332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marifosque vs. People

G.R. No. 156685. July 27, 2004. *

NAZARIO N. MARIFOSQUE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
Criminal Law; Direct Bribery; Elements of the Crime of Direct Bribery.—
The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public
officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present,
offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been
_______________

20
 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108431, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 581, 600
citing Quiñon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 113908 & 114819, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 575,
592.
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
333
VOL. 435, JULY 27, 2004 333
Marifosque vs. People
given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official
duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his
functions as a public officer.
Same;  Same; Same;  The act of receiving money was connected with his
duty as a police officer, case at bar.—There is no question that petitioner was
a public officer within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal
Code, which includes all persons “who, by direct provision of law, popular
election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall
perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class.” At the time of
the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the Legazpi City
Police Station. He directly received the bribe money from Yu So Pong and his
daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder
tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the meaning of Article
210 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of receiving money was connected
with his duty as a police officer.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure which assails the decision dated September
23, 2002 and the Resolution dated January 3, 2003 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 17030 finding petitioner Nazario
Marifosque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of direct
bribery, defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Article
210 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Petitioner was charged with direct bribery in an Information which
reads:
“That on or about October 13, 1990 in Legazpi City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused a public officer
being a qualified member of the Police Force of Legazpi City, now under the
Philippine National Police, taking advantage of his official/public position and
committing the crime herein charged in relation to his office, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
334
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marifosque vs. People
demand, obtain and/or receive directly from Yu Su Pong  and Hian Hian
1

Sy  the total amount of FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P5,800.00)

2

Philippine Currency in consideration for his recovery from alleged robbers,

eighteen Shellane gas filled cylinder/s tanks, to the damage and prejudice of
the aforementioned victims in the aforesaid amount.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” 3

The antecedent facts as culled from the records are as follows:

On October 13, 1990 at around 5:00 in the afternoon, Hian Hian Yu
Sy and her husband, Arsenio Sy, went to the office of Captain Alberto
Salvo, Chief of the Intelligence and Operating Division stationed at the
Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) in Region 5, to report the robbery
of Shellane tanks at the gasoline station of her father, Yu So Pong, and
the alleged extortion attempt by petitioner, Police Sergeant Narciso
Marifosque, in exchange for the recovery of the lost items. Captain
Salvo and his men set up a plan to entrap the petitioner. Hian Hian Yu
Sy prepared the pay-off money in the amount of P4,800.00 and listed
down the serial numbers of the bills. The pay-off was scheduled at 7:00
in the evening of that day in Golden Grace Department Store which
was owned by Yu So Pong. At around 6:15 p.m., Captain Calvo and his
men arrived at the target area and strategically positioned themselves
outside the Golden Grace Department Store to await the arrival of the
suspect. Shortly thereafter, petitioner Marifosque arrived on board a
tricycle. He went inside the store and demanded the money from Hian
Hian Yu Sy and Yu So Pong. The latter handed to him the marked
money, which was wrapped in a newspaper. When petitioner stepped
out of the store, Arsenio Sy gave the prearranged signal, whereupon
the arresting operatives swooped down upon the suspect and arrested
him.
Hian Hian Yu Sy testified that petitioner demanded the amount of
P7,200.00 but she bargained for P4,800.00 only because that was all
she had at the time. She proposed that petitioner return the following
morning to pick up the balance.
 By way of defense, petitioner Marifosque testified that in the
morning of October 13, 1990, a police asset came to his house and
reported that he witnessed a robbery at the gasoline station of Yu
_______________

 Also referred to as Yu So Pong in other parts of the records.

1

 Sometimes referred to as Hian Hian Yu Sy.

2

 Original Records, p. 1.
3

335
VOL. 435, JULY 27, 2004 335
Marifosque vs. People
So Pong. Petitioner went to the gasoline station of Yu So Pong and
relayed to him the information. Thereafter, petitioner and Yu So Pong
proceeded to the police station to report the robbery to the desk
officer, PFC Jesus Fernandez, who then dispatched petitioner and a
certain Pat. Garcia to conduct an investigation. As they were leaving
the police station, the asset approached petitioner asking if he could
get P350.00 per cylinder tank as his reward. Petitioner relayed the
message to Yu So Pong, who said he was amenable “if that [was] the
only way to recover the cylinders and to apprehend the
robbers.”  Based on information furnished by the asset, the police
4

investigators proceeded to the house of Edgardo Arnaldo in San Roque

Legazpi City, where they found the stolen gas tanks. The group loaded
the gas tanks into the vehicle. Meanwhile, Arnaldo arrived. Petitioner
did not arrest him at that time because he promised to lead them to
the other stolen cylinder tanks.  The group returned to the police
5

station where petitioner made a written report of the recovery of the

gas tanks.
Elmer Arnaldo testified that he worked as an asset of the Legazpi
City police force and occasionally received rewards from the police for
any information of the criminal activities. On October 13, 1990 at
around 4:00 in the morning, he went out to buy bread and saw three
individuals stealing gas cylinder tanks in the nearby gasoline station.
He later visited petitioner and reported to him the robbery. He went
back to his house to feed the chickens. Sometime thereafter, he
dropped by the police station to discuss with petitioner the reward of
P350.00 per cylinder tank recovered. Petitioner gave him 1,000.00 and
told him to return at 6:00 p.m. for the remainder. At 7:00 p.m., he and
petitioner went to the store of Yu So Pong to collect the balance of the
reward money. Petitioner went inside the store and Arnaldo, who was
left outside, saw a woman giving him a folded newspaper. Suddenly,
armed men apprehended the petitioner, so he ran away.
On September 23, 2002, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision
convicting petitioner of direct bribery, the dispositive portion of which
reads: 6

_______________
 4
 TSN, 12 March 1997, p. 12.
5
 TSN, 3 March 1997, p. 13.
6
 Decision penned by Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, concurred in by Associate
Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario (now a member of this Court) and Ma. Cristina Cortez-
Estrada.
336
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marifosque vs. People
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and considering that the agreed act,
which did not constitute a crime, was executed, judgment is hereby rendered
finding the accused NAZARIO MARIFOSQUE Y NUÑEZ GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery, defined and penalized under
the second paragraph of Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. The
accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years
6 months and 5 days of Prision Correccional medium and maximum periods
as the Minimum and 7 years, 8 months and 9 days of Prision Mayor minimum
and medium periods as the Maximum considering that there is no mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance and a fine in the amount of THREE THOUSAND
PESOS (P3,000.00). The accused shall also suffer the penalty of special
temporary disqualification.
“SO ORDERED.” 7

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner

interposes the present appeal raising the following issues:
I

THE ACT OF PETITIONER—RECEIPT OF THE SUMS OF MONEY FOR DELIVERY

TO HIS ASSET—DOES NOT CONSITUTE AN OFFENSE DEFINED AND PENALIZED
UNDER SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 210 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE,
AS AMENDED.

II

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN FINDING THE
PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF DIRECT
BRIBERY.  8

In the first assigned error, petitioner contends that the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses do not demonstrate with certainty that the
receipt of the alleged “bribe money” constitutes the act punishable by
the offense as defined by the Revised Penal Code. He draws attention
to the following findings of fact by the appellate court, namely: (1) that
he was not the one who asked for reward from private complainant Yu
So Pong but the asset; and (2) that Hian Hian Yu Sy had no direct
knowledge of the alleged transaction, i.e., the demand for money in
consideration of the
_______________

 Original Records, p. 493.

7

 Rollo, pp. 40-42.

8

337
 VOL. 435, JULY 27, 2004 337
Marifosque vs. People
return/recovery of twenty-one Shellane gas tanks, between private
complainant Yu So Pong and the accused.
In the second assigned error, petitioner argues that the prosecution
failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because there
was no competent evidence to prove that the amount was really
intended for him and not for his asset. He anchors his defense on the
fact that: (1) he merely relayed to Yu So Pong the asset’s request for a
reward money; and (2) Yu So Pong was agreeable to the request. He
further contends that the act of receiving money for the asset is not
one of those punishable under the law as direct bribery.
Petitioner cannot feign innocence and profess good faith since all
the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent.
First, petitioner did not introduce his asset or mention his name to
Yu So Pong or his daughter at the time of the illegal transaction. His
claim that he previously gave P1,000.00 to his asset, which
purportedly represented a partial payment of the reward money, was
not corroborated by his asset. When he was arrested and interrogated
at Camp Ibalon, he made no attempt to present his asset to explain
and justify his receipt of the reward money. Instead, he accepted his
arrest and investigation with an air of resignation, which is
characteristic of a culprit who is caught redhanded. Captain Calvo, one
of the arresting CIS officers, testified that petitioner attempted to give
back the money to Yu So Pong when they were about to arrest
him. This was a clear showing that he was well aware of the illegality of
9

his transaction. Had he been engaged in a legitimate deal, he would

have faced courageously the arresting officers and indignantly
protested the violation of his person, which is the normal reaction of an
innocent man. Instead, he meekly submitted to the indignity of arrest
and went along the eventual investigation with the docility of a man at
a loss for a satisfactory explanation.
Second, petitioner’s solicitous and overly eager conduct in pursuing
the robbery incident betrays an intention not altogether altruistic. On
the contrary, it denotes a corrupt desire on his part to obtain pecuniary
benefits from an illegal transaction. At the time petitioner was notified
by his asset of the robbery incident, he was no longer on duty, having
been assigned to the night shift the day
_______________

 TSN, 30 September 1992, p. 13.

9

338
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marifosque vs. People
before. He was too overzealous to meet with Yu So Pong although the
case was already assigned to another police investigator. His
justification that he wanted to encourage the victim to pursue the case
against the robbers rings hollow and untrue. It is clearly an
afterthought. As shown in the testimony of prosecution witness Hian
Hian Yu Sy, petitioner met with Yu So Pong for no apparent reason than
to demand money. There was no mention of any attempt by him to
investigate, much less encourage the victims to file charges against
the malefactors. More telling is petitioner’s persistence in obtaining the
monetary reward for the asset although the latter was no longer
complaining about the P1,000.00 he supposedly received earlier, thus:
Pros. Agcaoili:
      Since the asset was not complaining at the time, you should not have
gone back anymore to Yu So Pong?
Accused Marifosque:
  Why would I not go back? My purpose was to encourage him to
pursue the matter. If he would not pursue this matter, then we would
be the laughing stock of the thieves we arrested and then we cannot
charge them.
Q. So Mr. Witness, you went to Yu So Pong after you received the
P1,000.00 without any intention to receive additional amountfor the
asset, am I right?
A: No, ma’am. That was not the purpose. In fact, Yu So Pong had told
me earlier to see him again in order to prepare for the cash and to see
if an additional amount would be needed for my asset. 10

While petitioner supposedly supports the “reward system,” yet he

denied that he previously gave incentives to the assets for the
recovery of stolen items, to wit:
PJ Sometimes you would ask for reward for your assets?
:
A: I myself voluntarily give them a reward.
Q: That is not the question. The question is, in the past when you would
recover stolen articles, would you ask the owner of the articles to
give some incentive or tip to your assets?
A: That has not happened, your Honor.
_______________

 TSN, 13 March 1997, p. 19.

10

339
VOL. 435, 339
JULY 27,
2004
Marifosque vs. People
PJ: Next question.
Pros. Agcaoili:
      And, in fact, Mr. Witness, you did not give any incentive to
your asset on that incident that happened in the house of Yu
So Pong which is the subject matter of this case?
A. For that particular case alone, Mr. Yu so Pong gave me
something and I gave it to my asset.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
Pros. Agcaoili:
  In fact, Mr. Witness, you said that these tips were just given
as an incentive?
A I would be the one to give the incentives to my asset. But in
that particular instance, the P1,000.00 which Mr. Yu So
Pong gave me, I turned it over to my own asset.
Q To your own assessment, Mr. Witness, is P1,000.00 not
enough to serve as an incentive to your asset?
A I do not know whether P1,000.00 is enough or not. The
fact, is, that was the amount I got from Yu So Pong which I
gave to my asset.
PJ: Was the asset complaining that was not enough?
A. No, Your Honor. 11

Third, the conduct of the petitioner during the recovery of the stolen
articles leaves much to be desired. He did not apprehend Edgardo
Arnaldo or invite him for investigation although the cylinder tanks were
found in his possession. His flimsy excuse that the latter promised to
deliver additional cylinder tanks is unworthy of credence considering
that, as a police officer with years of experience, he should have
known that the proper action, under the circumstances, was to at least
invite him to the police precinct for investigation. Curiously, the prime
suspect Edgardo Arnaldo turned out to be the brother of petitioner’s
police asset who, we recall, directed the police officers to the location
of the stashed articles. This strange coincidence may well indicate a
conspiracy between the petitioner and the thieves to steal from the
victim and later cash in on the recovery of the lost items.
In the final analysis, this case boils down to an issue of credibility. In
this regard, the prosecution witnesses gave clear and straightforward
testimonies. The Sandiganbayan did not err in
_______________

 Id., pp. 16-17.

11

340
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marifosque vs. People
giving full weight and credence to their version of the events.
Petitioner’s conviction must be affirmed.
The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a
public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some
gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise
has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or
any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something
which it is his official duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to
the exercise of his functions as a public officer.
There is no question that petitioner was a public officer within the
contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, which includes
all persons “who, by direct provision of law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall
perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class.” At the
time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the
Legazpi City Police Station. He directly received the bribe money from
Yu So Pong and his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the
recovery of the stolen cylinder tanks, which was an act not constituting
a crime within the meaning of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
The act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a police
officer.
The instant case falls within the second paragraph of Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code, which is quoted hereunder:
Art. 210. Direct Bribery.—Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties,
in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer,
personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less
than three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty
corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been
committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of
an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act,
he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if
said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less
than twice the value of such gift.
341
VOL. 435, JULY 27, 2004 341
Marifosque vs. People
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the
public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do,
he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not less than three times
the value of the gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the
culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.
While the Sandiganbayan imposed the correct prison term in applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the amount of the fine is erroneous.
Paragraph 1 of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
paragraph 2 thereof, provides that if the act does not constitute a
crime, the fine shall not be less than three times the value of the
amount received. Evidence shows that petitioner received an
aggregate amount of P5,800.00.  He should therefore be ordered to
12

pay a fine not less than 3 times its value. Accordingly, a fine of
P18,000.00 is deemed reasonable.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The
decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 17030, finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct
Bribery and imposing upon him the indeterminate prison term of 3
years, 6 months, and 5 days of prision correccional,as minimum, to 7
years, 8 months, and 9 days of prision mayor, as maximum, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the fine is increased to
P18,000.00.
In addition, petitioner shall suffer the penalty of special temporary
disqualification.
SO ORDERED.
     Davide, Jr., (C.J.,Chairman), Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna,
JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.—As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on
one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held
to prevail. (People vs. Alvero, 329 SCRA 737 [2000])

——o0o——
_______________

12
 Consisting of P1,000.00 earlier received and another P4,800.00 received at the time
of the arrest.
342
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.