GR 153686; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153686 ; July 22, 2003
LEANDRO A. SULLER, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Leandro A. Suller, a Legal Officer III of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Adjudication Board, was charged with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act). The Information alleged that in June 1992, with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, he demanded and received P2,000.00 from SPO1 Reynaldo Nicolas. The payment was in consideration for refraining from working to reverse a favorable recommendation for the dismissal of an administrative case against Nicolas. An entrapment operation by the NBI led to Suller’s arrest after he received marked money from Nicolas at a pre-arranged meeting.
At trial, the prosecution presented evidence detailing Suller’s initial solicitation, the negotiation of the bribe amount, and the successful entrapment where fluorescent powder from the marked bills was found on Suller’s hands. Suller denied the accusation, claiming he was framed. He testified that Nicolas persistently sought his help to influence the board’s decision, and that he merely accepted a ride from Nicolas on the day of the entrapment, during which Nicolas surreptitiously placed the envelope in his pocket.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner Leandro A. Suller of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan’s conviction is affirmed. The Court found the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 were sufficiently proven: Suller was a public officer; he acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in the discharge of his official functions; and his actions caused undue injury to Nicolas. The demand and receipt of money in exchange for a promised official action constituted a clear violation. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly SPO1 Nicolas and the NBI agents, whose testimonies on the entrapment were consistent and corroborated by physical evidence.
The defense of frame-up was rejected for being self-serving and uncorroborated. The Court emphasized that the findings of the Sandiganbayan on witness credibility are entitled to great respect and weight. The penalty imposed—an indeterminate sentence of six years and one month to twelve years and one month imprisonment, with perpetual disqualification from public office—is appropriate under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and R.A. 3019. The civil liability was deemed extinguished as the marked money was recovered.