GR 147578; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 147578-85 and 147598-605; January 28, 2008
ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA and ROLANDO D. NAGAL, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUAN S. ARMAMENTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Rolando L. Balderama and Rolando D. Nagal, along with other colleagues, were members of the Land Transportation Commission’s (LTC) “Flying Squad.” Private respondent Juan S. Armamento operated a taxi business. The petitioners were charged with multiple counts of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and one count of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The bribery charges stemmed from allegations that from February to June 1992, the petitioners solicited and received a monthly “protection money” of P300 from Armamento in exchange for refraining from inspecting his taxi units for violations. The graft charge arose from the petitioners’ impoundment of one of Armamento’s taxis on July 14, 1992, based on a report of a defective meter, which a subsequent LTO inspection revealed to be functioning normally.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioners of the crimes of Direct Bribery and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. For Direct Bribery, the Court found all elements present: petitioners were public officers; they received a gift or present; the gift was received in consideration of their refraining from performing an official duty (conducting inspections); and the act refrained from was connected with their official duties. The consistent and categorical testimony of Armamento, corroborated by his ledger entries, established the receipt of payments. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over this positive identification.
Regarding the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the Court upheld the finding of evident bad faith. The elements of the offense are: the accused are public officers; the charged act was done in the discharge of their official functions; they caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits; and they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The act of impounding the vehicle based on a false report that its meter was defective, when it was not, constituted a deliberate misuse of their authority to harass Armamento after he stopped the “protection” payments. This malicious act caused him undue injury through loss of income and incurred expenses, satisfying the elements of the crime. The penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan were thus sustained.