G.R. No. L-5275
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant.
December 9, 1909

FACTS:
Alejandro Bautista was charged with violating Section 315 of Act No. 355, the Philippine Customs Administrative Act, for offering a bribe. He demurred to the information, arguing it did not state facts constituting a public offense, specifically that it failed to allege the customs officer to whom the bribe was offered was “on duty” or had “jurisdiction” over the matter. The trial court overruled the demurrer, found Bautista guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. Bautista subsequently moved to reopen the case, citing newly discovered evidence, which was also denied.

On appeal, Bautista contended that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer and abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. The incident involved Jacinto Escolastico, a customs secret service agent, who, while on duty preventing smuggling in Manila Bay, discovered Bautista and others near the steamer Tean. Bautista offered Escolastico P250 to allow him to retrieve opium from the Tean for import into Manila. Escolastico refused and reported Bautista. Bautista later admitted to a superior that he knew of opium on the Tean and had arranged with another agent to land it. While no opium was immediately found on the Tean, four tins were later found floating in the bay nearby. The “newly discovered evidence” related to proving that the opium found floating did not originate from the Tean.

ISSUE:
I. Whether the information was defective for not explicitly alleging that the customs officer to whom the bribe was offered was “on duty” or had “jurisdiction” over the matter involved.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence.

RULING:
I. No, the information was not defective. The Court held that the information was sufficient because it substantially followed the language of Section 315 of Act No. 355. This section penalizes the act of offering money to a government officer for an act or omission contrary to law concerning the importation of goods, or an attempt to improperly influence such officer in the performance of official duty. The information clearly charged Bautista with offering money to Jacinto Escolastico, a duly qualified and acting customs secret service agent, to permit the importation of opium, thereby intending to influence him in his official duties. Customs secret service agents are public officials tasked with enforcing customs laws, and Escolastico was explicitly stated to be on duty preventing smuggling at the time of the offer. The specific details of being “on duty” and having “jurisdiction” were sufficiently implied by the facts stated in the information, thus adequately apprising the defendant of the charge.

II. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The motion to reopen based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied. The alleged new evidence, which would only have tended to show that the opium found floating in the bay did not originate from the steamer Tean, would not have necessarily altered the conclusion of Bautista’s guilt. The crime committed by Bautista was the offer of a bribe and the attempt to influence a public officer based on his belief that opium was on board the Tean, regardless of whether opium was physically found on that specific vessel or its exact source. Bautista’s own statements confirmed his belief and criminal intent. Therefore, the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion.

The judgment and sentence were affirmed.