Merencillo Vs People

7/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 31

Merencillo vs. People
*
G.R. Nos. 142369–70. April 13, 2007.
JUANITO T. MERENCILLO,
**
petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Witnesses; Findings and conclusions of the trial court

on the credibility of witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts because
trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify.—Findings and conclusions of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts because trial
courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses
as they testify. In the absence of any arbitrariness in the trial court’s findings
and evaluation of evidence tending to show that it overlooked certain
material facts and circumstances, its findings and evaluation of evidence
should be respected on review. The presiding judge of the trial court had the
opportunity to actually observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses
on the witness stand on direct examination by the prosecution, cross-
examination by the defense as well as during clarificatory questioning by
the trial judge himself. Between the trial judge and this Court, the former
was concededly in a better position to determine whether or not a witness
was telling the truth. Based on the records, we find no reason to disagree
with the trial court’s assessment and to discredit the prosecution’s witnesses.
Same; Same; Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the

essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the
witnesses’ honesty—the test is whether the testimonies agree on essential
facts whether the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide
with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole.—Witnesses
testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in each and every
detail. Differences in the recollection of the event are inevitable and
inconsequential variances are commonly regarded as signs of truth instead
of falsehood. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
with respect to
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bd6a26c7a67165c87003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
** The Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) was impleaded as a respondent. However, under

Rule 45, Section 4, of the Rules of Court, the lower court or judges thereof need not be
impleaded in petitions for review filed in this Court.
32
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their
declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. In fact, such
minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony for they guard
against memorized falsities. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not
impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or
reflect on the witnesses’ honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree
on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and
substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and
coherent whole. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are
irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be successfully invoked as
grounds for acquittal.
Same; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019); Double

Jeopardy; One may be charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in addition to a
felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is,
either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the
Revised Penal Code.—Section 3 of RA 3019 begins with the following
statement: Sec. 3. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following [acts] shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared unlawful: x x
x x x x x x x (emphasis supplied) One may therefore be charged with
violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code
for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being
charged with a felony under the Revised Penal Code. There is no double
jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation
of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
Same; Same; Same; The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice
placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.—The rule
against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is identical
with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or
whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
other, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. An
offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the
essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint

or information, constitute the latter; and an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients
33
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 33
of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.
Same; Same; Same; Violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019; Bribery;

Elements.—The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA
3019 are: (1)the offender is a public officer; (2)he requested or received a
gift, present, share, percentage or benefit; (3) he made the request or receipt
on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4)the request or receipt was
made in connection with a contract or transaction with the government and
(5)he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in
connection with a contract or transaction has the right to intervene. On the
other hand, direct bribery 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Violations of Section 3(b), R.A. 3019,
and Bribery, Distinguished.—The violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is
neither identical nor necessarily inclusive of direct bribery. While they have
common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included
among or form part of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the mere
request or demand of a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit is enough
to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance of a
promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present is required in direct bribery.
Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific. It is limited
only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the
public officer has the authority to intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on
the other hand, has a wider and more general scope: (a) performance of an
act constituting a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which does not
constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or refraining from doing an act
which is his official duty to do.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Sandiganbayan.
34

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Caballero, Aumentado and Montes Law Office for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
CORONA, J.:
1 2
This petition for review assails the June 18, 1999 decision
3
of the
Sandiganbayan
4
in A.R. Case Nos. 004–005 affirming the omnibus
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City,
Branch 47, in Criminal Case Nos. 9482–83 finding petitioner5
Juanito T. Merencillo
6
guilty of violating Section 3(b) of RA 3019
and Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
The information charging petitioner for violation of Section 3(b)
of RA 3019 in Criminal Case No. 9482 read:
“That, on or about the 28th day of September, 1995, in the City of

Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused being then a public official connected with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue as its Group Supervising Examiner, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent of personal
gain, directly demand and extort from a certain Mrs. Maria Angeles
Ramasola Cesar the amount of
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada (retired) and concurred
in by Associate Justices Minita V. ChicoNazario (now a member of the Supreme
Court) and Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (retired) of the Fifth Division of the
Sandiganbayan; Rollo, pp. 60–83.
3 With modification as to the penalty of imprisonment imposed for petitioner’s
violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019.
4 Dated January 13, 1997 and penned by Judge Raineldo T. Son; Sandiganbayan
records (A.R. Case No. 004), pp. 122–151 and (A.R. Case No. 005), pp. 114–142.
5 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
6 Defining and punishing the crime of direct bribery.
35
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 35
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, in

connection, in consideration and in exchange for the release of the
certification of her payment of the capital gains tax for the land purchased
by the Ramasola [Superstudio] Inc. from one Catherine Corpuz Enerio, a
transaction wherein the aforesaid accused has to intervene in his official
capacity, and to which the said Mrs. Maria Angeles Ramasola Cesar
reluctantly agreed but upon prior consultation with the military authorities
particularly the elements of the 702nd Criminal Investigation Command
[CIC] who set up the accused for a possible entrapment resulting to (sic) his
being caught in the act of receiving an envelope supposedly containing the
amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) but consisting
only of four (4) marked one hundred peso bills and the rest all bogus (paper)
monies, to the damage and prejudice of the said Mrs. Maria Angeles
Ramasola Cesar in particular and the public and the government in general
in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case.
Acts7 committed contrary to the provisions of Section 3(b) of [RA]
3019.”
On the other hand, the information for direct bribery penalized under
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 9483
charged:
“That, on or about the 28th day of September, 1995 in the City of

Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused being then a public official connected with the
performance of official duty as its Group Supervising Examiner, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent of personal
gain, demand, extort and agree to perform an act constituting a crime, an act
which is in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, that is—
that the certification for payment of the capital gains tax relative to the land
purchased by the Ramasola Superstudio Incorporated from Catherine
Corpus Enerio be released by him only upon payment of an additional under
the table transaction in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, which Mrs. Maria Angeles Ramasola
Cesar reluctantly agreed, but upon prior consultation with the military
authorities particularly the elements
_______________
7 Sandiganbayan Records (A.R. Case No. 004), pp. 4–5.
36

of the 702nd Criminal [Investigation] Command (CIC) who set up the

accused for a possible entrapment resulting to (sic) his being caught in the
act of receiving an envelope supposedly containing the amount of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) but, consisting only of four
(4) marked one hundred pesos bills and the rest all bogus (paper) monies, an
act performed by the accused in his official capacity as Group Supervising
Examiner of the BIR, to the damage and prejudice of Mrs. Maria Angeles
Ramasola Cesar in particular and the public and the government in general
in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case.
Acts committed contrary to 8the provisions of Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines.”
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned.

Thereafter trial ensued and the cases were tried jointly.
The Facts Established By The Prosecution
In the morning of September 13, 1995, Lucit Estillore went to the

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) office in Tagbilaran City to ask
for the computation of taxes due on the sale of real property to
Ramasola Superstudio,9
Inc. and to apply for a certificate authorizing
registration (CAR). At the BIR office, she was entertained by
revenue examiner Lourdes Fuentes who computed the documentary
stamp tax (P37,500) and capital gains tax (P125,000) due on the
transaction. The computation was approved by petitioner in his
capacity as group supervisor. Estillore paid the taxes in the bank and
returned to apply for a CAR. She submitted the application together
with relevant documents to Fuentes for processing. Fuentes prepared
the revenue audit reports and submitted them together with the
application for the CAR to petitioner for preliminary approval. [The
application was to be forwarded
_______________
8 Sandiganbayan Records (A.R. Case No. 005), pp. 4–5.

9 Estillore was acting as agent of the parties to the sale.
37
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 37

thereafter to the Revenue District Officer (RDO) for final approval.]

Fuentes advised Estillore that the CAR would be released after
seven days.
At around 10:00 a.m. 10of the same day, private complainant Maria
Angeles Ramasola Cesar (Cesar) received a call from Estillore. She
was told that petitioner wanted to see her “for some negotiation.”
She proceeded to petitioner’s office where the latter demanded

P20,000 in exchange for the approval of the CAR. Cesar replied that
she needed to confer with her two brothers who were her business
associates.
The following day, on September 14, 1995, Cesar received a call
from petitioner who was following up his demand. Later that day,
Cesar received another call from petitioner who told her that she
could get the CAR after four or five days.
Cesar was able to return to the BIR only on September 20, 1995.
When petitioner saw her, he repeated his demand for P20,000
although the CAR had in fact been signed by RDO Galahad Balagon
the day before, on September 19, 1995, and was therefore ready for
release. On Cesar’s inquiry, the releasing clerk, Susan Cabangon,
informed Cesar that she (Cabangon) was still waiting for petitioner’s
go signal to release the document.
On September 22, 1995, Cesar visited RDO Balagon and
complained about petitioner’s refusal to release the CAR unless his
demand was met. RDO Balagon assured Cesar that he would look
into her complaint. Subsequently, Cesar received a call from
petitioner informing her that she could get the CAR but reminded
her of his demand. He told her that he was willing to accept a lesser
amount. It was at this point that Cesar decided to report the matter to
the authorities. She sought the help of the Provincial Director of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) in Bohol, Senior Superintendent
Dionaid Baraguer.
_______________
10 Co-owner of Ramasola Superstudio, Inc.
38

The following day, Sr. Supt. Baraguer referred Cesar’s complaint to

the chief of police of Tagbilaran City who coordinated with Cesar
for the entrapment of petitioner. Cesar was instructed to prepare two
bundles of bogus money by putting a one-hundred peso bill on each
side of each of the two bundles to make it appear that the two
bundles amounted to P10,000 each or a total of P20,000. After the
serial numbers of the four one-hundred peso bills were recorded, the
entrapment was set for September 28, 1995.
On the appointed day, Cesar called petitioner and pleaded for the
release of the CAR as well as for the reduction of petitioner’s
demand. Petitioner cautiously told Cesar not to talk about the matter
on the phone and asked her to see him instead. Cesar went to
petitioner’s office with the two bundles of bogus money inside a

white envelope.
Petitioner was entertaining a lady visitor when Cesar arrived. The
members of the PNP entrapment team were already in petitioner’s
office posing as civilians. On seeing Cesar, petitioner handed the
CAR to her and, as she was signing the acknowledgment for the
release of the CAR, he informed her that he was going down to the
second floor. Cesar took this as a cue for her to follow.
As petitioner left his office, he held the door open for Cesar to
follow. On reaching the third floor lobby, petitioner uttered “Here
only.” Cesar handed the envelope containing the two bundles of
marked money to petitioner who, upon receiving it, asked “Why is
this thick?” Before Cesar could answer, a member of the PNP
entrapment team photographed petitioner holding the envelope.
Petitioner panicked, hid the envelope behind his back and turned
towards the window at the back of the BIR building. On seeing that
the window was closed, he turned around towards the open window
facing the street. He threw the envelope towards the window but it
hit the ceiling instead, bounced and fell to the first floor of the
39
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 39

11
BIR building. The PNP entrapment team then introduced
themselves to petitioner and invited him to go with them to their
headquarters.
Charges were filed against petitioner. During the trial,
petitioner’s evidence consisted of nothing more than a general denial
of the charges against him. He claimed that he never asked for
money and that the allegations of demand for money existed only in
Cesar’s mind after she was told that there was a misclassification of
the asset and additional taxes had to be paid. He was surprised when
policemen suddenly arrested him as soon as Cesar handed him a
white envelope the contents of which he suspected to be money.
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. The
dispositive portion of the decision read:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Juanito

T. Merencillo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
participation, defined and penalized by Section 3(b) of [RA] 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and sentences
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for eight (8) years
and one (1) month as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum, there
being aggravating circumstances considered under Section 3(e) and Section
(f) of [RA] 3019 in relation to Article 14(1) and (11) of the [RPC] in the
sense that the offender have taken advantage of his public position, and that
the crime was committed in consideration of a price or promise, without any

mitigating or extenuating circumstances to neutralize or offset any of the
aggravating circumstances, with perpetual disqualification from public
office, and the Court further finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal by direct participation, for the crime of Direct Bribery
defined and penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and one
(1) day as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum and a
fine of Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos, all as mandated by law. The
accused Juanito T. Merencillo likewise is ordered to indemnify private
complainant
_______________
11 The envelope was recovered at the first floor of the BIR building and was
presented to court during the trial.
40

[Cesar] to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and attorney’s

fees in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos. Costs shall also be
taxed against the accused. 12
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Sandiganbayan. The

Sandiganbayan, however, denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC
decision with modification reducing the penalty of imprisonment for
violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 to an indeterminate sentence of
six years and one month of prision
13
mayor, as minimum, to ten years
of prision mayor, as maximum. Thus, this petition.
Petitioner basically raises two points: (1) the Sandiganbayan’s
refusal to believe his evidence over that of the prosecution’s and (2)
the Sandiganbayan’s failure to recognize that he was placed in
double jeopardy.
Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan for affirming the RTC
decision and disregarding his evidence. He claims that, had the RTC
and the Sandiganbayan not ignored the 14inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, he would have been
acquitted. He also asserts that he was placed twice in jeopardy when
he was prosecuted for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 and for
direct bribery.
Petitioner is wrong.
_______________
12 Supra note 4.
13 Supra note 3. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the RTC erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstances of abuse of authority and in consideration of a price,
promise or reward because these circumstances are integral elements of the crime.
14 As pointed out by petitioner, these inconsistencies include the testimony of
SPO4 Manuelito Antipala (a member of the entrapment team) that he saw petitioner
hand the CAR to Cesar while SPO2 Genaro Boja (another member of the entrapment
team) failed to mention the handing over of the CAR to Cesar by petitioner.
41
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 41

Trial Court’s Evaluation of Evidence Will Not Be Disturbed
Both the RTC and the Sandiganbayan found the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses (that petitioner demanded and received
money from private complainant Cesar for the release of the CAR)
sufficient and credible enough to sustain conviction.
This notwithstanding, petitioner now asks this Court to review
the entire evidence anew, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses and
make another factual determination of the case—a course 15
of action
clearly improper given the nature of the instant petition. Questions
of fact cannot generally be raised for the consideration of this Court.
The calibration of evidence 16
and the relative weight thereof
belongs to the appellate court. Its findings and conclusions cannot
be set aside by 17
this Court unless there is no evidence on record to
support them. In this case, however, the findings of fact of the
Sandiganbayan, affirming the factual findings of the RTC, were
amply supported by evidence and the conclusions therein were not
against the law and jurisprudence. There is no reason to disturb the
congruent findings of the trial and appellate courts.
Moreover, findings and conclusions of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses enjoy the respect of appellate courts because
trial courts have the distinct
18
advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify. In the absence of any arbitrariness in the
trial court’s findings and evaluation of evidence tending to show that
it overlooked certain mate-
_______________
15 See Siccuan v. People, G.R. No. 133709, 28 April 2005, 457 SCRA 458.
16 Ceremonia v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 511; 314 SCRA 731 (1999).
17 Id.
18 People v. Cabiles, 348 Phil. 220; 284 SCRA 199 (1998).
42

rial facts and circumstances, its findings

19
and evaluation of evidence
should be respected on review. The presiding judge of the trial
court had the opportunity to actually observe the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand on direct
examination by the prosecution, cross-examination by the defense as20
well as during clarificatory questioning by the trial judge himself.
Between the trial judge and this Court, the former was concededly in
a better position
21
to determine whether or not a witness was telling
the truth. Based on the records, we find no reason to disagree with
the trial court’s assessment and to discredit the prosecution’s
witnesses.
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the RTC and the
Sandiganbayan considered the alleged inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Both courts, however,
ruled that the inconsistencies referred only to minor details that did
not detract from the truth of the prosecution’s testimonial evidence.
We agree.
Witnesses testifying on the same event do not have to be
consistent in each and every detail. Differences in the recollection of
the event are inevitable and inconsequential variances are commonly
regarded as signs of truth instead of falsehood. Inconsistencies in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details
and collateral matters do not affect either the substance22 of their
declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. In fact,
such minor flaws may even enhance the 23
worth of a testimony for
they guard against memorized falsities.
_______________
19 People v. Dio, G.R. No. 106493, 8 September 1993, 226 SCRA 176.
20 People v. Gado, 358 Phil. 956; 298 SCRA 466 (1998).
21 Id.
22 People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 261.
23 Id.
43
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 43

Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential

integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the
witnesses’ honesty.24 The test is whether the testimonies agree on

essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and
substantially coincide
25
with each other so as to make a consistent and
coherent whole. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details
which are irrelevant to the elements of 26the crime cannot be
successfully invoked as grounds for acquittal.
The RTC and the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the
inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner were neither material nor
relevant to the elements of the offenses for which he was charged.
For instance, whether or not it was petitioner himself who handed
the CAR to private respondent was immaterial. The fact was that
petitioner demanded and received money in consideration for the
issuance of the CAR.
Petitioner Was Not Placed In Double Jeopardy
Section 3 of RA 3019 begins with the following statement:
Sec. 3.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized

by existing law, the following [acts] shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared unlawful:
x x x x x x x x x (emphasis supplied)
One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition

to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act,
that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a
felony under the Revised Penal
_______________
24 People v. Sibug, G.R. No. 108520, 24 January 1994, 229 SCRA 489.
25 Id.
26 People v. Crisanto, 411 Phil. 289; 358 SCRA 647 (2001).
44

27
Code. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged
simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA
3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice
28
placing a person
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The test is whether
one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it
or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the other,
29
as provided in Section 7 of
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. An offense charged necessarily
includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements

or ingredients of the former, as 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
30
constitute or form a part of those
constituting the latter.
A comparison of the elements of the crime of direct bribery
defined and punished under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code
and those of violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 shows that there is
neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses.
Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides:
_______________
27 Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727–28, 18 August 2006, 499

SCRA 375.
28 When one act violates two different statutes or two different provisions of a
statute and that act results in two distinct offenses, prosecution under one (statute or
provision) is not a bar to prosecution under the other (statute or provision). (Bernas,
S.J. Joaquin G., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2006
edition, Rex Bookstore, pp. 189–190) The test is not whether the accused has already
been tried for the same act but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same
offense. (People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 82 [1922])
29 Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 350.
30 Sec. 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court.
45
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 45

“Sec. 3.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized

by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage
or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
xxx xxx xxx
The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019

are:
(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentageor
benefit;
(3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or

any other person;
(4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a
contract or transaction with the government and
(5) he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under
the law, in connection
31
with a contract or transaction has the
right to intervene.
On the other hand, direct bribery 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
_______________
31 Chang v. People, G.R. No. 165111, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 321.
46

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
executes32 is connected with the performance of his official
duties.”
Clearly, the violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical

nor necessarily inclusive of direct bribery. While they have common
elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included
among or form part of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the
mere request or demand of a gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit is enough to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA
3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present
is required in direct bribery. Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of
RA 3019 is specific. It is limited only to contracts or transactions
involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the
authority to intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on the other
hand, has a wider and more general scope: (a) performance of an act
constituting a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which does not
constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or refraining from

doing an act which is his official duty to do.
Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed from the
same transaction, the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct
offenses. No double jeopardy attached since there 33
was a variance
between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional
protection against double jeopardy proceeds from34 a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The June 18,
1999 decision of the Sandiganbayan in A.R. Case Nos. 004–005 is
AFFIRMED.
_______________
32 Tad-y v. People, G.R. No. 148862, 11 August 2005, 466 SCRA 474.
33 Suero v. People, supra.
34 Id.
47
VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 47

Pineda vs. Santiago
Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, decision of Sandiganbayan affirmed.
Notes.—An amendment of an Information for Malversation of

Public Funds to make it conform to what the evidence showed as the
total amount of money undeposited and unaccounted for by the
accused after the requisite audit was further conducted is only a
matter of form and not substance, to which no double jeopardy can
be said to have attached. (People vs. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179 [2003])
There is no double jeopardy when the accused are being
prosecuted for an act or incident punished by four national statutes
and not by an ordinance and a national statute. (Loney vs. People,
482 SCRA 194 [2006])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Merencillo Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Merencillo Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Merencillo Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 31

Criminal Law; Witnesses; Findings and conclusions of the trial court

Same; Same; Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the

** The Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) was impleaded as a respondent. However, under

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Merencillo vs. People

Same; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019); Double

essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 33

Merencillo vs. People

of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.

Same; Same; Same; Violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019; Bribery;

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

“That, on or about the 28th day of September, 1995, in the City of

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 35

Merencillo vs. People

TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, in

“That, on or about the 28th day of September, 1995 in the City of

7 Sandiganbayan Records (A.R. Case No. 004), pp. 4–5.

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the 702nd Criminal [Investigation] Command (CIC) who set up the

Petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned.

The Facts Established By The Prosecution

In the morning of September 13, 1995, Lucit Estillore went to the

8 Sandiganbayan Records (A.R. Case No. 005), pp. 4–5.

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 37

thereafter to the Revenue District Officer (RDO) for final approval.]

She proceeded to petitioner’s office where the latter demanded

10 Co-owner of Ramasola Superstudio, Inc.

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The following day, Sr. Supt. Baraguer referred Cesar’s complaint to

petitioner’s office with the two bundles of bogus money inside a

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 39

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Juanito

the crime was committed in consideration of a price or promise, without any

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

[Cesar] to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and attorney’s

Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Sandiganbayan. The

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 41

Trial Court’s Evaluation of Evidence Will Not Be Disturbed

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rial facts and circumstances, its findings

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 43

Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential

witnesses’ honesty.24 The test is whether the testimonies agree on

Petitioner Was Not Placed In Double Jeopardy

Section 3 of RA 3019 begins with the following statement:

Sec. 3.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized

One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements

27 Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727–28, 18 August 2006, 499

VOL. 521, APRIL 13, 2007 45

“Sec. 3.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized

The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019