On

Direct Bribery

ART. 210.

Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than the value of the gift and not less than three times the value of such gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.

The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985).

Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;
3. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present received by the public officer (Mere agreement consummates the crime and delivery of consideration is not necessary) -
a. with a view to committing some crime;
b. in consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; (contemplates an accepted gift, and an overt act)
c. to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; (should not be a crime)
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties. (need not be a statutory duty)

NOTES:

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.

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.

Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208 (dereliction of duty).

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.

This felony cannot be frustrated. It may only be attempted or consummated.

Bribery exists when the gift is:
1. voluntarily offered by a private person
2. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person
3. 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 the giver is not corruption of public officials due to his involuntariness.)

Actual receipt of the gift is not 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 be 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.

The crime of bribery cannot be complexed with or absorbed by other crimes as the penalty for bribery is in addition to the penalties for those other crimes.

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 element is not necessary in prevaricacion.

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005)

During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride(shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether Patrick committed the following
crimes: 
1. Direct Bribery;
2. Indirect Bribery;
3. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
4. Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;

Suggested Answer:

1. Direct Bribery;

Suggested Answer:

Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present or consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code), the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. Indirect Bribery

Suggested Answer:

Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not receive the bribe because of his office but in consideration
of a crime in connection with his official duty.

3. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;

Suggested Answer:

See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there was no actual injury to the government. When there is no specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20, 2001)

4. Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;

Suggested Answer:

Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of
the higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for obstruction of justice, even if the same not constitute
another offense.

Alternate Answer:

Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because the act of destroying the evidence in his custody is
already penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty. (Sec. 1, P.I). No. 1829)