G.R. No. L-6427, March 23, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. CONSTANCIO FLORES

FACTS

Constancio Flores, a member of the municipal police in Cebu, demanded and received ₱25 from a Chinese merchant, Chan Cam. Flores threatened to arrest and file a complaint against Chan Cam for an alleged violation of Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law), despite knowing that Chan Cam had committed no crime. The information filed against Flores charged him with bribery under Article 383 of the Penal Code, alleging that he received money as consideration for abstaining from performing his duty to arrest Chan Cam.

ISSUE

Whether the acts committed by the accused constitute the crime of bribery as charged, or another offense such as robbery or estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction for bribery and dismissed the information. The Court held that the facts proven did not constitute bribery but rather robbery with intimidation.

The essential elements of bribery involve a mutual and voluntary transaction where the bribe is offered to corrupt a public official into omitting a duty. Here, Chan Cam did not voluntarily offer the money to corrupt Flores; instead, Flores, knowing Chan Cam was innocent, used the threat of arrest to extort money. This intimidation negates the voluntariness required for bribery.

The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings:
– In U.S. vs. Buenaventura, bribery was found because the arrest was lawful, and there was no proof the arrest was made for the purpose of extortion.
– In U.S. vs. Fulgencio, bribery applied because a crime had actually been committed, and the officer received money to refrain from performing his duty.
– In U.S. vs. Jader, the offense was estafa because the official abused his position to obtain property through deceit, but without the intimidation present here.

The facts in this case align more closely with U.S. vs. Smith, where intimidation was used to obtain money, constituting robbery. However, since the information charged only bribery and expressly negated the elements of force or intimidation, the accused could not be convicted of robbery under that information. Thus, the conviction was reversed, and the information dismissed.