G.R. No. 148862 . August 11, 2005.
RUBIN TAD-Y y BABOR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rubin Tad-y, a Structural Analyst at the Bacolod City Engineer’s Office, was charged with Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on July 24, 1995, Tad-y, with corrupt intent, received marked money amounting to Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00) from Julio Encabo, the representative of building owner Mildred Wong. The amount was allegedly solicited by Tad-y in exchange for signing the Certificate of Final Inspection necessary for the issuance of a building occupancy permit for the Atrium Building.
The prosecution evidence established that Tad-y, responsible for the structural inspection, refused to conduct his final inspection and sign the corresponding certificate unless the ₱4,000.00 was paid. This demand stalled the issuance of the occupancy permit. Encabo reported the matter to the police, leading to an entrapment operation. Marked bills were given to Tad-y at Andre’s Bakeshop after he inspected the building. Upon receiving the money, Tad-y was apprehended. The marked money was found in his possession.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of Direct Bribery.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of Direct Bribery under Article 210 requires: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present; (3) the act is in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, or in connection with any act connected with the performance of the officer’s official duties.
All elements were proven. First, Tad-y was a public officer, a Structural Analyst at the City Engineer’s Office. Second, he received the marked ₱4,000.00 from Encabo. Third, this receipt was in consideration of him performing an act connected with his official duties—signing the Certificate of Final Inspection, a prerequisite for the occupancy permit. His refusal to act without payment and his subsequent act of signing the certificate immediately after receiving the money established the corrupt causal link between the payment and the performance of his duty. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence of the marked money, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt.