[ G.R. No. 140829. January 26, 2000]

LEONEL P. LABRADOR vs. PEOPLE

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2000.

G.R. No. 140829 (Leonel P. Labrador vs. People of the Philippines.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated August 31, 1999, of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Leonel P. Labrador guilty of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years of prision correccional, as maximum and ordering him to pay a fine of P3,000.00.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that on October 19, 1993, petitioner asked a certain Madoline Villapando for the amount of P6,200.00 for assisting her in the processing of her Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC). At that time, petitioner was the chief of the General Services and Property Division of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Villapando complained to the Security Office of the POEA, which sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The next day, October 20, 1993, Villapando returned to the POEA together with several NBI agents. She gave petitioner P1,400.00 in one hundred, fifty, and twenty peso bills which had been dusted with fluorescent powder. The NBI agents then arrested petitioner in the act of receiving the money and took him to their headquarters.

Petitioner claimed that he referred Villapando to a private recruitment agency and that he mentioned the amount of P6,200.00 only as an estimate of the fee customarily asked for assistance in the processing of OECs. Petitioner asserted that the General Services and Property Division, of which he is the chief, is not involved in the processing of OECs and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of direct bribery. He charged that he was just framed-up by certain POEA officials who wanted him removed from his position.

In the present appeal, petitioner points out that Villapando was not presented as a witness before the Sandiganbayan to testify against him. Hence, the testimony of NBI Agent John Leonard David that Villapando told him about his alleged offer is hearsay and cannot be given credence without violating his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. Petitioner reiterates that the General Services Division of the POEA is not involved in the processing of OEC's, and therefore, as chief of the said office, he cannot be held guilty of direct bribery.

The petition is without merit.

First. The findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are binding on this Court, unless the same are not supported by substantial evidence. (Nizutardo v. Sandiganbayan, 239 SCRA 33 (1994)). In this case, petitioner has not shown that the Sandiganbayan erred in considering the testimony of NBI Agent David that he accepted the marked money and the findings of NBI Forensic Chemist Alicia Liberato that he was found positive of fluorescent powder from the bills as sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof of solicitation for a bribe is not necessary to support a finding of guilt of bribery, provided receipt of money under suspicious circumstances is established. In Manipon v. Sandiganbayan (143 SCRA 267 (1986)), the accused, a sheriff, was assigned to garnish accounts of the private complainant. The accused allegedly told complainant that he "can remedy the withdrawal so they will have something for the New Year." Interpreting this as a solicitation for a bribe, private complainant arranged another meeting with accused, and then reported the matter to the National Intelligence and Security Authority (NISA). At their next meeting, private complainant gave accused P700.00 in fifty peso bills which had been dusted with fluorescent powder at the NISA headquarters. The NISA agents then accosted accused and recovered the money. Despite the lack of evidence that accused made an explicit offer to private complainant to facilitate the withdrawal of his accounts for a consideration, the accused was held to be guilty of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, even assuming that the testimony of NBI Agent David that Villapando told him about the alleged offer of the petitioner is hearsay and for that reason cannot be given credence, the rest of the evidence for the prosecution is sufficient to hold him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery.

At any rate, petitioner was unable to give any explanation why he received money from Villapando. A person found in possession of goods recently stolen is presumed to be guilty of theft. (People v. Alhambra, 233 SCRA 604 (1994)). Similarly, the silence of the accused who was surprised in the company of a woman whom he is charged to have raped is presumed to be guilty of rape. (United Sates v. Bay, 27 Phil. 495 (1914)). Analogously, a public officer found in possession of a thing of value from a member of the transacting public who is unable to provide a credible account of the possession is presumed to have accepted the thing as a bribe. Hence, the Sandiganbayan in the instant case did not err in convicting petitioner of direct bribery even without the presentation of Villapando as a witness against him.

Second. The fact that the act agreed to be performed by the public officer for a consideration is in excess of his power is no defense to a charge of direct bribery. It is sufficient if his office lends a color of authority to his ostensible competence to accomplish what he promised. (2 L. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 329 (1993)). Therefore, the claim of petitioner that because his office is not directly involved in the processing of OECS, he cannot be held guilty of direct bribery, is untenable. As the head of a department in the POEA, an agency tasked with handling concerns of overseas employees, petitioner can credibly hold himself out as able to secure the speedy processing of documents related to working abroad.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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