Republic of the Philippines s24

Republic of the Philippines SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City

First Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

— versus — A/R CASE NOS. 007-008

LOIDA Y. CRUZ, Present: Accused-Appellant. De Castro, Presiding Justice Peralta, and, Jurado, JJ.

January 11, 2006 Promulgated x------x

D E C I S I O N

JURADO, J.:

This is an appeal of accused-appellant Loida Y. Cruz from the Decision dated 20 November 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, Branch 34 which in Criminal Case No. 95-145432 convicted her of violation of Section 3, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Further, in Criminal Case No. 95-145433 accused-appellant was convicted of direct bribery punishable under Article 210 (2) (4) of the Revised Penal Code.1

The information for Criminal Case No. 95-145432 alleged the crime to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about April 4, 1995 and September 27, 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then employed as Supervising Shipping Operation Specialist at the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) and therefore, a public officer, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit corrupt practices by then and there neglecting or refusing, to release an approved Certificates [sic] in favor of Weng Chang Fang @ ‘Claire Chang’ from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, for and in 1 Records, pp. 153-171 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 2 of 14 xx------xx

consideration of the amount of P185,000.00 the said accused demanded and received from said Weng Chang Fang @ ‘Claire Chang’ and after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on the matter pending before her for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, the said amount of P185,000.00 from said Weng Chang Fang in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring her own interest or giving undue advantage in favor or discriminating against said Weng Chang Fang @ ‘Claire Chang’ in violation of the said Republic Act No. 3019.”2

In Criminal Case No. 95-145433 the accused-appellant was charged with direct bribery as follows:

“That on or about April 4, 1995 and September 27, 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, a public officer, being then duly designated as Supervising Shipping Operation Specialist of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), committing the crime herein charged in relation to, while in performance and taking advantage of her official functions, as such, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously demand and receive from Weng Chang Fang @ ‘Claire Chang’ the amount of P185,000.00 in consideration of the Certificates from the MARINA, which act constitutes a crime.

“Contrary to law.”3

The two cases were consolidated and heard before the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, Branch 34.

The accused-appellant was arraigned on 13 February 1996. She was assisted by counsel and pleaded not guilty to these charges.4

After trial, the court below rendered the assailed judgment, the dispositive portion of which read:

“WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing considerations and findings, in Criminal Case No. 95-145432, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined and punished under Sec. 3 (f) in relation to Sec. 9 of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attendant to its commission, accused Loida Cruz y Yap is hereby sentenced to suffer a straight prison term of ten (10) years with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

“In Criminal Case No. 94-145433 (Direct Bribery), finding the accused Loida Cruz y Yap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined and punished under Art. 210(2)(4) of the Revised Penal Code, without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attendant to its commission but granting the accused the benefit of the 2 Ibid., p 2 3 Ibid., p. 15 4 Ibid., p. 73 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 3 of 14 xx------xx

Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Loida Cruz y Yap is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term ranging from six (6) years of prision correctional maximum, as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as maximum, to further suffer the accessory penalty of special temporary disqualification from holding public office, and to pay a fine of P125,000.00 representing the value of the money solicited from the complainant.

“In both cases, the accused shall be credited with the full extent of her preventive imprisonment, should there be any, under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

“The bonds for her provisional liberty are hereby cancelled.

“ Her body shall be committed to the Director of Bureau of Correction, National Penitentiary, Muntinglupa City.

“SO ORDERED.” 5

The accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the portion of the decision canceling her bond.6

The court below granted the request in an Order dated 21 November 1996 and allowed the accused-appellant to enjoy her provisional liberty on the strength of the bond she had previously posted.7

Thereafter, accused-appellant filed her motion for reconsideration with the trial court on 17 December 1996.8

The trial court denied accused-appellant’s motion in an Order dated 18 April 1997.9 Hence, the present appeal.

The findings of the trial court leading to the judgment of guilt can be discerned, though presented at times in an inelegant manner, from the following portion of the assailed decision:

“To support the allegation in the Information the prosecution presented Weng Chang Fang, the General Manager of the Manchuria Fishing Corporation, engaged in fishing in the Philippines with license starting from May, 1994, who pointed to the accused in court whom she allegedly met at the Legal Division Office of Marina, PPL Building, U.N. Avenue, Manila on October 20, 1994 when she applied for the approval of bareboat charter and when she delivered the P60,000.00 for six (6) ships per their discussion prior to that date.

“On April 4, 1995 when she applied for the registration of its nationality at Philippine Registry she met Loida Cruz again and delivered P20,000.00 and $2,000 for another ship coming. She likewise gave $6,000, also without receipt.

5 Ibid., pp. 170-171 6 Ibid., p. 191 7 Ibid., p. 192 8 Ibid., pp. 201-217 9 Ibid., p. 226 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 4 of 14 xx------xx

“ She further explained that Loida Cruz allegedly wanted to help her process the paper if she will (Weng Chang Fang) deliver the money. Loida Cruz will inspect the vessel, being the assistant to the Director, but demanded $2,000 and P4,000.00 in order that the certificate of inspection will be released in two (2) days with Loida Cruz explanation that the P2,000.00 will be used for arranging the inspection. That on all those demands she had no choice but to agree. She did not know about the alleged hiring of broker but was just asked to give money.

“That it was Loida Cruz who took her papers with the promise to process the same but conditioned upon delivery of the money demanded.

“She testified that because her money is not enough and have only checks, she issued two checks for P40,000.00 covered by Exhs. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘A-1’ and ‘B-1’. She likewise gave dollars amounting to about P20,000.00 or a little more, otherwise Loida Cruz will not process her papers per the latter’s words. After delivery of the money she was asked to wait for the call.

“She admitted that Loida Cruz was able to process the paper but was asked to go to Marina for the approval of the Bareboat Charter coming from their office. The same was given to her from the Marina not from the accused on the end of May, Exh. ‘C’, ‘C-1’, and ‘C-2’. She went back to Loida Cruz office to deliver the approval of the Bareboat Charter, whereafter, Loida Cruz asked her to apply for inspection of the ship because Loida Cruz would like to inspect the ship before its nationality’s registration in the Philippines. Again Loida Cruz promised to handle the registration including the inspection. Like before she had no choice so she agreed for that purpose. Loida Cruz then demanded P75,000.00 allegedly because she has to handle some people in Batangas, as she (Loida Cruz) will arrange everything in Batangas and that the P75,000.00 was for acceptance fee. A list was given to her (showing Exh. ‘D’, ‘D-1’ and ‘D-2’, original reserved). Out of which amount she gave a deposit of $2,000.00, but Loida Cruz failed to comply with her promised to deliver the official Receipt. Because Loida Cruz is a member of the Marina and when she applied for inspection, Loida Cruz will be the one to handle or process their papers, she was forced to agree. Later, Loida Cruz send them fax message that the registration of the paper will be released after two or three days but failed to do so, so she went to Marina at Loida Cruz office and pay the sum of $4,000.00. On the same day they went to Batangas to inspect the vessel. After the inspection Loida Cruz failed to go back to Batangas so on the second day she went to Manila and look for her, but there were no personnel at her office so the ships were not released from the port. When she found Loida Cruz, she was asked to pay again what is covered by Exh. ‘D’ and “D-1’, which she did not and told Loida about her promise that she will release first the paper so they can apply for the vessel’s registration in the Philippines. Likewise Loida Cruz did not send her the certificate of inspection coming from her office. D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 5 of 14 xx------xx

“On September 27, 1995 she had occasion to see the accused but was asked again to pay the total of P120,000.00 before Loida Cruz will release the certificate of inspection (Q & A, p. 13, tsn, February 29, 1996). That time she said she has no money and will be giving check. They agreed, then delivered the checks, P500.00 for the food and the P5,000.00 which came from the NBI where she filed her complaint per instruction from the MARINA Administrative Division where she first complained about Loida Cruz actuation. She relayed to the NBI that Loida Cruz would like her to go to the Dynasty for the money but she had only P5,000.00 and had check, hence the marking. After ten (10) minutes of waiting at the restaurant, Loida Cruz arrived and asked for the money with the explanation that if she will not pay, her papers will expire. She said she had only P5,000.00 and the others are check which was alright to her. She gave the check, the P5,000.00 and P500.00 for the food and then left. The NBIs simultaneously went inside the Dynasty but did not know what happened next.

“ She admitted that she does not know who encashed the checks. Going over the checks she does not know if the accused’s signature is there. She pointed that the writing on the blanks were those of Loida Cruz because she was present when they were filled-up. She did not fill-up the check because she was afraid that she might be writing something wrong in the check. Finally, she was able to get the approval of the Bareboat Charter not from Loida Cruz but from the Marina after the accused’s arrest.

“ She likewise admitted to be known as Claire Chang in the Philippines and had signed Exhibit ‘1’, ‘1-A’, the authority to certain Jovito Sison, an authorized Custom Broker but claimed that she has no knowledge about such hiring.

“Nelson Bartolome, Senior NBI Agent, and Sixto Burgos, NBI Agent of Anti-Fraud Action Division, pursuant to Claire Chang’s complaint (Exhibit ‘E’, “E-1-A’) that Loida Cruz was withholding the release of the Certification of Philippine Registry and Certificate of Inspection without receiving the money demanded [sic] set an entrapment to catch Loida Cruz. Five (5) pieces of P1,000.00 bills were sent for dusting at the NBI Chemistry Division. They first went to Pope Pius Center, U.N. Avenue since the previous agreement was for Loida Cruz to meet Chang there. While there, due to Loida Cruz’ phone call instructing Chang to meet her at Dynasty Restaurant, Maria Orosa, Burgos instructed Chang to proceed to the place for them to follow. Arriving at the restaurant they saw the complainant waiting at the table whereafter accused Loida Cruz arrived. They placed themselves on a table near that which was occupied by Chang and Loida Cruz but failed to decipher what the subject of the conversation was. They saw the delivery of the envelope containing P5,000.00 bills together with the handling of the checkbook where after Loida Cruz had written on the face of the checks, the three (3) checks were return to Chang for her signature. After the arrest of Loida Cruz, they found the three (3) checks at the latter’s coat pocket and the white mailing envelope inserted already on the accused’s diary book. Opening the envelope they saw the marked bills. All the marked bills were D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 6 of 14 xx------xx

confiscated and later sent to the Chemistry Division for ultraviolet examination upon Burgos’ request (Exhibit ‘M’ & ‘M-1’). The accused was likewise examined and found to be positive with flourescent powder (certification, Exhibit ‘N’). This was affirmed by Marietta Bien, NBI Forensic Chemist, who examined Loida Cruz on September 27, 1995 and the five (5) pieces of P1,000.00 together with the three (3) checks. Affirming further that the accused’s left and right hand, dorsal and palmer aspect showed yellow flourescent specks and smudges, so with the P5,000 bills. The three (3) checks, however, did not have any flourescent mark (Certification, Exhibit ‘L’; Final Report, Exhibit ‘M’). She presented the diagram of the hand showing smudges and specks (Exhibits ‘N’ & ‘N-1’ & “N-1-A’).

“x x x

“Prosecution and defense counsel stipulated that the photocopy of P1,000.00 bills identified by NBI Agent Burgos, are the faithful reproduction of the P1,000.00 peso bills presented in Court by the Evidence Custodian. Afterwhich, the Public Prosecutor offered Exhibits ‘A’ to ‘O’ and their submarkings together with the oral testimonies of the witnesses. After the admission, Public Prosecutor rested the case for the government.

“The accused Loida Cruz was employed with the Marina but was no longer working on September 28, 1995 because she applied for leave due to the present case but which was denied and was suspended instead by Administrator Balbon. She was previously the Supervising Operations Specialists. She claimed that her only job was to formulate policies of the Technical Service Office of Marina and those that pertains to the application regarding vessels acquisition. She claimed that the Certificate of Inspection is being issued by the Technical Service Office while the Certificate of Philippine Registry is being issued by the Domestic Shipping Office.

“ She admitted having met Claire Chang in May, 1994 at the Legal Office of Marina, where allegedly Chang told her and the Legal Office group of having problem with the BFAR regarding the approval of the bareboat charter of her fishing business. She claimed that they advised her some points that should be done with the BFAR. After that meeting, Claire Chang allegedly went to her office followed by greeting on her birthday and on Christmas of 1994. They developed friendly relation with each other, where in the course of such friendship, Claire Chang allegedly asked her, in countless times, to fill up some blank checks.

“On April 4, 1995 Chang visited her, showing her a piece of note coming from the Director of BFAR addressed to Balbon requesting the latter to facilitate Chang’s application filed in April 14 which she ignored not being the addressee. On that day, Chang submitted the application for bareboat charter through her office. Approved in April 19, 1995 by Balbon for three (3) fishing vessels, which Chang happily received. Afterwhich, for a couple of times, Chang went to see her requesting to find her a custom broker for the D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 7 of 14 xx------xx

release of the boat, hence, she recommended Jacinto Ison who was able to have the three fishing vessels released in July, 1995. Due to non-payment of Ison’s bill, the latter called her up complaining about Chang’s failure, so she called up Chang to inform her about it. Chang promised to pay the amount but never called up again until in the morning of September 27, 1995 Chang called her at her office and insisted that they meet each other. They agreed to meet at the Dynasty Restaurant at 9:45 in the morning. There, Chang invited her to sit down and asked her the favor of filling up three (3) checks, (Exhibits ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’) amounting to P120,000.00 intended for the payment to the broker. One is P60,000.00 and the other two (2) were of P30,000.00 each. She filled them up and were signed by Chang in her presence and thereafter were delivered to her with instruction to remit them to Broker Ison. After accepting the checks, Chang suddenly stood up and told her that she has a meeting then walked away. Split second thereafter [sic], a group of people from the NBI approached her table asking her what was inside the envelope which Chang suddenly left on the table. In answer, said, ‘I don’t know’, to wit: ‘Q: Ano ‘yan? A: Malay ko, why Chang left it.’ Admitting she is Loida Cruz, the NBI picked-up the envelope and showed it on her face with the word ‘hindi mo ba alam kung ano ito’, so she felt insulted and stood up, shoving the money being shown to her by her left hand’s back part. She claimed that she did not touch the envelope containing P1,000.00 peso bills, the number of which she did not count. Inquiring what was happening she was informed that it was a case of bribery and that she must go with the NBI to the headquarters, so she asked that she be allowed to have a phone call but the NBI agent told her to do it later. x x x

“She reasoned out that the filing of this case against her was the product of conspiracy between Chang and Pacencio Balbon, because Balbon knew from the beginning of his management that she was one of those after Balbon’s resignation due to so many anomalies. That for Chang, she knows that there is no way to get the certification of Philippine Registry from them, except when she approached Balbon. That she discovered said conspiracy when she found out that there was no pending application in her office of which she was being accused of holding in exchange of money (Certification of Philippine Registry). x x x Another reason she advanced is that Chang was in hot water with his Taiwanese bosses about the financial problem and this case is a good alibi which can be presented to justify her failure to get the necessary document which was needed at the time. Her last reason is that Chang might not want to pay the broker the agreed amount.

“x x x

“ Jacinto Ison, Custom Broker connected with D.S. Paragas Brokerage, knew the accused Loida Cruz from the time he secured permit to import for five (5) years, from the Marina and came to know Chang upon Loida Cruz’ introduction that the former needed a custom broker to release three (3) fishing vessels. That there were three (3) brokers to choose from but did not know the other two (2). That Chang was going to pay P25,000.00 per vessel from the date of paper D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 8 of 14 xx------xx

processing to the date of release, showing the authorization (Exhibit ‘1’) of Chang to the brokerage firm x x x. He allegedly agreed with Chang’s proposal to pay first P25,000.00 and the balance after the compilation of all the receipts. That he complied and sent the bill through FAX message (Exhibit ‘9’) which after Chang’s receipt promised to pay upon her return to the Philippines but failed to do so. Despite which, however, he did not complain. He presented Exhibit ‘8’ and submarkings, the receipts after the vessel has been released.

“x x x

“ Prosecution’s evidence pointed to the approved bareboat charter, the certificate of inspection and the certificate of Philippine Registry. After the approval of the bareboat charter Weng Chang Fang applied for certification of inspection which inspection was done by Loida Cruz at Sta. Clara port of Batangas. Although Loida Cruz denied having participated in such inspection, with the declaration of Claire Chang that it was Loida Cruz who picked her up together with Jacinto Ison in going to Batangas, the Court is convince that it was the accused who conducted the inspection but failed and refused to release the certificates which she is supposed to do being the Supervising Shipping Operation Specialist without monetary consideration. Such certificate of inspection is indispensable to the registration of the vessel’s nationality in the Philippines.

“Aside from the P120,000.00 covered by the three checks, after Chang filed her complaint with the NBI, the sum of P5,000.00, consisting of five pieces of one-thousand peso bills were marked and delivered to Loida Cruz. Although Loida Cruz denied having demanded P185,000.00 and received part of the same, the NBI’s Forensic Chemist findings to the effect that Loida Cruz’ left and right hand, both palmer and dorsal aspects, were with specks and smudges of yellow flourescent powder which were the same that were used to mark the mailing envelope and the five pieces of one-thousand peso bills, it is safe for this Court to conclude that both hands of the accused Loida Cruz received the envelope containing the money. The recovery of the three checks, filled-up by Loida Cruz, from the latter’s coat pocket strengthened the prosecution’s theory that Loida Cruz demanded and received monetary consideration for the release of the Certificates. The presence of the authority, Exh. ‘1’ signed by Claire Chang in favor of Ison as the broker has been explained to be, per instruction of Loida Cruz. Loida Cruz’ admission that Ison was with her for a long time before the incident is a showing that Ison is being utilized by Cruz to hide the anomalous transaction. x x x If it were true that the payment was for Ison and since Loida Cruz and Ison have been calling each other thru the phone, it would have been very easy, and could have been done by Loida Cruz, to call up Ison to meet them at the Dynasty Restaurant for Ison to receive the payment. Why were the checks made payable to cash if it was really for Ison. Such is an avenue to pave the way for any holder to encash them.

“Loida Cruz’ submission that it was not her duty to inspect the vessel has been negatived by her presence at the Batangas port. If there D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 9 of 14 xx------xx

was really an inspector assigned by their Chief, the said inspector must be the one in company with Claire Chang and not Loida Cruz and Ison. Loida Cruz did not present any certificate of inspection signed by the inspector or at least the report o said inspector to support her contention that she was not the inspector assigned for said vessels. x x x

“ With so many deliveries of money made by complainant Weng Chang Fang to Loida Cruz, the Court is convinced that really Loida Cruz withheld all the necessary documents the approved bareboat charter, certificate of inspection, and the certificate of Philippine Registry in order to hasten the delivery of the money demanded.”10

Accused-appellant contests the trial court’s finding of guilt in her brief under the following assignment of errors:11

WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSIDERING THAT:

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DIRECT BRIBERY AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(F) AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATIONS HAVE NEITHER BEEN PROVEN NOR SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THE ENTRAPMENT OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI- FRAUD AND ACTION DIVISION (NBI-AFAD) IS INADMISSIBLE INASMUCH AS SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT.

In Criminal Case No. 95-145432, the accused-appellant was convicted of violation of Section 3, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 3019. This offense has the following elements:

“(1) The offender is a public officer;

“(2) The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand or request has been made on him;

“(3) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and

“(4) Such failure to so act is ‘for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some

10 Ibid., pp.154-167 11 Accused-Appellant’s Brief; Records, pp. 293-325, at 305-306 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 10 of 14 xx------xx

pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another.’”12

The accused-appellant now argues that the failure of the prosecution to present the approved Certificate of Inspection and Certificate of Philippine Registry of the fishing vessels is a fatal error.13

The presentation of these certificates is not necessary for conviction because the elements of the crime could be established by the prosecution through other evidence.

She further reasons out that it was impossible that she could withhold, delay or refuse the release of these documents because her official duties do not include the processing of these certificates.14 Therefore, she asserts that the third of element of the offense of violation of Section 3, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, was not sufficiently proven because there was actually no matter pending before her.

Accused-appellant herself testified that her main duty as Supervising Shipping Operation Specialist was to formulate policies of the Technical Service Office of the MARINA and perform work pertaining to applications related to vessel acquisition.15

This was confirmed by Jacinto B. Lazo, Jr., who said that he and accused had worked in the same Maritime Safety Office, but in different divisions. Accused- appellant was actually working under the Planning Division and had no hand in scrutinizing the inspection reports for the ships.16

Another witness, Engineer Rodolfo Leobrera testified in like manner. As then Director of the MARINA, he headed both the Ship Building Industry Division and the Ship Repair Division of the agency and was the immediate superior of the accused- appellant.17 The pertinent part of his testimony were as follows:

“ATTY. MANLAPAZ:

“Q On April 4, 1995, does Loida Cruz reported [sic] directly to you?

“A Yes, ma’m.

“Q What was the job of Loida Cruz on that date?

“A The job given to the accused, as her superior, is special project on communication, and communication in and out of the office.

“Q What are these special project [sic]?

“A Specially making out some memorandum circulars that affects [sic] the shipping industry as far as my office is concerned.

12 Coronado vs. Sandiganbayan, 225 SCRA 406, pp. 409-410 [1993] 13 Records, p. 308 14 Ibid., p. 318 15 TSN dated 29 May 1996, p. 4 16 TSN dated 7 June 1996, p. 11-12 17 TSN dated 7 June 1996, p. 15 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 11 of 14 xx------xx

“Q Other than preparing memorandum circulars, what else?

“A She prepared the draft circulars for my consideration and for the consideration of the management.

“x x x

“COURT:

When you said that the area covered by Ship Building Division is the inspection of the vessels, do you mean to tell us that you does [sic] the issuance of the certificate of inspection?

“A We have nothing to do [sic] about the certificate of inspection?

“Q How about the issuance of certificate of Philippine Registry?

“A We have nothing to do, the other office handles that.”18

The accused-appellant had no authority to act on or release the Certificate of Inspection to private complainant. There is sufficient ground to reverse the finding of guilt against accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 95-145432.

In Criminal Case No. 95-14543, the accused-appellant was convicted of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime has the following elements:

“(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 is his official duty to do; and,

“(4) That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The promise of a public officer to perform an act or to refrain from doing it may be express or implied.”19

As discussed above, it is clear that the issuance of the Certificate of Inspection and Certificate of Philippine Registry was not part of accused-appellant’s official duties and responsibilities.

18 Ibid., pp. 16-17 19 Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 257, p. 273 [1986] D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 12 of 14 xx------xx

She worked in a different Division preparing the communications and draft memorandum circulars for the said agency, and had no official duty or function that would pertain to the approval and issuance of the said Certificate of Inspection and Certificate of Philippine Registry. Hence, the third and fourth elements of the offense are not present.

The facts proven in this case will not sustain a conviction for the crime of direct bribery as alleged in the complaint.

Accused-appellant’s action has cast a bad light upon the Maritime Industry Authority in particular, and affected the public perception of the whole civil service. While she is exonerated of the offenses charged herein, she may still be criminally, civilly and administratively liable.

Accused-appellant questions the submission of the evidence seized during the entrapment conducted by the NBI agents on 27 September 1995 because these were obtained without a warrant nor on the occasion of a lawful arrest.20 There is no need to discuss this issue further, considering the ruling of the Court on the previous points raised by accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal filed by accused- appellant LOIDA Y. CRUZ is GRANTED.

In Criminal Case No. 95-145432, the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime defined and punished under Section 3, paragraph (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In Criminal Case No. 95-145433, the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime of direct bribery defined and punished under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Cash Bond posted by accused-appellant in the amount of eleven thousand (P11,000.00) pesos for her temporary liberty is hereby ordered returned to her, subject to the usual accounting and auditing rules and procedures.

The facts from which civil liability might arise do not exist in these cases.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, January 9, 2006.

ROLAND B. JURADO Associate Justice

20 Records, p. 321 D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 13 of 14 xx------xx

WE CONCUR:

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Presiding Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Presiding Justice

CERTIFICATION D E C I S I O N People vs. Cruz A/R Case Nos. 007-008 Page 14 of 14 xx------xx

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO – DE CASTRO Presiding Justice