On

Corruption of Public Officials

Art. 212.

Corruption of Public Officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise. The act may or may not be accomplished.

Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired in entrapment.

Under PD 749, givers of bribes and other gifts, as well as accomplices in bribery and other graft cases, are immune from prosecution if they voluntarily give any information about any commission of direct, indirect, and qualified bribery, and any corruption of public officials, provided that:
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations
2. Information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer, not in possession of the State, and can be corroborated on its material points
3. Informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
4. Immunity shall not attach should the information and/or testimony is false and malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the public officer denounced

Bar Exam Question (2001)

Bribery and Corruption of Public Official 

Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriff's fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. 

a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? 
b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? 

Suggested Answer:

a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code,
since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.

Alternative Answer;

a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said sheriff.

b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe money, the crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.

The following are the SPECIAL LAWS related to the prosecution and punishment of GRAFT and CORRUPTION:
1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749
2. RA NO. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
3. RA NO. 7080 (ANTI-PLUNDER ACT)
5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46
6. RA 6713: CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES