GR 1586; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1586 : April 9, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FELIPE NAVARRO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Felipe Navarro, was a duly appointed and acting sanitary inspector for the Board of Health of Manila. He was charged with the crime of bribery under Article 383 of the Penal Code. The information alleged that he solicited, accepted, and received the sum of 3.50 pesos from Tiong Siaco and San Kaco. The purpose of the payment was for the defendant to abstain from performing an official dutyspecifically, to refrain from reporting to his superiors that the said individuals had violated the health ordinances of Manila. The Court of First Instance found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment at hard labor for four months and one day, a fine of 10.50 pesos, and payment of costs. The defendant appealed the judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant for the crime of bribery.
RULING:
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with a modification to the penalty.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from witness San Kaco, established that the defendant frequently visited the complainants’ house, declared it to be dirty, and collected sums of money (totaling about 4 pesos) on these occasions. The payments were made because the complainants feared being fined for sanitary violations. The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, failed to deny receiving the money and offered no explanation for the collections. Although he claimed he had reported the violations, he did not corroborate this by producing the alleged report. The Court found the proof sufficient to establish that the defendant received a gift to abstain from an official act, constituting bribery under Article 383 of the Penal Code.
However, the penalty was modified. The law punishing this offense does not prescribe hard labor. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the periods of imprisonment and fine, but eliminated the imposition of “hard labor” from the sentence. Costs were also imposed on the appellant.