[ G.R. No.
227371, October 02, 2019 ]
CARLOS A. CATUBAO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
Facts:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the accused-appellant Carlos A.
Catubao (Catubao) assailing the Decision1 dated April 6, 2016 (assailed Decision) and
Resolution2 dated September 29, 2016 (assailed Resolution) of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. SB-11-CRM-0420, finding Catubao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Direct Bribery.
Acting on a complaint filed by Cornelio Ragasa (Ragasa) and Atty. Fernando Perito (Atty.
Perito), an Information was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) against
Catubao.
That in 2007, estafa cases were filed against Cornelio Ragasa ("Ragasa"). He hired Atty.
Fernando Perito ("Atty. Perito") as his lawyer. The cases were pending before the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor in Bacoor, Cavite and accused Catubao was then the handling
prosecutor. That the accused always asked for pang inom from Atty Perito and that he
needed money before leaving. That Atty Perity give 4,000 to the accused.
That the accused settled the case in favor of Ragasa,but was denied by the Chief Prosecutor
Office and was reassigned.
Atty. Perito then filed a complaint-affidavit on August 18, 2009 against accused Catubao
before the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon.
The accused contends that Atty. Perito approached the accused telling him that he left his
wallet. He asked the accused a favor since he needed to go home to San Pedro, Laguna. The
accused gave him one thousand pesos (Php 1,000.00). That Atty. Perito sent him Php
4,000.00. He immediately called Atty. Perito and asked him why he sent such amount. Atty.
Perito replied that he was just repaying the favor that accused extended to him and that he
also won a case.
After trial on the merits, in its Decision7 dated April 6, 2016, the Sandiganbayan convicted
Catubao of the crime charged. Catubao filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was
denied by the Sandiganbayan through a Resolution9 dated September 29, 2016.
Hence, Catubao filed the instant appeal.
Issues: whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Catubao of the crime of Direct
Bribery.
Ruling:
Yes, the crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists
of the following elements: (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 third element, however, was not duly proven. The third element of the crime requires that
the gift be given in consideration of the accused's commission of some crime, or any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do.
In the present case, the prosecution claimed, and the Sandiganbayan believed, that the
P3,000.00 was solicited by Catubao in exchange for finally acting on the estafa cases filed
against Ragasa that were then pending before Catubao. Catubao, on the other hand, claims
that it was only (1) a "return of favor" because he previously lent Atty. Perito P1,000.00, and
(2) a "balato" because Atty. Perito told him that Atty. Perito just won another case.
Apart from the testimonial evidence of Atty. Perito and Ragasa, the prosecution presented no
other evidence that the money was solicited by Catubao and that it was given in consideration
of the latter finally acting on the case. The existence of the third element, therefore, boils
down to the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
In sum, for failure of the prosecution to establish all the elements of the crime of Direct Bribery
beyond reasonable doubt, Catubao must thus be acquitted of the charge.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 6, 2016 and Resolution dated September 29, 2016 of
the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-11-CRM-0420 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Carlos A. Catubao is ACQUITTED of the crime of Direct Bribery on the
ground that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
