Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > November 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 552 November 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UI MATIAO

001 Phil 487:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 552. November 17, 1902. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. UI MATIAO, Defendant-Appellant.

Pillsbury & Sutro, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ATTEMPT TO BRIBE. — In order to warrant a conviction under article 387 of the Penal Code in relation with article 354 thereof the complaint must allege the giving of a bribe to secure an unjust decision knowingly rendered.


D E C I S I O N


COOPER, J. :


The defendant, Ui Matiao, was convicted in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila of the offense of an attempt to bribe a public official. The court based the conviction on the provisions of articles 381 and 387 of the Criminal Code, taken in connection with article 354 of the same Code, and the defendant was given the benefit of article 11 of the Penal Code.

The defendant is condemned to the punishment of imprisonment for six months and one day and to pay a fine of three times the amount of the alleged bribe and costs of the suit, from which he appeals.

The provisions of the Code upon which the conviction rests read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 381. The public official who shall receive, directly or through an intermediary, a gift or present, or who shall accept offers or promises for his committing, in the discharge of his office, an act constituting a crime, shall be punished with the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum to its medium degree and a fine of an amount equal up to three times the value of the gift, without prejudice to the imposition of the penalty pertaining to the crime committed in consideration of the gift or promise should it have been executed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Article 387 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Those who shall corrupt public officials with gifts, presents, offers, or promises, shall be punished with the same penalties as those imposed on the officers suborned, excepting that of disqualification."cralaw virtua1aw library

Article 354 is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The public official who shall knowingly render or advise an unjust interlocutory decree or decision in a matter of administrative litigation, or merely administrative, shall incur the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum degree to perpetual special disqualification."cralaw virtua1aw library

One of the sanitary inspectors of the city of Manila visited the premises of the defendant in order to make a report on an application by the defendant for a license to sell oil. The defendant offered the officer money, and in order to secure evidence against the defendant the officer wrote out a note and obtained the defendant’s signature to it. the note, the form of which is contained in the complaint, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That said Ui Matiao on the 28th of September, 1901, or thereabouts, in the city of Manila, P. I., having petitioned for a license to sell oil in the city of Manila, P. I., then and there, knowing well what he did, corruptly, maliciously, and willfully, offered and gave to Doctor Altman, as and for a bribe, a note in the sum of ten (10) pesos, said note being in the following form: ’I have offered and promised to bearer ten (10) pesos to expedite my license to sell oil; and I understand well what I am signing. 28-9-1901. Ui Matiao.

"Altman was an official of the Health Inspector, and it was his duty to report on the petition. Ui Matiao then and there offered said note as a bribe to said Altman on condition and for the purpose of securing a favorable indorsement and report from said Dr. Altman contrary to the law in such cases provided."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint, one paragraph of which is that the facts charged in the complaint constitute no offense.

Under the provisions of article 387 of the Code above cited, those who corrupt officials with gifts, presents, offers, or promises are punishable with the same penalties as those imposed upon the officer suborned, excepting that of disqualification. In order that a public official may be convicted of bribery he must have accepted a bribe for his committing in the discharge of the duties of his office an act constituting a crime. It therefore becomes necessary to consider whether the official if he had accepted the bribe in the discharge of his office in the particular case, would have committed an act constituting a crime as defined in article 354 of the Penal Code.

Suppose that the officer in consideration of the note had decided to make a favorable report on the application and had made such a report. This would not of itself have constituted the offense defined in article 354. It must have been an unjust decision knowingly rendered. The information contains no allegation embodying this requisite.

For the same reason the charge is defective under article 382. Perhaps the information might be held sufficient under article 386, which is against the public official who shall accept presents in consideration of his official position. But the punishment for this offense is suspension in its minimum and medium degree, and public censure; and as the same penalty applies to persons offering or giving the bribe as those imposed on the officer suborned it is evident that the punishment can not be the same and is therefore not applicable to the case.

Other interesting questions have been raised not necessary to consider.

On account of the insufficiency of the information in the particulars indicated the judgment of the Court of First Instance is reversed and the case remanded, with costs of the appeal de oficio.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Ladd, JJ., concur.

Willard, J., concurring, I agree with the result.

Smith and Mapa, JJ., did not sit in the case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 879 November 3, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO BALUYUT ET AL.

    001 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 959 November 3, 1902 - JUAN ISMAEL v. MANUEL GANZON

    001 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 947 November 4, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. DONATO SALANDANAN ET AL.

    001 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 964 November 4, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO ORTIZ ET AL.

    001 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 922 November 8, 1902 - TRINIDAD H. PADRO DE TAVERA v. VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ

    001 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 927 November 8, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JAIME UBIÑANA

    001 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 985 November 10, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO SANTILLANA ET AL.

    001 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 885 November 11, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO DE GUZMAN

    001 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 951 November 13, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SALANDANAN

    001 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 1064 November 13, 1902 - A. S. WATSON & CO., LTD. v. RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    001 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 880 November 14, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN SARMIENTO

    001 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 552 November 17, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. UI MATIAO

    001 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 956 November 18, 1902 - FRANCISCO IRURETA GOYENA v. ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING

    001 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 855 November 21, 1902 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. VICENTE BENEDICTO

    001 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 955 November 21, 1902 - RAMON CHAVES v. RAMON NERY LINAN

    001 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1066 November 22, 1902 - SITIA TECO v. HEIRS OF BALBINO VENTURA HOCORMA

    001 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 493 November 25, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO ACUÑA ET AL.

    001 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 968 November 26, 1902 - FRANCISCO M. GO-QUICO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    001 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 1084 November 26, 1902 - JOHN FISCHER v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    001 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 1105 November 26, 1902 - IN RE: R. W. CARR, ET AL.

    001 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 989 November 28, 1902 - JOHN GRUINDROD v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    001 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 936 November 29, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO COLOCAR ET AL.

    001 Phil 516