GR L 4217; (February, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4217
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CEFERINO CAUAS, defendant-appellant.
February 12, 1908
FACTS:
Ceferino Cauas, an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and market stall allotter for the Divisoria Market, offered to permanently allot four stalls (990-993) to Chinaman Go Tiaco, who was then renting them daily. Cauas later approached Go Tiaco at his other store and asked for a P100 “loan,” promising to reserve the stalls permanently. Go Tiaco could only provide P50 (P45 of his own, P5 borrowed from Agustina Roxas). Cauas warned Go Tiaco that if he did not complete the P100 payment by the following Monday, he would lose the stalls. True to the warning, when Go Tiaco went to the market that Monday, the stalls were occupied by others, and Cauas confirmed that it was because Go Tiaco had refused to pay the full P100.
A complaint was filed, charging Cauas with willfully collecting an unlawful reward in violation of Section 24 of the Internal Revenue Law (Act No. 1189). The trial court found Cauas guilty and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor, a P400 fine, and costs. Cauas appealed this judgment.
ISSUE:
Is Ceferino Cauas guilty of violating Section 24 of the Internal Revenue Law (Act No. 1189) for demanding and accepting money under the guise of a loan in exchange for the permanent allotment of market stalls?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The Court found that Cauas, as a public employee responsible for allotting market stalls, unlawfully demanded and obtained P50 from Go Tiaco under the guise of a loan, promising the permanent reservation of stalls. This act constituted an unauthorized demand and an act of extortion under color of law, in clear violation of Section 24 of Act No. 1189. This section prohibits officers or employees from demanding or receiving sums not authorized by law for the performance of any duty or being guilty of extortion or willful oppression under color of law. The Court noted that Go Tiaco himself did not consider the P50 as a loan but as an unrecoverable payment. Therefore, the Court held that Cauas incurred the punishment provided by the said law. The Court, however, ordered that the provision for “hard labor” in the penalty be suppressed.