Indirect Bribery
On Criminal Law
Indirect Bribery
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts; and
3. Gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
NOTES:
The gift is given in anticipation of future favor from the public officer.
There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as his own for that moment. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance, or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas, are liable under PD 46.
The criminal penalty or imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of suspension from the service.
The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in the former, the officer agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift or promise. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in favor of the giver which is unfair to the others, it ceases to be indirect but becomes direct bribery.
This is always in the consummated stage. There is no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer
a.to take the gift offered and
b.consider the property as his own for that moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance, or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas are liable under PD 46.
 |
| Indirect Bribery |
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts; and
3. Gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
NOTES:
The gift is given in anticipation of future favor from the public officer.
There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as his own for that moment. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance, or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas, are liable under PD 46.
The criminal penalty or imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of suspension from the service.
The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in the former, the officer agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift or promise. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in favor of the giver which is unfair to the others, it ceases to be indirect but becomes direct bribery.
This is always in the consummated stage. There is no attempted much less frustrated stage in indirect bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer
a.to take the gift offered and
b.consider the property as his own for that moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance, or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas are liable under PD 46.
Bar EXam Question (2006)
PD 46 & RA 6713 & Indirect Bribery (2006)
Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corporations requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Commissioner Torres violated the following:
1. RA. 6713 — Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when he solicited and accept gifts
(Sec.7[d]).
2. P.D. 46 — Making it punishable for public officials and employees to receive, and for private persons to give, gifts on any occasion, including Christmas.
3. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code) for receiving gifts offered by reason of office.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.