GR 136266; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136266. August 13, 2001.
EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eutiquio A. Peligrino, an Examiner II of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Region IV-A, was charged, along with his supervisor Buenaventura V. Buenafe, with violation of Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019). The Information alleged that on or about October 15, 1991, in Makati, the accused, taking advantage of their public positions, demanded P200,000.00 from Dr. Antonio N. Feliciano, a doctor found to have an alleged deficiency income tax assessment of P500,000.00 for 1988-1989. The amount was to be applied as follows: P51,858.57 as full payment of the tax deficiency and the balance of P148,141.43 to be appropriated by the accused for themselves as a gift or consideration for lowering the assessment. Petitioner Peligrino received the P200,000.00 on behalf of both accused. The case originated from a letter of authority delivered to Dr. Feliciano authorizing an examination of his books. After alleged demands for money, Dr. Feliciano sought NBI assistance and an entrapment was set. On October 15, 1991, petitioner Peligrino appeared at Dr. Feliciano’s office and received the money, which led to his arrest. After trial, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner but acquitted his co-accused Buenafe.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Eutiquio A. Peligrino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 (the Anti-Graft Law).
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that to convict under Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft Law, mere receipt of a gift or any other benefit is sufficient, even without any express demand. The duration of possession is not controlling; what is important are the appellant’s words, actions, and reactions showing acceptance. These are factual matters, and absent any arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, or palpable error, the trial court’s assessment is binding on appellate review. The Sandiganbayan’s findings, which concluded that petitioner received the money as a gift or consideration for lowering the tax assessment in connection with a transaction in which he intervened in his official capacity, were upheld. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan—an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to nine (9) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from office—was affirmed.