GR L 58889; (July, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-58889 July 31, 1986
NATHANIEL S. MANIPON, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Second Division, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr., a deputy sheriff, was assigned to enforce a labor decision ordering Harry Dominguez to pay a judgment debt. Manipon garnished Dominguez’s bank account. On December 27, 1979, Manipon told Dominguez he could “remedy the withdrawal” of the garnished funds so they “will have something for the New Year.” Dominguez interpreted this as a demand for a bribe and reported it to NISA agents, who planned an entrapment using marked money.
The following day at the bank, Manipon delivered a letter lifting the garnishment. After Dominguez withdrew the money, he handed Manipon P1,000, which included the marked bills. Upon leaving, Manipon was accosted by operatives who recovered the money from his pocket. An ultraviolet test confirmed his hands were positive for fluorescent powder from the marked bills. Manipon was charged with and convicted of direct bribery by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Manipon of direct bribery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code requires that a public officer receives a gift or promise in consideration of an act relating to his official functions. All elements were proven. Manipon, a deputy sheriff, received P1,000 from Dominguez immediately after lifting the garnishment—an official act he was duty-bound to perform only for proper execution, not for private payment. His claim that the money was a partial payment to the judgment creditor was rejected. The Sandiganbayan found the testimony of the creditor, Longog Tabek, denying any agreement to receive partial payment, more credible than Manipon’s unsupported assertion. The sequence of events, from the suggestive conversation to the immediate exchange of cash upon lifting the garnishment, unequivocally established the corrupt consideration.
Furthermore, the evidence obtained from the entrapment was admissible. The search and seizure of the marked money from Manipon’s person was valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. The operatives witnessed the crime and had probable cause to arrest him immediately thereafter. The recovery of the corpus delicti was thus lawful. The Court found no merit in the petition and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s judgment.