G.R. No. 227371, October 02, 2019
CARLOS A. CATUBAO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Carlos A. Catubao, a Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bacoor, Cavite, for Direct Bribery. It was alleged that sometime in December 2008, in Guiuan, Samar, Catubao willfully accepted P3,000.00 from Cornelio Ragasa, a party litigant in cases pending before him, in consideration for expediting the resolution of said cases.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of Ragasa and his lawyer, Atty. Fernando Perito, was that Catubao had repeatedly asked for “pang inom” when Atty. Perito followed up on the unresolved estafa cases against Ragasa. On December 19, 2008, while Catubao was in Samar, he called Atty. Perito asking for P5,000.00 for a drinking session. Ragasa gave P5,000.00 to Atty. Perito, who then sent P4,000.00 to Catubao via LBC. Catubao later resolved the cases in favor of Ragasa, but the resolution was denied by the Chief Provincial Prosecutor.
The defense’s version was that Catubao lent Atty. Perito P1,000.00 in October 2008 when the latter claimed to have lost his wallet. On December 19, 2008, Atty. Perito informed Catubao via text that he had sent something via LBC. Catubao, expecting repayment of the P1,000.00 loan, claimed the package and received P4,000.00. He called Atty. Perito to question the amount, and Atty. Perito explained it was a repayment of the favor and a “balato” for a case he won. Catubao claimed he later resolved the cases based on their merits and that Atty. Perito threatened to file a case against him when he refused to provide a copy of the unsigned resolution.
The Sandiganbayan convicted Catubao of Direct Bribery, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and imposing a fine and special temporary disqualification. Catubao appealed, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Carlos A. Catubao of the crime of Direct Bribery.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Carlos A. Catubao of Direct Bribery on the ground that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution.
The Court held that while the first two elements of Direct Bribery were present—(1) Catubao was a public officer, and (2) he received a gift (the P4,000.00)—the prosecution failed to prove the third and crucial element: that the gift was given in consideration of an act related to his official functions.
The evidence did not conclusively establish that the money was given and received as a quid pro quo for expediting the resolution of Ragasa’s cases. The testimonies regarding the timing of the money’s delivery and the follow-up requests for money contained inconsistencies. More importantly, the prosecution failed to prove that Catubao’s act of resolving the cases was done in consideration of the payment. The evidence showed he had already commenced writing the resolution before receiving the money, and the resolution itself was based on his evaluation of the case merits, as it was reviewed and initially approved by his superiors. The Court found that the money could plausibly be viewed as a “balato” or a gift given after the fact, not as an inducement. While receiving a gift from a litigant is ethically reprehensible under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713), it does not, without proof of a corrupt agreement, constitute the specific crime of Direct Bribery.