To convict the accused in a prosecution for the violation of Section 3(b) of the Anti-

Graft Law, mere receipt of a gift or any other benefit is enough, even without any
express demand for it. The duration of the possession is not controlling. Important are
the appellant’s words, action and reactions showing acceptance thereof. These are
factual in nature and, absent any arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, or palpable error,
the trial court’s assessment of their presence or absence is generally binding on
appellate review.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Case

Court, Accused EUTIQUIO PELIGRINO y ALAAN and BUENAVENTURA V. BUENAFE, both

public officers, being then Examiner II and Supervisor, respectively, both of Region IV-
A of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Makati, Metro Manila, and as such are tasked,
among others, to examine or investigate the Books of Accounts for Income and
Business Tax and other accounting records of professionals (medical practitioners) and
to determine their compliance and/or tax deficiencies after assessment, and to collect
payments thereof, taking advantage of their public positions, while in the performance
of said official duties as such public officers, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping each other, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and criminally demand
directly from taxpayer Antonio N. Feliciano, be appropriated by both accused for
themselves as gift or consideration for their promise to make as they did lower
assessment for said fiscal years 1988 & 1989 in the amount of P51,858.57, which
request or demand for money was in connection with a transaction between the
government and Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano wherein both accused in their official
capacities had to intervene under the law, and thereafter, Accused Eutiquio A. Peligrino
wil[l]fully, unlawfully and criminally received the amount of P200,000.00 in behalf of
both accused, to the damage and prejudice of Dr. Antonio Feliciano in the amount of
P148,141.43 and the government in the amount equal to the deficiency income tax due
it." 6 (Emphasis in the original.) chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On August 28, 1992, the two accused, assisted by their respective lawyers, 7 were
arraigned. Both pleaded not guilty. 8 On April 24, 1998, after full trial, the
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of the offense charged, but acquitted his co-
accused.

Issues

In his Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. That the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that petitioner demanded and received the
envelope with the boodle money; chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"II. That the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner on the basis of the lone
testimony of Dr. Feliciano, an admittedly discredited witness;

"III. That petitioner was denied his right to equal protection of the law." 13

This Court’s Ruling

The Petition 14 has no merit.

First Issue: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Demand and Receipt of "Boodle Money"

Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended)
provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — 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 to be unlawful: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x          x           x

"(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. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

x       x       x"

The elements of this offense were summed up in Mejia v. Pamaran, 15 and we restate
them here: (1) the offender is a public officer (2) who requested or received a gift, a
present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other
person (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government (5) in
which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.

Petitioner is a BIR examiner assigned to the Special Project Committee tasked." . . to

undertake verification of tax liabilities of various professionals particularly doctors
within the jurisdiction of Revenue Region No. 4-A, Manila . . ." Since the subject
transaction involved the reassessment of taxes due from private complainant, the right
of petitioner to intervene in his official capacity is undisputed. Therefore, elements (1),
(4) and (5) of the offense are present. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

However, petitioner disputes the prosecution evidence establishing that he demanded

and received grease money in connection with the transaction.

Specifically, he contends that the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that he demanded money

from complainant was based merely on an assumption that was not supported by any
evidence. He avers that he merely informed complainant of his tax deficiencies, and
that it was the latter who requested the reduction of the amount claimed.

We are not convinced. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes three distinct acts — (1)
demanding or requesting; (2) receiving; or (3) demanding, requesting and receiving"
any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other
party, wherein a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the law.
These modes of committing the offense are distinct and different from each other. Proof
of the existence of any of them suffices to warrant conviction. 16 The lack of demand is
immaterial. After all, Section 3(b) of RA 3019 uses the word or between requesting and
receiving.

Averring that the incident in complainant’s clinic was a frame-up, petitioner contends
that there could not have been any payoff, inasmuch as there was no demand. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

Like bribery, this crime is usually proved by evidence acquired during an entrapment,
as the giver or briber is usually the only one who can provide direct evidence of the
commission of this crime. Thus, entrapment is resorted to in order to apprehend a
public officer while in the act of obtaining undue benefits. 17 However, we have to
distinguish between entrapment and instigation.

In "instigation," officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure the
accused into committing an offense, which the latter otherwise would not commit and
has no intention of committing. In "entrapment," the criminal intent or design to
commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and the law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the crime. 18

Frame-up, like alibi, is invariably viewed with disfavor because, as a line of defense in
most criminal prosecutions of this nature, it is easily concocted, common or standard.
19

Petitioner denies that he received payoff money from complainant. According to him,
receive, as contemplated in the offense charged, connotes a voluntary act coupled with
knowledge. Hence, where the giving of the money affords the accused no opportunity
either to refuse or to return it to the giver, no punishable offense ensues. 20 Petitioner
claims that the 40 seconds or less that the boodle money was in his hands was merely
a momentary possession that could not prove "receipt," which the law requires for the
offense charged to be consummated. cralawlibrary : red

We disagree. In Cabrera v. Pajares, acceptance was established because the accused

judge placed the bribe money between the pages of his diary or appointment book,
despite his protestations that the money bills landed on the open pages of his diary,
only after he had flung them back to the complainant. 21

In Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan, 22 this Court overruled the finding of acceptance,

because it was improbable for the accused to accept bribe money in front of her office
mates and in a public place, even if the money had been handed to her under the table.
Furthermore, the accused therein shouted at the complainant, "What are you trying to
do to me?" That is not the normal reaction of one with a guilty conscience. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Furthermore, the Court held in the said case that there must be a clear intention on the
part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider it as his or her own
property from then on. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude
that the crime has been committed. To hold otherwise would encourage unscrupulous
individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody
some gift, money or other property. 23

The duration of the possession is not the controlling element in determining receipt or
acceptance. In the case at bar, petitioner opened the envelope containing the boodle
money, looked inside, closed it and placed the envelope beside him on the table. Such
reaction did not signify refusal or resistance to bribery, especially considering that he
was not supposed to accept any cash from the taxpayer. The proximity of the envelope
relative to petitioner, as testified to by NBI Agent Ragos, also belies petitioner’s
contention that he refused the bribe. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

A person found in possession of a thing taken from the recent execution of a wrongful
act is presumed to be both the taker and the doer of the whole act. 24

Second Issue: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Credibility of Complaining Witness

Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan with inconsistency. Supposedly, while stating on

the one hand that complainant was not a credible witness on account of his character,
on the other hand it accorded credibility to his testimony that petitioner had received
the boodle money. Likewise, petitioner adds, the same court found complainant’s
testimony insufficient to establish Buenafe’s complicity, yet deemed the same
testimony sufficient to prove petitioner’s guilt.

The Sandiganbayan findings adverted to are as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While the Court is reluctant to consider this declaration of the offended party as
satisfactory proof that the accused [therein petitioner] requested or demanded . . . the
sum of P200,000 not only because it was vehemently denied by the accused but
likewise considering the nature and character . . . [or] person of the said offended party
(Exhibit 14 to 18), we are at a loss why in the ensuing event, particularly in the
entrapment laid out by the complainant and the NBI agents, this accused was present
and . . . a brown envelop[e] containing the ‘boodle money’ was retrieved [from him]. . .
.25cralaw:red

Obviously, the anti-graft court did not tag complainant as a discredited witness. It
simply said that his testimony by itself was not sufficient evidence of the commission of
the offense. But, taken together with the other pieces of corroborating evidence, it
established a quantum of evidence strong enough to convict petitioner. While the case
is weakened by the many suits filed for and against complainant, the court a quo did
not say that he was not at all worthy of belief. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
We see no cause to fault the lower court. The assessment of the credibility of a witness
is primarily the function of a trial court, which had the benefit of observing firsthand the
demeanor or deportment of the witness. It is well-settled that this Court will not
reverse the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses in the absence of
arbitrariness, abuse of discretion or palpable error. 26

It is within the discretion of the Sandiganbayan to weigh the evidence presented by the
parties, as well as to accord full faith to those it regards as credible and reject those it
considers perjurious or fabricated. 27

Petitioner further contends that he tested positive for fluorescent powder because the
NBI agents had pressed the envelope to his body.

We are not persuaded. Petitioner failed to ascribe to the NBI agents any ill motive to
deliberately implicate him. No malice was imputed, either, to the chemist who had
examined and found him positive for the chemical; thus, we see no cogent reason to
disbelieve her testimony. In the absence of any controverting evidence, the testimonies
of public officers are given full faith and credence, as they are presumed to have acted
in the regular performance of their official duties. 28

Third Issue: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Right of the Accused to the Equal Protection of the Law

Petitioner asserts that he should be accorded the same treatment and, thus, acquitted
because of his right to the equal protection of the law. After all, the Sandiganbayan
believed the testimony of Buenafe that the latter had not asked for any payoff money;
and he was, thus, cleared of the charge against him.

We disagree. Petitioner alludes to the doctrine that if the conviction of the accused rests
upon the same evidence used to convict the co-accused, the acquittal of the former
should benefit the latter. 29 Such doctrine does not apply to this case. The strongest
pieces of evidence against petitioner were the ones obtained from the entrapment, in
which Buenafe was not involved. Hence, the evidence against petitioner and that
against his co-accused were simply not at par with each other. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

All in all, petitioner failed to show that Sandiganbayan had committed any reversible
error. Quite the contrary, it had acted judiciously and correctly. Hence, this recourse
must fail.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.