Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
L-
65952; 31 JUL 1984]
Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. The petitioner, who was an Asst.
Fiscal, was assigned to investigate. In the course of the investigation, petitioner
demanded Php.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. Tan reported it
to the NBI which set up anentrapment. Tan was given a Php.2000, marked bill,
and he had supplied the other half. The entrapment succeeded and an
information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. After trial, the Sandiganbayan
rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.3019). A motion for reconsideration
was denied by the Sandiganbayan, hence this instant petition.
The petitioner stated that the facts make out a case of direct bribery under
Art.210 of the RPC and not a violation of R.A. 3019 sec.3 (b). The offense of
direct bribery is not the offense charged and is not included in
the offense charged which is violation of R.A.3019 sec.3 (b).
The court agrees with the petitioner. It is obvious that the investigation
conducted by the petitioner was neither a contract nor transaction. A
transaction like a contract is one which involves some consideration as in credit
transactions. And this element is absent in the investigation conducted by the
petitioner.