Catubao v. Sandiganbayan

 

Catubao v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 227371

October 2, 2019

FACTS:

                The Sandiganbayan convicted Carlos A. Catubao for the crime of Direct Bribery. On December 19, 2008 and while in Guiuan, Samar, accused Catubao called Atty. Perito asking any amount of money for a drinking session with this friends and mentioned that P5K will do. Atty. Perito immediately informed Ragasa about it. Ragasa proceeded to Atty. Perito’s office and handed him said amount. Atty Perito then ordered his secretary, Susan Remoquillo, to send only P4K to the accused through LBC Padre Faura.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the SB erred in its decision

HELD:

                Yes. The SB simply dismissed his contentions, explaining that the inconsistencies referred to were just minor inconsistencies which did not discredit their credibility. The elements of direct bribery are as follows: 1.) that the accused is a public officer 2.) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise 3.) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do and 4.) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.

                The 3^rd element, was not duly proven. In the present case, the prosecution claimed, and the SB believed, that the P3K was solicited by Catubao in exchange for finally acting on estafa cases filed against Ragasa that were then pending before Catubao. Catubao, on the other hand, claims that it was only a “return of favor” because he previously lent Atty. Perito P1K and 2.) a “balato” because Atty. Perito told him that Atty. Perito just won another case.

                Verily, the crime charged against Catubao was Direct Bribery and it has specific elements which are different from a violation of Sec 7 (d) of RA 6713. While the standard provided in Sec 7(d) of RA 6713 may be the ideal for all public officials, the SB nevertheless erred in adjudging the guilt of Catubao on the basis of the same standard when, to recall, Direct Bribery requires that the gift be in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do. While a proescutor’s receipt of a “balato” from a party litigant may indeed be reprehensible from the lens of public service, such act, at the end of the day, is not punishable as Direct Bribery.