ART.
204-211: DERELICTION OF DUTY  Furthermore, the complainant failed to show any unmistakable indication that bad
De Vera v. Pelayo (Jul 6 2000 Pardo)
FACTS:
 Salvador De Vera filed with the RTC an action to enjoin the MTC from
proceeding with a complatin against him for ejectment. His TRO and motion for
reconsideraion were denied.
 De Vera filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against Judge Benjamin
Pelayo, the one who adjudicated his previous case. He accused the Judge of
violating Arts. 207 and 207 of the RPC.
ISSUE: W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges against a
judge.
HELD: YES.
 In the case of In Re: Joaquin Borromeo, it was held that before a civil or criminal
action against a judge for a violation of Art. 204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment or order) can be entertained, there must first be "a final and
authoritative judicial declaration" that the decision or order in question is indeed
"unjust." The pronouncement may result from either:
a. an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the validity of
the judgment; or
b. an administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge
precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order.
 Only the courts have the prerogative to review a judicial order or decision.
Vuitton v. Villanueva (Nov 21 1992 Campos Jr.)
Sta. Maria v. Ubay (Dec 11 1978 Castro)
FACTS:
 Complainant Quintin Sta. Maria, attorney-in-fact of Valentin Villanueva, filed
with the SC a complaint against respondent Judge Alberto Ubay for violating
Art. 204 of the RPC in that Ubay knowingly rendered an unjust judgment by
promulgating a decision in a civil case which was contrary to previous decisions
of the SC.
 Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judgment who shall
knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision
shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
 Complainant alleges that respondent awarded what the plaintiffs in the civil case
prayed for in bad faith with knowledge that they were not entitled to it.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated Art. 204.
HELD: NO.
 In order that a judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, it must be shown beyond doubt that the judgment is unjust in the
sense that it is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, and the same
was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
 To look into whether the respondent’s decision is contrary to law would be
tantamount to pre-empting the CA of its appellate jurisdiction over the civil case.
o Only after the appellate court holds in a final judgment that a trial judge’s
alleged errors were committed deliberately and in bad faith may a
charge of knowingly rendering an unjust decision be levelled against a
trial judge.
faith motivated the alleged unjust actuations of the respondent judge.
Pabalan v. Guevarra (Nov 24 1976 Antonio)
FACTS:
 Erlinda Pabalan filed a complaint with the Sec. of National Defense against
Judge Donato Guevarra for having knowingly rendered an unjust judgment
and/or with ignorance of the law or through inexcusable negligence. It was the
result of the acquittal of Sgt. Cesar Mallari for the charge of slight physical
injuries.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent judge violated Art. 204.
HELD: NO.
 In order that a Judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment adverted
to is unjust as being contrary to law or as not supported by the evidence, and the
same was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
 The whole thrust of complainant's accusations is predicated upon her contention
that respondent erred in his appraisal of the evidence.
o Even on the assumption that the judicial officer has erred in the
appraisal of the evidence, he cannot be held administratively or civilly
liable for his judicial action. A judicial officer cannot be called to account
in a civil action for acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial
function, however erroneous.
A judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his
own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.
Diego v. Castillo (Aug 11 2004 Acuna)
FACTS:
 Complainant Eduardo Diego charged RTC Judge Silverio Castillo of allegedly
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in a criminal case and/or rendering
judgment in gross ignorance of the law.
 Facts of the criminal case:
o Lucena Escoto married Jorge de Perio, Jr., claiming she was
Crescencia Escoto and was single in the marriage license.
o Jorge obtained a Decree of Divorce in Texas.
o Escoto then married complainant’s brother Manuel Diego. Escoto again
adopted the name Lucena in the marriage license.
 After the trial of the case for bigamy, Judge Castillo acquitted Escoto, citing that
there was good faith on the part of the accused and that she believed that her
previous marriage was validly dissolved.
 Complainant questions the evidentiary weight and admissibility of the divorce
decree as a basis for the finding of good faith. He also alleges that the evidence
negates the finding of good faith.
ISSUE: W/N respondent judge violated Art. 204.
HELD: NO.
 Respondent contends that Escoto married Manuel in the honest belief that she
was free to do so was a mistake of fact. NO.
o In People v. Bitdu, it was held that even if the accused honestly believed
that in contracting her second marriage she was not committing any
violation of the law, and that she had no criminal intent, the same does
not justify her act.
 o It is sufficient to say that everyone is presumed to know the law, and the
fact that one does not know that his act constitutes a violation of the law
does not exempt him from the consequences thereof.
 Art. 204 requires that: (a) the offender is a judge; (b) he renders a judgment in a
case submitted to him for decision; (c) the judgment is unjust; (d) he knew that
said judgment is unjust.
 Malice or bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must
still be proved and failure on the part of the complainant to prove the same
warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
 There was gross ignorance of law.
Loyola v. Judge Gabo (Jan 26 2000 Purisima)
FACTS:
 Lucia Loyola charged Judge Basilio Gabo, Jr. for violating RA 3019 for issuing
an unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206), and with gross ignorance of the law.
 Loyola filed a complaint against SPO2 Leopoldo German and PO2 Tomasito
Gagui, charging them for for the homicide of her son.
o According to Loyola, Judge Gabo directed that accused SPO2 German
be held in the custody of his immediate superior, the Chief of Police of
Sta. Maria, Bulacan, an order sans any legal and factual basis, instead
of ordering the arrest of the said accused being indicted for murder, a
heinous and non-bailable crime.
 The Office of the Court Administrator held that with regard to the violation of RA
3019, there is no allegation of any injury suffered by the complainant as a result
of the conduct or actuation of the respondent judge, nor was there any showing
of undue benefit or advantage given to the adverse party under the orders
complained of.
ISSUE: W/N respondent judge violated Art. 206.
HELD: NO.
 Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order must have the elements:
1. that the offender is a judge;
2. that he performs any of the following acts:
a. he knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
b. he renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
 The OCA perceived no evidence that the respondent judge issued the
questioned order knowing it to be unjust; and neither is there any proof of
conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
 It is a settled doctrine that for a judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment, it must be established beyond cavil that the judgment adverted
to is unjust, contrary to law or unsupported by the evidence, and that the same
was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
o The quantum of proof required to hold respondent judge guilty for
alleged violations of R.A. 3019 and Article 206 is proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
o The allegations of the complaint-affidavit are unsubstantiated.
Respondent judge cannot, of course, be pronounced guilty on the basis
of bare allegations.
 The OCA found respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for failing
to conduct a summary proceeding to determine whether or not the evidence of
guilt against subject accused was strong, considering that the charge of murder
is a non-bailable offense.
ART. 210: DIRECT BRIBERY
Aguirre v. People (Oct 3 1987 Cortes)
FACTS:
 Liwanag Aguirre was found guilty of the crime of bribery by the Sandiganbayan.
 Aguirre was the Acting Deputy Sheriff of the NLRC. He demanded and obtained
from one Hermogenes Haginon, an employee of the business firm Guardsman
Securty Agency, P50 as consideration for him refraining from implementing a
Writ of Execution of a final judgment of the NLRC against them.
ISSUE: W/N Aguirre is guilty of bribery.
HELD: NO.
 That the prosecution evidence consists of the testimony of a single witness does
not necessarily indicate insufficiency of evidence to convict.
 However, there are aspects of the testimony of the sole witness in this case that
do not inspire belief.
o It appears unnatural for the petitioner to have demanded a bribe from
him, a mere employee of the security agency, without authority to
accept any writ or legal paper and without money. It is also doubtful if
said employee could have voluntarily parted with his personal funds
without any expectation of refund. Furthermore, no entrapment was
employed in this situation where it could have been quite easy to catch
the petitioner red-handed with the bribe money.
 The SC found that in the absence of evidence establishing the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence
remains.
Marifosque v. People (Jul 27 2004 Ynares-Santiago)
FACTS:
 Hian Hian Yu Sy and her husband Arsenio Sy went to the office of Capt.
Alberto Salvo, Chief of Intelligence and Operating Division of the Criminal
Investigation Service to report the robbery of Shellane tanks at the gasoline
station of Hian Hian’s father Yu So Pong, and the extortion attempt by the
petitioner Police Sgt. Narciso Marifosque in exchange for the recovery of the
stolen items.
 Capt. Salvo prepared an entrapment operation. When Marifosque arrived and
demanded the money from the complainants at their store, they handed him
marked money. Marifosque was arrested when he stepped out.
 Petitioner contends that the money was merely a reward for Elmer Arnaldo, an
asset of the police who witnessed the stealing of the tanks.
 Marifosque was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of direct bribery.
ISSUE: W/N Marifosque is guilty of direct bribery.
HELD: YES.
 One of the arresting officers testified that petitioner tried to give back the money
to Yu So Pong when they tried to arrest him. This shows that he was aware of
the illegality of the transaction. He also failed to introduce his asset to Yu So
Pong or his daughter during the transaction.
 Petitioner’s over eager conduct in pursuing the robbery denotes a corrupt desire
to obtain benefits from the transaction.
 He did not even apprehend the culprit, Edgardo Arnaldo, during the recovery of
the stolen items since the latter promised to deliver additional tanks. Petitioner
should have known the he was supposed to at least invite Edgardo to the
precinct for investigation.
o Arnaldo was the brother of the asset. This strange coincidence may well
indicate a conspiracy between the petitioner and the thieves to steal
from the victim and later cash in on the recovery of the lost items.
 Elements of Bribery
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 it is his official duty to do
4. that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer
 At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the
Legazpi City Police Station. He directly received the bribe money from Yu So
Pong and his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the
stolen cylinder tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the
meaning of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of receiving money
was connected with his duty as a police officer.
Balderama v. People (Jan 28 2008 Sandoval-Gutierrez)
FACTS:
 Rolando Balderama and Rolando Nagal were employed with the LTO assigned
to the Filed Enforcement Division.
o They were members of a team known as Flying Squad, which
investigated taxi drivers in NAIA who would only transport passengers
on a contract basis.
 The team flagged down the taxi owned by respondent Juan Armamento and
impounded it because of a defective meter. However, it was later found out that
the meter was not defective and the taxi was released to Juan.
 Juan filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for bribery and violation of RA 3019
against the petitioners. He alleged that prior to the impounding of his taxi, the
accused had been collecting protection money from him.
o They allegedly went to his office and proposed that they would not
apprehend his drivers and impound his vehicles for violations of LTO
rules, provided he pays them every 15th and 30th day of the month.
o However, he failed to pay them because his business was not doing
well.
 The Sandiganbayan found the accused guilty of direct bribery, and for violation of
RA 3019.
ISSUE: W/N the accused are guilty.
HELD: YES.
 Elements of Direct Bribery
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 it is his official duty to do
4. that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer
 All elements are present. It was duly established that the accused demanded and
received P300.00 as protection money from respondent on several dates.
 Settled is the rule that findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan in cases before this
Court are binding and conclusive in the absence of a showing that they come
under the established exceptions, among them:
1. when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
and conjectures;
2. the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
3. there is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
5. said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; and,
6. the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of
evidence on record.
o The Court found none of these exceptions in the present cases.
 Petitioners contend that the Sandiganabayan failed to consider the complainant’s
recanted testimony.
o A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and
reservation.
o Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted
testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that
it will later be repudiated
Soriano v. Sandiganbayan (Jul 31 1984 Abad Santos)
FACTS:
 Lauro Soriano was an Assistant City Fiscal who was assigned to investigate the
case of Thomas Tan who was accused of qualified theft.
 During the investigation, Soriano demanded 4k from Tan as the price for
dismissing the case.
 Tan reported the matter to the NBI which set up an entrapment. The same
succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan against Soriano
for violation of Sec. 3 of RA 3019. He was found guilty.
 Soriano contends that the facts constitute a case of Direct Bribery under Art.
210 of the RPC and not the abovementioned provision.
ISSUE: W/N Soriano is guilty of Art. 210 and not RA 3019.
HELD: YES.
 SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions
of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxxx
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein
the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
o The investigation conducted by Soriano was neither a contract nor a
transaction. A transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some
consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration)
is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner.
Manipon v. Sandiganbayan (Jul 31 1986 Fernan)
FACTS:
 Nathaniel Manipon, a deputy sheriff of the CFI of Baguio and Benguet, was
assigned to enforce an order of the Minister of Labor directing the Sheriff of
Baguio to execute the decision of the labor arbiter in an NLRC case which
ordered Harry Dominguez, a building contractor and mayor of Tadian, to pay
Longog Tabek the balance of their work contract.
 Manipon sent a notice to the Commercial Bank and Trust in Baguio, garnishing
the bank accounts of Dominguez. However, he did not inform the labor arbiter of
the garnishment nor did he immediately satisfy the judgment under execution.
 Domiguez sought Manipon’s help in withdrawal of the garnished account. They
met and Manipon told Dominguez that he "can remedy the withdrawal so they will
have something for the New Year."
o Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon would withdraw the
garnished amount for a consideration.
o Dominguez confided the offer to NISA Sub-Station Commander Luisito
Sanchez. They then hatched up a plan to entrap Manipon by paying him
with marked money the next day.
 The next day, Manipon and Domiguez went to Comtrust. Manipon delivered the
letter to the bank lifting the garnishment. Dominguez paid Manipon. When they
left, Manipon was arrested and was brought to Camp Dangwa for questioning.
ISSUE: W/N Manipon is guilty of direct bribery.
HELD: YES.
 Elements of Direct Bribery
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 it is his official duty to do
4. that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer
 Manipon's behavior at the very outset, had been marked with irregularities.
o As early as November 9, 1979, he had already garnished the bank
accounts of Dominguez at Comtrust, but he did not notify the labor
arbiter so that the corresponding order for the payment by the bank of
the garnished amount could be made and the sum withdrawn
immediately to satisfy the judgment under execution.
o Manipon had planned to get Dominguez to acquiesce to a consideration
for lifting the garnishment order.
 Manipon has pointed out that the P1,000.00 was illegally seized because there
was no valid March warrant and therefore inadmissible.
o The rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to
the rule recognized in this jurisdiction. These are: 1) search incidental
to an arrest, 2) search of a moving vehicle, and 3) seizure of evidence
in plain view.
o The first exception applies.
o The evident purpose of this exception is both to protect the arresting
officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might
be armed with a concealed weapon and also to prevent the person
arrested from destroying evidence within his reach.
ART. 211: INDIRECT BRIBERY
Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan (Mar 18 1988 Gancayco)
FACTS:
 Leonor Formilleza was the personnel supervisor of the regional office of the
National Irrigation Administration in Tacloban. Estrella Mutia was an employee
of the NIA, whose appointment was coterminous with a NIA project. Her
appointment was eventually terminated. However, she continued working for the
NIA pursuant to the verbal instructions of the regional director.
 Mutia testified that she took steps to obtain either a permanent or renewed
appointment. She approached the regional director and was advised to see
Formilleza. However, Formilleza refused to attend to Mutia’s appointment unless
she was given some money.
 Mutia reported the matter to the PH Constabulary and an entrapment operation
ensued.
o Mutia met with Formilleza in the latter’s office and they proceeded to the
canteen. Mutia maintains that after they ate, she handed the money
under the table to Fortilleza. At that moment, Fortilleza was arrested.
 The Sandiganbayan held that the crime was not direct bribery, as stated in the
information, but indirect bribery.
ISSUE: W/N Formilleza is guity.
HELD: NO.
 There are substantial facts and circumstances Which appear to be favorable to
the accused but which were not carefully considered by the Sandiganbayan.
 The essential ingredient or indirect bribery is that the public officer concerned
must have accepted the gift or material consideration. There must be a clear
intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider
the same as his own property from then on, such as putting away the gift for
safekeeping or pocketing the same.
o Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign,
circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to
lead the court to conclude that the crime of indirect bribery has
been committed.
 The Sandiganbayan noted that the photographs of the entrapment show that the
petitioner was accosted by the PC soldiers after she accepted the marked
money. Formilleza contends that when she stood up, Mutia suddenly placed
something in her had which she did not know was the money.
o An examination of the seven photographs that were allegedly taken
immediately after the passing of the money shows that the petitioner
was standing up when the PC agents apprehended her.
o None of the photographs show the petitioner in the process of
appropriating or keeping the money after it was handed to her.
 It is not certain if she intended to keep the money.
 The Court also noted that Formileza would not have the nerve to accept the
money in such a public place.
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan (Nov 20 2006 Chico-Nazario)
Victoriano v. Alvior (Mar 1 1978 Makasiar)
The fact that the evidence is wanting as to direct connivance between Alvior and
Garbanzos is of no moment since in indirect bribery "it is not necessary that the
officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that
he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office"