Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > April 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2971 April 20, 1951 - FELICIANO C. MANIEGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

088 Phil 494:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-2971. April 20, 1951.]

FELICIANO MANIEGO y CATU, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Llorente & Yumul, for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Augusto M. Luciano, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; DIRECT BRIBERY; ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. — The four essential elements of the crime of direct bribery are: (1) that the accused is a public officer within the scope of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code; (2) that the accused received by himself or thru another; some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime or any act not constituting a crime; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of the functions of the public officer.

2. ID.; ID.; LABORER DEEMED A PUBLIC OFFICER; REVISED PENAL CODE, ARTICLE 203. — A person appointed as a laborer is a public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code. For the purposes of the Penal Code, the standard distribution in the law of public officers between "officer" and "employee" is obliterated.

3. ID.; ID.; TEMPORARY PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC FUNCTIONS. — Where a person, although originally appointed as a mere laborer is, on several occasions, designated or given the work of preparing motions for dismissal of traffic cases, he is deemed temporarily discharging such public functions and if in the performance thereof he accepts, even solicits, a monetary reward, he is guilty of bribery.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This petitioner was convicted, by the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, of a violation of article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. He pleads for acquittal, insisting upon purely legal points.

The facts found by that appellate court are substantially the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on February 27, 1947, the accused, although appointed as a laborer, had been placed in charge of issuing summons and subpoenas for traffic violations in the Sala of Judge Crisanto Aragon of the Municipal Court of the City of Manila. It appears furthermore, from the testimony of Clerk of Court Baltazar and Fiscal De la Merced, then Deputy Fiscal attending to traffic violations, that the accused had been permitted to write motions for dismissal of prescribed traffic cases against offenders without counsel, and to submit them to the Court for action, without passing through the regular clerk. On the day in question, Felix Rabia, the complainant herein, appeared and inquired from the accused about a subpoena that he received. He was informed that it was in connection with a traffic violation for which said Rabia had been detained and given traffic summons by an American MP. The accused after a short conversation went to Fiscal De la Merced and informed the Fiscal that the case had already prescribed. The Fiscal having found such to be the case, instructed the accused that if the traffic violator had no lawyer, he could write the motion for dismissal and have it signed by the party concerned. This was done by the accused and after the signing by Felix Rabia the matter was submitted to the Court, which granted the petition for dismissal.

"According to Felix Rabia and Agent No. 19 (Laforteza) of the National Bureau of Investigation, the accused informed Rabia that the latter was subject to a fine of P15; that Rabia inquired whether the same could be reduced because he had no money, and that the accused informed Rabia that he could fix the case if Rabia would pay him P10; which Rabia did and the accused pocketed. This charged was denied by the accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

The pertinent portion of article 210 of the Revised Penal Code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not more than three times such value, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph. . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

As correctly indicated by counsel for petitioner the four essential elements of the offense are: (1) that the accused is a public officer within the scope of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code; (2) that the accused received by himself or thru another, some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime or any act not constituting a crime; (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of the functions of the public officer.

There can be no question that petitioner was a public officer within the meaning of article 203, which includes all persons "who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class." That definition is quite comprehensive, embracing as it does, every public servant from the highest to the lowest. For the purposes of the Penal Code, it obliterates the standard distinction in the law of public officers between "officer" and "employee."

Petitioner, however, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in regarding him as a public officer, expounded and discussed several grounds arranged under the following headings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. The doctrine of ’the temporary performance of public functions by a laborer’ should not apply in defendant’s case.

b. The overt act imputed on the accused does not constitute a circumstance by which he may be considered a public official.

c. His appointment as laborer came from one source, while the designation and delimitation of the functions of his appointment came from another source.

After having carefully considered the expository argumentation, we are unconvinced. The law is clear, and we perceive no valid reason to deny validity to the view entertained by the Spanish Supreme Court that, for the purposes of punishing bribery, the temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public official. This opinion, it must be stated, was followed and applied by the Court of Appeals because the accused, although originally assigned to the preparation of summons and subpoenas, had been allowed in some instances to prepare motions for dismissal of traffic cases.

And this Tribunal has practically concurred with the Spanish court when it opined 1 that a laborer in the Bureau of Posts temporarily detailed as filer of money orders was a public officer within the meaning of article 203 of the Revised Penal Code. Indeed, common sense indicates that the receipt of bribe money is just as pernicious when committed by temporary employees as when committed by permanent officials.

The second essential element has likewise been proven. The Court of Appeals said this petitioner received ten pesos from Rabia (and pocketed the money) in consideration of his "fixing" Rabia’s case, and thereafter he "fixed" it by filing a motion for dismissal, which was approved in due course.

In connection with the last two elements of the offense, it should be stated that our pronouncements under the first sufficiently answer petitioner’s propositions elaborated in several parts of his brief, revolving around the thesis that since he was a mere laborer by appointment he may not be convicted, because the preparation of motions for dismissal is not surely the official function of a laborer. Enough to recall that although originally appointed as a mere laborer, this defendant was on several occasions designated or given the work to prepare motions for dismissal. He was consequently temporarily discharging such public functions. And as in the performance thereof he accepted, even solicited, a monetary reward, he is certainly guilty as charged.

Wherefore, there being no issue about the penalty imposed, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto. With costs.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Palomo, 40 Off. Gaz., 10th Supp. p. 2087.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





April-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3404 April 2, 1951 - ANGELA I. TUASON v. ANTONIO TUASON

    088 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-3304 April 5, 1951 - ANTONIO C. TORRES v. EDUARDO QUINTOS

    088 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-3364 April 11, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO A. BALANE

    088 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-3414 April 13, 1951 - GERONIMO DEATO, ET AL. v. RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION

    088 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-4036 April 13, 1951 - CHESTER R. CLARKE v. PHILIPPINE READY MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    088 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-2174 April 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESCENCIO RAGANIT

    088 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3072 April 18, 1951 - FLAVIANA GARCIA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO VALERA

    088 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-3342 April 18, 1951 - RAFAEL A. DINGLASAN, ET ALS v. ANG CHIA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-3396 April 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGLICERIO MUÑOZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-3487 April 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTA ROSA

    088 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-4209 April 18, 1951 - EDWARD C. GARRON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-2971 April 20, 1951 - FELICIANO C. MANIEGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-3269 April 20, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO MAGBANUA

    088 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-3330 April 20, 1951 - PHILIPPINE MINES SYNDICATE v. GUIREY, ET AL.

    088 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-3469 April 20, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. JOHN MARTIN, ET AL.

    088 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-3507 April 20, 1951 - MAXIMO REYES v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-3565 April 20, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NANG KAY

    088 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-3731 April 20, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO DEGUIA

    088 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-3761 April 20, 1951 - MANOLITA GONZALES DE CARUNGCONG v. JUAN COJUANGCO

    088 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-2807 April 23, 1951 - MIGUEL AMANDO A. SIOJO v. RUPERTA TECSON, ET AL.

    088 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. L-3468 April 25, 1951 - GREGORIA ARANZANSO v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    088 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-2877 April 26, 1951 - MALATE TAXICAB & GARAGE CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-1922 April 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MATIAS

    088 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-2378 April 27, 1951 - JOSE MA. ANSALDO v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. L-2500 April 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE QUEVEDO

    088 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-2844 April 27, 1951 - LUY-A ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-2901 April 27, 1951 - FINADO PEDRO P. SANTOS v. ROSA SANTOS VDA. DE RICAFORT

    088 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-2913 April 27, 1951 - PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY, INC. v. CESAR LEDESMA

    088 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-2957 April 21, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. AMBROSIO DELGADO

    088 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. L-3225 April 27, 1951 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    088 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. L-3238 April 27, 1951 - LUCIA LUZ REYES v. MARIA AGUILERA VDA. DE LUZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3366 April 27, 1951 - EMERITA VALDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    088 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3626 April 27, 1951 - FRANCISCO M. PAJAO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-3723 April 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-3823 April 27, 1951 - TOPANDAS VERHOMAL, ET AL. v. CONRADO V. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-3879 April 27, 1951 - MONTSERRAT D. AQUINO v. PHILIPPINE ARMY AMNESTY COMMISSION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-3937 April 27, 1951 - GO TECSON, ET AL. v. HIGINO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    088 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-4269 April 27, 1951 - ENRIQUE TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-2025 April 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RICARDO PARULAN, ET AL.

    088 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. L-3405 April 28, 1951 - PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST CO. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    088 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. L-3435 April 28, 1951 - CLARA TAMBUNTING DE LEGARDA, ET AL. v. VICTORIA DESBARATS MIAILHE

    088 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-3642 April 28, 1951 - CARLOS ZABALJAUREGUI v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    088 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. L-3655 April 28, 1951 - MIGUEL M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. VALENTINA VILLAVERDE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 651