FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 248682. October 06, 2021
SILVERIO REMOLANO Y CALUSCUSAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The undersigned accuses SILVERIO REMOLANO Y CALUSCUSAN and ROLANDO TAMOR Y URBANO of the crime of Robbery (Extortion), committed as follows:The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) – Branch 226, Quezon City. On arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.5 Trial ensued thereafter.
That on or about the 20th day of September 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, both taking advantage of their official position as Metro Manila Aide III, assigned along E. delos Santos Avenue corner New York Street Cubao, Quezon City, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each another (sic), with intent to gain and by means of intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob/extort SPO1 Namer V. Cardines in the following manner, to wit: while complainant was driving a Toyota Avanza along aforesaid location accused flagged down complainant for swerving violation and confiscated his driver's license and by means of intimidation extorted/demanded from the complainant the amount of P200.00, in exchange for non issuance of traffic violation receipt, thus creating fear in the mind of the complainant who was compelled to give to the accused the amount of P200.00, in marked money, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned.
Contrary to law.4cralawredlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the prosecution having proved the GUILT of the accused Silverio Remolano y Caluscusan beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds the said accused GUILTY and is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of Robbery as defined and penalized under paragraph 5[,] Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and is thereby condemned to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as Minimum to five (5) years of prision correccional as Maximum.The trial court found that all the elements of Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) were present, viz.: (1) there was personal property belonging to another; (2) unlawful taking of that property; (3) intent to gain; and (4) intimidation.20 It ruled that Remolano, for his personal benefit, unlawfully took personal property from SPO1 Cardines when he demanded and eventually received Php200.00 from SPO1 Cardines in exchange for Remolano not issuing him a traffic violation ticket.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On the other hand, for failure of the prosecution to prove the GUILT of the accused Rolando Tamor y Urbano beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds the same accused NOT GUILTY and is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Robbery as defined and penalized under paragraph 5[,] Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.19cralawredlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 226 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-03453 is MODIFIED that accused-appellant Silverio Remolano y Caluscusan is found GUILTY of Direct Bribery. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of three (3) years of prision correccional medium (sic) as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor minimum (sic) as maximum and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND pesos (Php1,000.00).Remolano's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution dated July 30, 2019.32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx A reading of the information shows that it is sufficient for the charge of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, which has the following essential elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another: (3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime. or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and 4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.As will be discussed below, the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it convicted Remolano of direct bribery.
xxx xxx xxx
As stated at the outset, the RTC erred in convicting accused-appellant for the crime of robbery-extortion because the indispensable element of intimidation is lacking. Nevertheless, the RTC's findings are still sufficient to support a conviction for direct bribery. It is clearly established from the records that accused-appellant is a public officer who in consideration of P200.00. which he has solicited and received, refrained from issuing a traffic violation ticket to SPO1 Cardenas, which act is clearly his duty as a Traffic Aide. In view of the foregoing, it is with pristine clarity that accused-appellant's voluntary acceptance of the Php200.00 bribe in connection with his nonperformance of his duty to issue a traffic violation ticket makes him liable for the crime of direct bribery under the third paragraph of Article 210. (Emphases supplied)
ARTICLE 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.The correct designation of the offense is "simple robbery".42 It is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. The elements of simple robbery are: a) there is personal property belonging to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) the taking is with intent to gain; and d) there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.43chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ARTICLE 294. Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons. — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
xxx
5. The penalty of prisión correccional to prisión mayor in its medium period in other cases.
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. x x x. That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime which those acts constitute. The designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information from the facts alleged in the body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. In the designation of the crime the accused never has a real interest until the trial has ended. For his full and complete defense he need not know the name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence whatever for the protection of his substantial rights. The real and important question to him is, "Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?" not "Did you commit a crime named murder." If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. It is the province of the court to say what the crime is or what it is named. x x x. (Emphases supplied)Here, the Information52 was filed against Remolano on September 24, 2013. Both the caption and the prefatory clause therein unequivocally state that Remolano is charged with "ROBBERY (Extortion)".53 The Information alleges:
That on or about the 20th day of September 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, both taking advantage of their official position as Metro Manila Aide III, assigned along E. delos Santos Avenue corner New York Street, Cubao, Quezon City, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each another (sic), with intent to gain and by means of intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob/extort SPO1 Nomer V. Cardines in the following manner, to wit: while complainant was driving a Toyota Avanza along aforesaid location accused flagged down complainant for swerving violation and confiscated his driver's license and by means of intimidation extorted/demanded from the complainant the amount of P200.00, in exchange for non issuance of traffic violation receipt, thus creating fear in the mind of the complainant who was compelled to give to the accused the amount of P200.00, in marked money, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned. (Emphasis supplied)The next question: do these allegations also charge the crime of direct bribery as defined and penalized under Article 210 of the RPC, viz:
Art. 210. Direct Bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of [not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.Based on this provision, direct bribery requires the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; (3) such offer or promise is accepted, or the gift or present is received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his or her official duty to do; and (4) the crime or act relates to the exercise of his or her functions as a public officer.54chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx xxx xxx
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of not less than three times the value of such gift.
Factual Allegations in the Information The Elements of Direct Bribery official position as Metro Manila Aide III (1) the offender is a public officer;
- by means of intimidation
- rob/extort
- creating fear in the mind of the complainant
- who was compelled to give to the accused the amount of P200.00
(2) the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; in exchange for non-issuance of traffic violation receipt (3) such offer or promise is accepted, or the gift or present is received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an unjust act which does not constitute a crime. or to refrain from doing something which is his or her official duty to do; and
(4) the crime or act relates to the exercise of his or her functions as a public officer.
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved.Section 5 of the same Rule ordains when an offense includes or is included in another:
Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.In U.S. v. Flores,62 the Court had the occasion to distinguish bribery and robbery. There, an Information for bribery was filed against Flores alleging that he was a municipal police who obtained money from a Chinaman as consideration for not arresting the latter for violation of Act No. 1761 (The New Opium Law). The facts proven, though, showed that the Chinaman was not committing any crime when Flores threatened him and that the Chinaman did not voluntarily give money to Flores. On the contrary, Flores obtained the money from him through force and intimidation. The crime committed, therefore, was robbery not direct bribery. The Court, nonetheless, did not convict Flores of robbery. It ruled that an Information alleging that the injured party parted with his property voluntarily bears allegations inconsistent with those necessary to charge robbery,63 thus:
The information in this case charges bribery. It expressly negatives the essential elements of robbery, force or intimidation, or both, by asserting that it was the duty of the accused to make the arrest, indicating necessarily by such assertion that the Chinaman had committed a crime and that he ought to have been apprehended and presented. In such case the Chinaman parted with his money voluntarily in order to escape arrest, conviction and punishment. Bribery and robbery have little in common as regards their essential elements. In the former the transaction is mutual and-voluntary. In the latter case the transaction is neither mutual nor voluntary but is consummated by the use of force or intimidation.Then, in the 1924 case of People v. Francisco,64 the Court reiterated that the principal distinction between bribery and robbery ''is that in bribery the transaction is mutual and voluntary; in the case of robbery the transaction is neither voluntary nor mutual, but is consummated by the use of force or intimidation." Thus, if the offended party had voluntarily offered to pay the accused, the transaction constitutes bribery. But if the accused demanded payment accompanied with threats, he is guilty of robbery.65chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The information in this case does not set forth facts constituting robbery, and the accused [cannot] be here convicted of that crime. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 50-60; Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
2 Id. at 58-60.
3 Id. at 62.
4 Id. at 62.
5 Id. at 64.
6 Id. at 65.
7 Id. at 51.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 65.
10 Id. at 66.
11 Id. at 51.
12 Id. at 51-52.
13 Id. at 66.
14 Id. at 52.
15 Id. at 66.
16 Id. at 66-67.
17 Id. at 66.
18 Penned by Presiding Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz. Jr: Id. at 64-73.
19 Id. at 72-73.
20 Id. at 68-69.
21 Id. at 69.
22 Id. at 69.
23 Id. at 69-71.
24 Id. at 85-86.
25 Id. at 89.
26 Id. at 91; The Appellee's Brief was not attached to the rollo.
27 Appellee's Brief, CA rollo, pp. 49-62.
28 Rollo, p. 54.
29 Id. at 54-56.
30 Id. at 155-169; Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
31 Rollo, p. 56.
32 Id. at 58-60.
33 Id. at 16-17.
34 Id. at. 36.
35 Id. at 153.
36 Id. at 152-153.
37 Id. at 130.
38 Ramos v. People, 803 Phil. 775-783.
39 As popularized by the Spider-Man comic books written by the great Stan Lee.
40 Section 14, Article III of the Constitution provides:41 People v. Sandiganbayan (Seventh Division), G.R. No. 240621, July 24, 2019.
- No person shall be held to answer from a criminal offense without due process of law.
- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be in formed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable; People v. Sandiganbayan (Seventh Division), G.R. No. 240621, July 24, 2019.
42 Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, 598 Phil. 35, 45 (2009).
43 People v. Avancena y Cabanela, 810 Phil. 672, 690 (2017).
44 See Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, 598 Phil. 35, 47 (2009).
45 Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, 598 Phil. 35, 47 (2009).
46 Rollo, p. 66.
47 Id. at 54.
48 Id. at 56.
49 De La Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, 166305-06 & 166487-88, 721 Phil. 355, 380 (2013).
50 See the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa in De Lima v. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616, 1161 (2017).
51 17 Phil. 273 (1910) Per J. Moreland, First Division; as cited by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa in his Dissenting Opinion in De Lima v. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616, 1160-1161 (2017).
52 Rollo, p. 62.
53 Id.
54 Catubao v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 227371, October 2, 2019.
55 See De Lima v. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616, 1069 (2017).
56 G.R. No. 21390, 45 Phil. 820, 821 (1924).
57 People v. Francisco, March 26, 1924, 45 Phil. 820, 821 (1924).
58 G.R. No. 148862, 504 Phil. 51, 68 (2005)
59 See Tad-y y Bahor v. People, 504 Phil. 51, 68 (2005).
60 Rollo, p. 62.
61 See Maghilum v. People, G.R. No. 227564 (Notice), July 3, 2017.
62 U.S. v. Flores, G.R. No. 6427, 19 Phil. 178, 184 (1911).
63 Id.
64 G.R. No. 21390, 45 Phil. 820, 821 (1924).
65 Id.
66 Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, 815 Phil. 183, 194 (2017).
67 See the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa in De Lima v. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616, 1161 (2017).
An indictment is not objectionable as ambiguous or obscure, if it be clear enough according to reasonable intendment or construction, though not worded with absolute precision. "And if there is no necessary ambiguity in the construction of an indictment, xxx, "we are not bound to create one, by reading the indictment in the only way which will make it unintelligible."1cralawredlibraryThe ponencia reversed the conviction of the accused for Direct Bribery on the ground that the constitutive elements of the crime were not sufficiently alleged in the information. The ponencia explained that the indictment failed to stated whether the complainant made a "voluntary offer"
Did the Information here sufficiently allege the second element "the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present"?I dissent.
It did not.
There was no allegation in the Information that SPO1 Cardines voluntarily offered or gave the [P]200.00 to Remolano as a consideration for the latter not to issue a traffic violation ticket against him. Neither was it averred that there was an agreement between the parties to exchange Remolano's performance of his official duties for payment of money. In truth, the Information simply alleged that Remolano "by means of intimidation extorted/demanded from the complainant the amount of [P]200.00, in exchange for non[-] issuance of traffic violation receipt, thus creating fear in the mind of the complainant who was compelled to give to the accused the amount of [P]200.00 xxx."
Clearly, even if the Court were to disregard the caption and the prefatory clause of the Information, its allegation[s] do not at all make out a case for direct bribery. To be sure, "intimidation", "fear", and "compelled to give" are anathema to the crime of direct bribery.2 (Emphases supplied.)
That on or about the 20th day of September 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, both taking advantage of their official position as Metro Manila Aide III, assigned along E. delos Santos Avenue corner New York Street, Cubao, Quezon City, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each another, with intent to gain and by means of intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob/extort SPO1 Nomer V. Cardines in the following manner, to wit: while complainant was driving a Toyota Avanza along aforesaid location accused flagged down complainant for swerving violation and confiscated his driver's license and by means of intimidation extorted/demanded from the complainant the amount of [P]200.00, in exchange for non[-]issuance of traffic violation receipt thus creating fear in the mind of the complainant who was compelled to give to the accused the amount of [P]200.00, in marked money, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned.In several cases, the Court held the accused responsible for Direct Bribery even if it was not alleged that the complainant made a ''voluntary offer" to the accused or that the parties reached an "agreement". This is clear from the Decisions in Soriano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,4 Marifosque v. People,5 Acejas III v. People,6 Balderama v. People,7 and Mangulabnan v. People.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Contrary to law. (Emphases supplied.)
That on or about the 21st day or March 1983, at Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then and still is an Assistant City Fiscal of the Quezon City Fiscal's Office, detailed as the Investigating Fiscal in the case of [MARIANNE Z. LACAMBRA versus THOMAS N. TAN], docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964, for Qualified Theft, taking advantage of his official position and with grave abuse of authority, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously demand and request from Thomas N. Tan the amount of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00) Philippine Currency, and actually received from said Thomas N. Tan the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) Philippine Currency, in consideration for a favorable resolution by dismissing the abovementioned case, wherein said accused has to intervene in his official capacity as such Investigating Fiscal.In Marifosque, the Court likewise convicted the accused for Direct Bribery based on the following allegations,11 to wit:
CONTRARY TO LAW.10 (Emphases supplied.)
That on or about October 13, 1990 in Lcgazpi City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused a public officer being a qualified member of the Police Force of Legazpi City, now under the Philippine National Police, taking advantage of his official/public position and committing the crime herein charged in relation to his office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously demand, obtain and/or receive directly from Yu Su Pong and Hian Hian Sy the total amount of FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P5,800.00) Philippine Currency in consideration for his recovery from alleged robbers, eighteen Shellane gas[-]filled cylinder/s tanks, to the damage and prejudice of the aforementioned victims in the aforesaid amount.In Acejas III, the Court held the accused liable for Direct Bribery under the following information,12 thus:
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied.)
That on or about January 12, 1994, or sometime prior thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused VLADIMIR S. HERNANDEZ and VICTOR CONANAN, being them employed both as Immigration officers of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Intramuros, Manila, hence are public officers, taking advantage of their official positions and committing the offense in relation to office, conspiring and confederating with Senior Police Officer 3 EXPEDITO S. PERLAS of the Western Police District Command, Manila, together with co-accused Atty. FRANCISCO SB. ACEJAS III, of the LUCENARIO, MARGATE, MOGPO, TIONGCO & ACEJAS LAW OFFICES, and co-accused JOSE P. VICTORIANO, a private individual, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously demand, ask, and/or extort One Million (P1,000,000.00) PESOS from the spouses BETHEL GRACE PELINGON and Japanese TAKAO AOYAGI and FILOMENO PELINGON, JR., in exchange for the return of the passport of said Japanese Takao Aoyagi confiscated earlier by co-accused Vladimir S. Hernandez and out of said demand, the complainants Bethel Grace Pelingon, Takao Aoyagi and Filomeno Pelingon, Jr. produced, gave and delivered the sum of Twenty[-] Five Thousand ([P]25,000.00) Pesos in marked money to above-named accused at a designated place at the Coffee Shop, Ground Floor, Diamond Hotel, Ermita, Manila, causing damage to the said complainants in the aforesaid amount of [P]25,000.00, and to the prejudice of government service. (Emphases supplied.)In Balderama, the Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's findings that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of Direct Bribery based on the following allegations in the information,13 viz.:
That on or about February 15, 1992 or for sometime [sic] prior thereto in Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accussed all public officers, being all employees of the Land [T]ransportation Office assigned with the Field Enforcement Division, Law Enforcement Services, committing the offense in relation to their office and taking advantage of their position, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously solicit, demand and received from Juan Armamento, a taxicab operator, the amount of [P]300.00 in consideration for the said accused refraining from performing their official duty of concluding inspections on the taxicab units being operated by said Juan Armamento to determine any possible violation of LTO rules and regulations, thereby causing Juan Armamento and the public service damage and prejudice.Lastly, in Mangulabnan, the Court convicted the accused with the crime of Direct Bribery under the following information,14 to wit:
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied.)
That on or about March 1998 or for sometime [sic] subsequent thereto, in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, accused RODRIGO R. FLORES, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, with Salary Grade 27, thus, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, together with CANDELARIA MANGULABNAN, Court Interpreter and specially assigned as Chairman of the Revision Committee of the same MTCC of San Fernando City, Pampanga, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, taking advantage of their respective official positions, and with grave abuse of authority, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously demanded and request the amount of [P]20,000.00 from Dario Manalastas, a party to an election protest case filed by Alberto Guinto against Dario Manalastas where accused Rodrigo R. Flores and Candelaria Mangulabnan have to intervene in their official capacities since such case is pending before the Court where accused Rodrigo R. Flores is the Presiding Judge and Candelaria Mangulabnan actually received for accused Rodrigo R. Flores in consideration of a decision in the case favorable to Dario Manalastas which is unjust, since the decision should be based on the merits of the case and not the monetary consideration, the damage and prejudice pf Dario Manalastas and Public Service.In this case, the recital of facts in the charge of Direct Bribery against the accused is similar with those alleged in the information in Soriano, Jr., Marifosque v. People, Acejas III, Balderama, and Mangulabnan. To be sure, they shared the common allegations of "taking advantage of official position", "demanded and extort", "give and delivered", and "incosideration or in exchange" of the performance of a crime or unjust act or refraining from doing something which is the accused's official duty to do. The above-mentioned cases sustained a judgment of conviction even without any allegation that the complainant made a "voluntary offer" to the accused or that the parties reached an "agreement". Similarly, the element of Direct Bribery which pertains to the acceptance of gift, present, offer or promise is implicit from the averments in the information that the accused "demanded" and that the complaint "give" the amount of [P]200.00 "in exchange for non[-]issuance of a traffic violation receipt." It is settled that the information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the Court to render judgment properly.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied.)
Be that as it may, well-settled is the rule that the real nature of the criminal charge is not determined from the caption or preamble of the information or from the mere reference to a particular provision of law alleged to have been violated because they are conclusions of law, but on the recital of facts alleged in the body of the information. A reading of the information shows that it is sufficient for the charge of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, xxx.In sum, it can hardly be said that the accused was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Quite the contrary, the accused was fully apprised of the crime of Direct Bribery to suitably prepare his defense. To reiterate, there is no rule that we are perforce to read the expressions of an indictment so as to make nonsense of it.17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx
It is clearly established from the records that accused-appelant is a public officer who in consideration of [P]200.00, which he has solicited and received, refrained from issuing a traffic violation ticket to SPO1 Cardenas, which act is clearly his duty as a Traffic Aide. In view of the foregoing, it is with pristine clarity that [the] accused-appellant's voluntary acceptance of the [P]200.00 bribe in connection with his [sic] nonperformance of his duty to issue a traffic violation ticket makes him liable for the crime of direct bribery under the third paragraph of Article 210.
Endnotes:
1 The Principles of Criminal Pleading by Franklin Fiske Heard, Boston, Little, Brown and Company, (1879), pp. 105-106; citing Regina v. Stokes, 1 Denison C. C. 307; 2 C. & K. 536. Commonwealth v. Butler, 1 Allen, 4. Per Lord Denman on O'Connell v. The Queen, 11 Clark & Finnelly, 380, 381,: Wright v. The King, A Ad. & El. 448; and Regina v. King, 7 Q.B. 795.
2 G.R. No. 248682, Remolano v. People.
3 Merencillo v. People, 549 Phil. 544, 558-559 (2007); Tad-y v. People, 504 Phil. 51, 67-68 (2005).
4 216 Phil. 177, 180-181 (1984).
5 479 Phil. 219, 227-228 (2004 ).
6 526 Phil. 262, 278-279 (2006).
7 566 Phil. 412, 419 - 420 (2008).
8 G.R. No. 236848, June 8, 2020.
9 "The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of [B]ribery 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 [B]ribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed."Supra note 3 at 181.
10 Rollo, p. 13.
11 "There is no question that petitioner was a public officer within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revise Penal Code, xxx. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the Legazpi City Police Station. He directly received the bribe money from Yu So Pong and his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the meaning of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a police officer."
12 "In sum, we find that prosecution proved the elements of direct bribery. First, there is no question that the offense was committed by a public officer. BID Agent Hernandez extorted money from the Aoyagi spouses for the return of the passport and the promise of assistance in procuring a visa. Petitioner Acejas was his co-conspirator. Second, the offenders received the money as payoff, which Acejas received for the group and then gave to Perlas. Third, the money was given in consideration of the return of the passport, an act that did not constitute a crime. Fourth, both the confiscation and return of the passport were made in the exercises of official duties."
13 "The Sandiganbayan found the above elements of direct bribery present. It was duly established that the accused demanded and received P300.00 as protection money from respondent on several dates. As against the prosecution's evidence, all that the accused could proffer was alibi and denial, the weakest of defenses.
14 "[T]he elements constituting Direct Bribery have been sufficiently established considering that: (a) Mangulabnan and Judge Flores were indisputably public officers, xxx; (b) she acted as Judge Flores middleman in committing the crime, specifically by receiving Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) from Manalastas and delivering it to Judge Flores; (c) the amount was given in exchange for the rendition of a judgment favorable to Manalastas, as may be inferred from Mangulabnan's own admission that Judge Flores ordered the release of the decision only after receiving the Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00); and (d) the rendition of judgment relates to the functions of Judge Flores.
15 People v. Puig, 585 Phil. 555, 562 (2008); citing People v. Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482, 497 (2002).
16 United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985).cralawredlibrary