R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION

· ELEMENTS:

a. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art 203

b. That the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another

c. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present received by the public officer (mere agreement consummates the crime)

1. with a view to committing some crime (delivery of consideration is not necessary) or

2. in consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust (delivery of consideration is necessary), or

3. to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do d. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes

be connected with the performance of his official duties

Bribery refers to the act of the receiver and the act of the giver is corruption of public official.

· For purposes of this article, temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.

· A private person may commit this crime only in the case in which custody of prisoners is entrusted to him

· Applicable also to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other person performing public duties

· Cannot be frustrated, only attempted or consummated.

Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stages because, in frustrated felony, the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence. In direct bribery, it is possible only if the corruptor concurs with the offender. Once there is concurrence, the direct bribery is already consummated. In short, the offender could not have performed all the acts of execution to produce the felony without consummating the same.

Actually, you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is willing to receive and there cannot be a receiver unless there is one willing to give. So this crime requires two to commit. It cannotbe said, therefore, that one has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but for reasons independent of the will, the crime was not committed.

It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of bribery and corruption of public officials cannot be committed in the frustrated stage because this requires two to commit and that means a meeting of the minds.

Illustrations:

(1) If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his superior as evidence of the corruption, the offense is attempted corruption only and not frustrated.

The official did not agree to be corrupted.

If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it, he allowed himself to be corrupted. The corruptor becomes liable for consummated corruption of public official. The public officer also becomes equally liable for consummated bribery.

(2) If a public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and use marked money with the knowledge of the police, the crime of the public official is attempted bribery. The reason is that because the giver has no intention to corrupt her and therefore, he could not perform all the acts of execution.

Be sure that what is involved is a crime of bribery, not extortion. If it were extortion, the crime is not bribery, but robbery. The one who yielded to the demand does not commit corruption of a public officer because it was involuntary.

· Bribery exists when the gift is:

a. voluntarily offered by a private person

b. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person c. solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of the

consequences should the public officer perform his functions (here the crime by giver is not corruption of public officials due to involuntariness)

· Actual receipt of the gift is not only if acts constitutes a crime necessary. An accepted offer or promise of a gift is sufficient. However, if the offer is not accepted, only the person offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of a public officer

· The gift must have a value or capable of pecuniary estimation. It could be in the form

of money, property or services

· If the act required of the public officer amounts to a crime and he commits it, he shall be liable for the penalty corresponding to the crime in addition to the penalty for bribery

In direct bribery, consider whether the official act, which the public officer agreed to do, is a crime or not.

If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the consideration or the doing of the act. The moment there is a meeting of the minds, even without the delivery of the consideration, even without the public officer performing the act amounting to a crime, bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer. Corruption is already committed on the part of the supposed giver. The reason is that the agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. The mere agreement is a felony already.

If the public officer commits the act which constitutes the crime, he, as well as the corruptor shall be liable also for that other crime.

Illustrations:

(1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to a custodian of a public record to remove certain files, the mere agreement, without delivery of the consideration, brings about the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public official.

If the records were actually removed, both the public officer and the corruptor will in addition to the two felonies above, will also be liable for the crime committed, which is infidelity in the custody of the public records for which they shall be liable as principals;

one as principal by inducement, the other as principal by direct participation.

(2) A party litigant approached the court’s stenographer and proposed the idea of altering the transcript of stenographic notes. The court stenographer agreed and he demanded P 2,000.00.

Unknown to them, there were law enforcers who already had a tip that the court stenographer had been doing this before. So they were waiting for the chance to entrap him. They were apprehended and they said they have not done anything yet.

Under Article 210, the mere agreement to commit the act, which amounts to a crime, is already bribery. That stenographer becomes liable already for consummated crime of bribery and the party who agreed to give that money is already liable for consummated corruption, even though not a single centavo is delivered yet and even though the stenographer had not yet made the alterations.

If he changed the transcript, another crime is committed: falsification.

The same criterion will apply with respect to a public officer who agrees to refrain from performing his official duties. If the refraining would give rise to a crime, such as refraining to prosecute an offender, the mere agreement to do so will consummate the bribery and the corruption, even if no money was delivered to him. If the refraining is not a crime, it would only amount to bribery if the consideration be delivered to him.

If it is not a crime , the consideration must be delivered by the corruptor before a public officer can be prosecuted for bribery. Mere agreement, is not enough to constitute the crime because the act to be done in the first place is legitimate or in the performance of the official duties of the public official.

Unless the public officer receives the consideration for doing his official duty, there is no bribery. It is necessary that there must be delivery of monetary consideration. This is so because in the second situation, the public officer actually performed what he is supposed to perform. It is just that he would not perform what he is required by law to perform without an added consideration from the public which gives rise to the crime.

The idea of the law is that he is being paid salary for being there. He is not supposed to demand additional compensation from the public before performing his public service. The prohibition will apply only when the money is delivered to him, or if he performs what he is supposed to perform in anticipation of being paid the money.

Here, the bribery will only arise when there is already the acceptance of the consideration because the act to be done is not a crime. So, without the acceptance, the crime is not committed.

· The third type of bribery and prevaricacion (art 208) are similar offenses, both consisting of omissions to do an act required to be performed. In direct bribery however, a gift or promise is given in consideration of the omission. This is not necessary in prevaricacion

Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery

Bribery is direct when a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in exchange for the gift, present or consideration given to him.

If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position, the crime is