G.R. No. 165111 ; July 21, 2006
Roberto E. Chang and Pacifico D. San Mateo, petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Roberto E. Chang, the Municipal Treasurer of Makati, and Pacifico D. San Mateo, Chief of Operations in the same office, were charged with violating Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that they conspired to demand and receive P125,000 from Group Developers, Inc. (GDI) through its employee Mario Magat. This was in consideration for issuing a Certificate of Examination stating GDI had “no tax liability,” despite an outstanding assessed deficiency of P494,601.11.
The prosecution established that after GDI received assessment notices, Magat met with San Mateo and later Chang. During meetings at the Makati Sports Club, petitioners presented GDI with two options: pay the full assessed amount to the municipality or pay P125,000 directly to them to resolve the liability. On June 19, 1991, an entrapment operation was conducted by the NBI. Magat, equipped with marked money, met with San Mateo and Feraren (a co-accused) at a restaurant. After receiving the money, San Mateo was apprehended. Chang, though not present during the entrapment, was implicated through evidence of his prior participation in the illicit negotiations.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners of violating Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan’s conviction is affirmed. The elements of the crime are present: petitioners are public officers; they requested and received P125,000 from GDI; the request was made in connection with their official function of examining and collecting taxes; and the amount was given in consideration for being “absolved” from the tax deficiency by the issuance of a favorable certificate. The defense of instigation fails. Entrapment, as legally conducted here, occurs when law enforcement sets a trap for a person already intending to commit a crime. Instigation involves inducing an innocent person to commit a crime. The evidence, including recorded conversations and witness testimony, clearly shows the criminal intent originated from petitioners, who initiated the demand for money as an alternative to the legitimate tax payment. Chang’s conspiracy was proven by his active participation in the prior negotiations where the corrupt proposal was articulated, notwithstanding his absence during the actual entrapment. His failure to testify and rebut the strong prosecution evidence further weakened his defense. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan is in accordance with law.