GR 156643; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156643 & 156891; June 27, 2006
FRANCISCO SALVADOR B. ACEJAS III and VLADIMIR S. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Vladimir Hernandez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) agent, and Francisco Acejas III, a private lawyer, were convicted of Direct Bribery. Hernandez, serving a mission order, confiscated the passport of Japanese national Takao Aoyagi. The spouses Aoyagi sought help from SPO3 Expedito Perlas, who referred them to the law firm of Atty. Acejas. A legal services contract was signed. Subsequently, a demand for One Million Pesos for the passport’s return was made to the Aoyagis. An entrapment operation was set up by the NBI, leading to the arrest of Hernandez and Victor Conanan (another BID agent) after they received marked money from the complainants at a hotel. Acejas, though not physically present at the final payoff, was implicated as part of the conspiracy.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioners Acejas and Hernandez of Direct Bribery based on conspiracy.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, noting no cogent reason to overturn them. On the merits, the elements of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code were established: Hernandez was a public officer who received a gift (the marked money) in consideration of an act (the return of the passport) connected with his official duties. For conspiracy, direct proof is not required; it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. The evidence showed Acejas’s active involvement from the outset: he entered into a legal contract, was present in meetings discussing the passport, and was aware of the illicit demand. His actions, coupled with those of his co-accused, demonstrated a united criminal purpose to extort money. The Court dismissed alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies as minor and collateral, not affecting the core evidence of the demand and receipt of the bribe. Thus, both petitioners, as conspirators, were liable as principals for the crime.