the factual findings of the court a quo, and a reading of the Sandiganbayan’s decision shows that it explicitly stated the facts establishing petitioner’s guilt and the competence of the witnesses who testified against him.

• “Transaction” in Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 — The term “transaction” must be construed as analogous to the term “contract” which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions. Because the preliminary investigation conducted by the petitioner involved no such consideration, it was neither a contract nor a transaction within the purview of Section 3(b); the Sandiganbayan’s conviction under that provision was erroneous.
• Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — An accused cannot successfully claim deprivation of the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation where the information’s allegations clearly make out the offense for which he is convicted. The information against petitioner, though citing Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, sufficiently alleged the elements of bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, so the conviction for bribery did not violate that right.
• Review of factual findings — Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are not subject to review by the Supreme Court in a petition of this nature. The claim that conviction rested on the weakness of the defense rather than the strength of the prosecution’s evidence failed because the Sandiganbayan’s decision explicitly stated the facts establishing guilt and the competence of the witnesses who testified against petitioner.
• Direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code — Petitioner was held guilty of bribery as defined and penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, and the corresponding indeterminate penalty and fine were imposed, after the information was found to make out that offense.

• "The principal issue in this petition to review a decision of the Sandiganbayan is whether or not the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint conducted by a Fiscal is a "contract or transaction" so as to bring it within the ambit of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." — This passage frames the principal issue and identifies the statutory provision whose scope was disputed.
• "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." — This is the ratio decidendi for rejecting the Section 3(b) conviction and supplies the Court’s construction of “transaction.”
• "The petitioner also claims that he 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. 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." — This passage resolves the right-to-be-informed objection and explains why conviction for bribery under Article 210 was permissible despite the charge under Section 3(b).
• "IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Sandiganbayan is modified in that the petitioner is deemed guilty of bribery as defined and penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer an 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. The rest of the judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner." — This is the dispositive portion, stating the modified conviction and penalty.

• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The provision penalizes 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. The Court held it did not apply because the preliminary investigation conducted by petitioner was not a “contract or transaction” within the provision’s meaning.
• Article 210, Revised Penal Code — The provision defines and penalizes bribery. Petitioner was held guilty under this article, modifying the Sandiganbayan’s judgment, because the information clearly made out a case of bribery.
• Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — Petitioner invoked this right against conviction for bribery under the Revised Penal Code. The claim was rejected because the information clearly made out a case of bribery and petitioner was not deprived of the right.

Fernando, C.J.; Teehankee; Makasiar; Aquino; Concepcion, Jr.; Guerrero; Melencio-Herrera; Plana; Escolin; Relova; Gutierrez, Jr.; De la Fuente; and Cuevas, JJ.