EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-65952. July 31, 1984.]

LAURO G. SORIANO, JR., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

Dakila F. Castro for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DECISION

ABAD SANTOS, J : p

The principal issue in this petition to review a decision of the

Sandiganbayan is whether or not the preliminary investigation of a criminal
complaint conducted by a Fiscal is a "contract or transaction" so as to bring
it within the ambit of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The factual background is as follows:
Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft in a complaint lodged
with the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 82-
2964 and assigned for investigation to the petitioner who was then an
Assistant City Fiscal. In the course of the investigation the petitioner
demanded P4,000.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. Tan
reported the demand to the National Bureau of Investigation which set up an
entrapment. Because Tan was hard put to raise the required amount only
P2,000.00 in bills were marked by the NBI which had to supply one-half
thereof. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 7393 which reads as follows:
"The undersigned Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor accuses
LAURO G. SORIANO, for Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) of
Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, committed as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of March 1983, at Quezon

City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then and
still is an Assistant City Fiscal of the Quezon City Fiscal's Office,
detailed as the Investigating Fiscal in the case of MARIANNE Z.
LACAMBRA versus THOMAS N. TAN, docketed as I.S. No. 82-2964,
for Qualified Theft, taking advantage of his official position and
with grave abuse of authority, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously demand and request from Thomas N.
Tan the amount of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000.00)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Philippine Currency, and actually received from said Thomas N.
Tan the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) Philippine
Currency, in consideration for a favorable resolution by
dismissing the above-mentioned case, wherein said accused has
to intervene in his official capacity as such Investigating Fiscal.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Manila, Philippines, March 22, 1983.

(SGD.) EDGARDO C. LABELLA

Special Prosecutor"
After trial the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision with the following
dispositive portion:
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Lauro G. Soriano, Jr.,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as Principal, in the Information, for
Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) MONTH, as
minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as maximum; to suffer
perpetual disqualification from public office; to suffer loss of all
retirement or gratuity benefits under any law; and, to pay costs.

"Of the sum of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) used in the

entrapment operations, and which was fully recovered from the
accused, One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) shall be returned to private
complainant Thomas N. Tan, and the other half, to the National Bureau
of Investigation, National Capital Region."

A motion to reconsider the decision was denied by the Sandiganbayan;

hence the instant petition.
The petitioner has raised several legal questions plus one factual
question. The latter is to the effect that the Sandiganbayan convicted him on
the weakness of his defense and not on the strength of the prosecution's
evidence, This claim is not meritorious not only because it is not for Us to
review the factual findings of the court a quo but also because a reading of
its decision shows that it explicitly stated the facts establishing the guilt of
the petitioner and the competence of the witnesses who testified against
him.
As stated above, the principal issue is whether or not the investigation
conducted by the petitioner can be regarded as a "contract or transaction"
within the purview of Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 3019. On this issue the petition is
highly impressed with merit.
The afore-mentioned provision reads as follows:
"SEC. 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: prcd

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (a) ...

(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."

The petitioner states:

"Assuming in gratia argumenti, petitioner's guilt, the facts make
out a case of Direct Bribery defined and penalized under the provision
of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and not a violation of Section
3, subparagraph (b) of Rep. Act 3019, as amended.

"The evidence for the prosecution clearly and undoubtedly

support, if at all, the offense of Direct Bribery, which is not the offense
charged and is not likewise included in or is necessarily included in the
offense charged, which is for violation of Section 3, subparagraph (b) of
Rep. Act 3019, as amended. The prosecution showed that: the accused
is a public officer; in consideration of P4,000.00 which was allegedly
solicited, P2,000.00 of which was allegedly received, the petitioner
undertook or promised to dismiss a criminal complaint pending
preliminary investigation before him, which may or may not constitute
a crime; that the act of dismissing the criminal complaint pending
before petitioner was related to the exercise of the function of his
office. Therefore, it is with pristine clarity that the offense proved, if at
all, is Direct Bribery." (Petition, p. 5.)

Upon the other hand, the respondents claim:

"A reading of the above-quoted provision would show that the
term 'transaction' as used thereof is not limited in its scope or meaning
to a commercial or business transaction but includes all kinds of
transaction, whether commercial, civil or administrative in nature,
pending with the government. This must be so, otherwise, the Act
would have so stated in the 'Definition of Terms', Section 2 thereof. But
it did not, perforce leaving no other interpretation than that the
expressed purpose and object is to embrace all kinds of transaction
between the government and other party wherein the public officer
would intervene under the law." (Comment, p. 8.)

It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not

a contract. Neither was it a transaction because this term must be construed
as analogous to the term which precedes it. A transaction, like a contract, is
one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this
element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the
petitioner.
In the light of the foregoing, We agree with the petitioner that it was
error for the Sandiganbayan to have convicted him of violating Sec. 3 (b) of
R.A. No. 3019.
The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of bribery under
the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Wrong. A reading of the information which has been reproduced
herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim
deprivation of the right to be informed.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Sandiganbayan
is modified in that the petitioner is deemed guilty of bribery as defined and
penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two (2) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos. The rest of the judgment is hereby
affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
Cdpr

SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero,
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and
Cuevas, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com