G.R. No. 261084, August 07, 2023
LEO I. GERUNDA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Leo I. Gerunda, an Administrative Aide III, and Atty. Aurelio M. Diamante, Jr., the Acting Registrar of Deeds of Negros Oriental, were charged with Direct Bribery. The Information alleged that on or about September 13, 2012, they conspired to demand and receive PHP 50,000.00 from Atty. Federico C. Cabilao, Jr., with the promise to immediately issue a certificate of title for a lot in Sibulan, Negros Oriental, which was part of their official duties. The prosecution evidence established that Atty. Cabilao was processing the transfer of a title for his client, Toyota Motors Cebu. Atty. Diamante expressed his need for a service vehicle and solicited assistance from Atty. Cabilao to purchase a Toyota Vios. Negotiations ensued regarding the downpayment. Atty. Cabilao transmitted PHP 50,000.00 to Gerunda on two occasions, with instructions for Gerunda to give it to Atty. Diamante. Gerunda admitted receiving and delivering the money to Atty. Diamante, claiming he was merely obeying his superior. The certificate of title was never signed by Atty. Diamante. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both accused guilty as co-principals of Direct Bribery. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC judgment, finding Gerunda guilty only as an accomplice, not a co-principal, as conspiracy was not proven. Gerunda filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Leo I. Gerunda is guilty of the crime of direct bribery as an accomplice.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA ruling with modification on the fine. The Court held that an accused can be validly convicted as an accomplice even if charged as a principal in the Information, as the greater responsibility includes the lesser, provided the offense charged is proven. The Information for Direct Bribery was sufficient. On the merits, the Court found Gerunda liable as an accomplice. The elements of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present; (3) the gift or promise is made in consideration of the execution of an act; (4) the act does not constitute a crime; and (5) the act is connected with the exercise of the official duties of the public officer. Gerunda, a public officer, received and delivered the PHP 50,000.00 bribe money upon the instruction of Atty. Diamante, with knowledge that it was given to influence the latter’s official action regarding the title. By cooperating in the execution of the offense with simultaneous acts, he rendered moral and material assistance with guilty knowledge, thus qualifying as an accomplice. His defense of obeying a superior’s order was untenable as the order was patently illegal. The penalty for an accomplice in direct bribery is one degree lower than that for principals. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the amount of the bribe, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and a fine of PHP 50,000.00.