REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sandiganbayan Quezon City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim, Case No. 26537 Plaintiff, For: Direct Bribery = versus - Present Legaspi, J., Charman JAIME F. BAUTISTA, Dela Cruz, J Accused, Geraldez, J. Promulgated: feel 0, oe DECISION LEGASPI, J: Accused Jaime F. Bautista (accused Bautista for brevity), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, stands charged with the crime of Direct Bribery, defined and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by BP Blg, 871 (approved May 29, 1985). The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows: That on or about 20 March 2001, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Jaime F. Bautista, a public officer, being the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, taking advantage of his official position and with grave abuse of authority, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously demand and receive the sum of P10,000.00 in cash, Philippine Currency, inclusive of | ten (10) pieces of P500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, from Ranel T. Paruli, Liaison Officer of the Sierra Madre Transportation Co. inc. (SMTCI), in exchange for the issued Order To Lift the Writ of Preliminary Attachment And to Release The Attached Properties of the said SMTCI, tothe demage and prejudice ofthe sald compa ae he publi interest CONTRARY TO LAW. JAK 4DECISION Pps, JAIME F. BAUTIST. Chim. Cask NO.26537 PAGE 208 35 On March 20, 2001 at two o'clock in the afternoon, accused Bautista was arrested by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Intelligence Operations Division in an entrapment operation. Afier the inquest proceeding conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman on March 21, 2001, the above-quoted Information was filed before this Court. Subsequently, accused Bautista posted the necessary bail in the amount of twenty four thousand pesos (P 24,000.00) Philippine currency, to secure his temporary liberty.! A motion for reinvestigation dated March 26, 2001 and a Supplemental Argument dated Apsil 2, 2001? was filed by accused Bautista. He invoked his right to a preliminary investigation insisting that when he reserved the filing of counter-affidavit during the inquest proceedings, he in effect invoked his right to preliminary investigation; that he posted bail after the inquest; and, he has not yet been arraigned.’ On April 24, 2001, on the hearing of the said motion, this Court ordered the referral of the records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman. ™ motion for reinvestigation was then converted into a motion for \ reconsideration, JK ' Record, Vol. 1, page 27 2 Record, Vol. 1, page 59 > Record, Vol. 1, page 60Decis10Nn Poy. Junie P. Bautista Cran, Caste NO.26537 Pack 3 OF 35 In a Memorandum dated May 24, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman, denied the motion for reconsideration dated April 30, 2001 filed by accused Bautista, for lack of merit’ ‘The Ombudsman, thru the Office of the Special Prosecutor, maintains that the material allegations in the counter-affidavit of accused Bautista are matters of defense which can be ventilated and evaluated during the course of the proceedings. On February 8, 2002, accused Bautista filed a motion to dismiss claiming that his right to speedy trial has been violated, He asserts that he should have been brought for arraignment within the period of thirty days from the time the court had acquired jurisdiction over his person. However, from July 16, 2001, or the date wherein the Ombudsman denied his motion for reinvestigation up to January 25, 2002, the accused had not been called for arraignment.” Ina resolution penned by the Honorable Justice Diosdado Peralta dated October 24, 2002, this Court denied accused Bautista’s motion to dismiss for ack of merit’ This Court pronounced: The basic premise of accused Bautista’s argument is the fact that the period laid down by the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on the holding of arraignment has not been complied with. He failed though to acknowledge that the said provision is not absolute nor should be interpreted to disregard the substantial rights of the parties. The records show that the prosecution did not in any way caused the delay in the arraignment. Therefore, the prosecution must not be denied of its right to prosecute the case Jk 4 Record, Vol. 1, page 67 # Record, Vol. I, page 69 Record, Vol. I, page 110DECISION PPVS, JAIME F. Bautists GRIM. Cast: NO.26537 PAGE 4 OF 35 Consequently, on January 28, 2003, accused Bautista was arraigned Assisted by counsel, he entered a plea of “Not GUILTY.” At the pre-trial conference on January 28, 2004, the parties stipulated as follows:* 1) That at the time material to the case as alleged in the information, acoused is a public officer being then the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Branch 75, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila; 2) __ That a complaint for Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment was filed by Claudia Cadium and Rolando Millar against the Sierra Madre Transportation Co., Inc. (SMTC!) which was eventually raffled to the RTC, Branch 75 then presided by Judge Jaime Bautista; 3) That acting on the said complaint, the herein accused issued the Writ of Preliminary Attachment on March’6, 2001 which was later served by Sheriff Montes on March 13, 2001 to Defendant SMTCI, thereby attaching in the process two (2) SMTCI buses with Plate Nos, HVA-683 and CVD-182; 4) That defendant SMTCI filed a Motion to Accept Counter Bond before the RTC Branch 75 on March 15, 2001 which motion was set for hearing on March 16, 2001 wherein accused gave plaintiffs a period of ten (10) days to file their comment; 5) That the order to lift the attachment and to release the attached properties was issued by the accused on March 16, 2001; 6) That at the time Ranel Paruli allegedly handed over to the accused the amount of P5,000.00 inside the chamber , the NBI agents were not present to witness the same; 7) That the accused did not cause any delay in the approval of the ‘complainant's Motion to Accept Counter-Bond because the same was granted on the same day it was heard on March 16, 2001; 8) That the accused never demanded any amount directly from Ranel Paruli either in the court room ar in the chamber or elsewhere, ‘Thereafter, trial on the merits Mg "Record, Vol. 1, page 138 * Record, Vol. I, pages 285-286DECISION Ppys. Jane: B. BAUTISTA Crist. Cast No.26537 PAGES OF 35 EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION On March 22, 2004, the Prosecution presented its first witness, MR. RANEL T. PARULI (Paruli for brevity), liaison officer of the Sierra Madre Trans., Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as SMTC). He testified as follows.” A civil case for damages was filed against SMTCI by Claudia Cadium and Rolando Millar, entitled “Claudio Cadium and Rolando Millar versus Bonifacio de la Cruz, Sierra Madre Transit, Inc.” The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 75 presided by Judge Bautista ‘On March 13, 2001, Sheriff Montes (Montes for brevity) served on SMTCI a Writ of Preliminary Attachment dated March 6, 2001'° and an ‘Order setting the amount of bond dated March 1, 2001 issued by accused Bautista. The writ attached two buses of SMTCI which was brought to Valenzuela, Bulacan To secure the release of the company's buses, SMTCI filed an Urgent Motion to file Counter Bond dated March 15, 2001."" On March 16, 2001, on the hearing of the said motion, accused Bautista issued an Order giving the other party 10 days to comment thereon."? Paruli testified that he complained about this order to Montes, who offered to talk to accused Bautista. Thereafter, Montes told him that accused Bautista was asking for Php 20,000 for a favorable action on their motion. After haggling, it was agreed that the amount of Php 5,000 would be advanced and the balance would be paid later. Montes left again and probably talked to accused Bautista. After a while, Montes returned to tell him that accused Bautista agreed to the amount. Thereafter, Montes accompanied Paruli to accused Baustista’s chamber where he saw the release order being prepared. Montes escorted him to the courtroom. While waiting, a court employee told him that accused Bautista left without signing the release Order and advised hhim to go to accused Bautista's house. Together with his driver Luis Folloso and a court employee who brought the unsigned order, Paruli went to accused Bautista’s house. Upon reaching the house, the court employee looked for accused Bautista while he and Folloso stayed inside the car. When the court employee saw accused Bautista, together with Folloso, they followed the court employee to accused Bautista who was then sitting on a rocking chair. When he gave the Php 5,000.00 to accused Bautista, the latter signed the release Order. MM . ° Transcript of Stenogeaphic Notes dated March 22, 2 " Exhibie"B-3" " Bghibit"B-4 Exhibit “B-s”Prvs SION JAIME F. BAuTist Chin, CAS# NO.26537 PAGE GOR 35 Testifying further, Paruli said that he received calls in his cell phone asking for the balance. So on March 19, 2001, he filed a complaint” with the NBI. The next day, March 20, 2001, the NBI set an entrapment operation. Thus, at about one o'clock in the afternoon, carrying the marked money composing of ten (10) pieces of Php 500 bills, he went to accused Bautista's chamber. When he handed the sealed envelope containing the marked bills, accused Bautista received the envelope and placed it in his drawer. Thereafter, Paruli said that he went downstairs to call the NBI agents, who then entered the chamber and confronted Bautista. Commotion ensued as the court employees also entered the room. After several hours, accused Bautista went with the NBI agents. At the NBI office, Paruli testified that the NBI agents checked the wallet of accused Bautista and there they found the Php 5,000 marked ‘money. According to the NBI agent, the marked money was found inside the secret pocket of accused Bautista’s wallet On cross-examination, Paruli stated that SMTCI was aware that it was giving Php 10,000 for the purpose of releasing the buses. He said that there was no instance that he was able to talk to accused Bautista and that it was Montes who demanded the money. Further, he said that he was not sure that if Montes acted upon the order of accused Bautista and that he only assumed that Montes received orders from him. He also never saw Montes and accused Bautista talking, Paruli said that on March 21, 2001, after he reported the matter to the NBI, the NBI formed a team that will conduct the entrapment operation. Testifying on the actual entrapment operation, Paruli recounts that when he reached the office, he asked if accused Bautista was in his chamber. Then, one of the court's staff accompanied him inside the office of accused Bautista. Upon seeing accused Bautista, he extended his hand and said, “Judge, heto po yung usapan natin." Accused Bautista took the envelope and put it in his drawer. After he had given the money to accused Bautista, he immediately went out of the room. Paruli said that the money was placed in a sealed envelope. At the time he gave the envelope to accused Bautista, the NBI agents were not present. He also did not tell accused Bautista that the sealed envelope contained money He said that he probably stayed for only about one minute inside accused Bautista’s office. After he came from the office of accused Bautista, Paruli testified that he went down to report to the NBI that he has already given the money. Immediately, the NBI proceeded to the office and confronted accused Bautista. The NBI searched for the money but it was not found in the drawer, in fact, the money was never found during the time of the search The money was only recovered when accused Bautista was in the office of the NBI. He was not there when the NBI agents took accused Bautista’s wallet. He said he was only told that the money was found in the wallet as they were waiting in the office of the ISOD. When asked again, Paruli testified that, at the time the NBI agents confronted accused Bautista, there were only four or five of them inside. Thereafter, several lawyers who were in that courtroom entered and commotion resulted. Then, all of the other court employees from the ; ei JAKDECISION Pps, JAIME: P, BAUTISE | CRIM. Cas NO.26537 Pac Tor35 other branch went to the court to see what's happening so, there was more chaos. However, when confronted with his Affidavit dated September 10, 2001" which stated that: “Nong oras ng aking inabot kay Huwes Bautista ang nasasabing halaga, ako ay nakasuot ng isang salamin na mayroon hidden camera na ipinasuot sa akin ng mga tauhan ng NBI at mga tauhan ng GMA? upang malaman nila kung ano ang nangyari sa loob ng kwarto ng Huwes.””® Paruli said that all he knows was that, only the NBI agents were to accompany him during the entrapment and that he does not know if the NBI contacted GMA-7. The NBI told him that the hidden camera was from GMA-7 but he does not know if at that time there were employees of GMA-7. The glasses, he said were returned to the NBI. On re-direct examination, Paruli stated that the NBI wanted him to wear the eyeglasses with the hidden camera so that when he hand the money to accused Bautista, the camera would be focused and it would be recorded. However, he does not know if it was recorded because it was never shown to him. Clarificatory questions were propounded by the court to which he testified that when he told Montes that Php 20,000 was too much, Montes went out and went upstairs, “Umalis ho siya noon, eh, parang umakyat sa itaas”. Then, Montes retumed back and said that Php 5,000 will be accepted and the remaining Php 5,000 will be given later. Further, when he went upstairs, he saw accused Bautista dictating the order releasing the two buses, even before he handed the first Php 5,000. In all the transactions, it was Montes and another court employee who were in contact with him and not accused Bautista. When he handed to accused Bautista the amount of Php 5,000 in his house, there was no prior conversation and that he only handed the money. Paruli stated further that at the time he gave the balance of Php 5,000.00 in accused Bautista’s office, accused Bautista immediately placed it inside his drawer. He stayed inside a few seconds and then he left the office to call the NBI agents. During the confrontation with the NBI agent, accused Bautista opened the drawer and showed that the money was not there, he also showed the envelope which was empty. The NBI agents attempted to conduct a body search on the person of accused Bautista but the later refused and reminded them that they have no search warrant. Accused Bautista even showed his wallet which contains ‘only Php 200.00, but Paruli said he is not sure. From the clarificatory questions of the court, Atty. Pena, counsel for accused Bautista, were allowed to propound additional questions. 4 Atty. Pena confronted Paruli again with his affidavit which stated, "Matapos tanggapin ni Huwes Bautista ang nasabing halaga ay ipinasok niya ito sa kanyang pitaka. Sa pagkakataong ito ay agad kong tinawagan sa cell phone SyDECISION Pp vs, Jaime P. Baurists Case NO.26537 Bor 3S ang mga ahente ng NBI bilang tanda na naiabot ko na ang halaga,” Paruli answered that accused Bautista first placed it in his drawer and then placed it in his wallet, Atty. Pena pointed out Paruls statement in his affidavit that, “tinawagan sa_cell phone ang mga ahente ng NBI bilang tanda na naiabot ko na ang halaga,” Paruli reasoned that he had his cell phone then and that he sent a message but there was no response. Consequently, he was obliged to {g0 out of the chamber and looked for the NBI agents, Clarificatory questions were again propounded by the Court regarding the marked money. Parull stated that he saw accused Bautista place the envelope containing the marked money inside the drawer and before he left, after almost reaching the door, he tumed his back and he saw accused Bautista putting the money inside his wallet. Further, he said that he stayed inside accused Bautista’s office for ten minutes. Subsequently, MR. NOEL G. MORALES (Morales for brevity), Supervising Agent of the National Bureau of Investigation was presented. On Apzil 1, 2004, Morales testified as follows": He received Paruli's complaint.” It was referred back to him by Atty. Oscar L. Embido, Chief of Intelligence Special Operations Division so that he can take the statement of the former. ‘Subsequently, Morales took the swom statement of Paruli!® and Folloso."® After evaluating these swom statements, the entrapment operation was prepared. Morales asked SI Navallo to prepare the Disposition Form dated March 19, 2001, requesting to the Forensic Chemistry Division to mark with fluorescent powder ten Php 500 bills After the money bills were dusted and placed in white envelope, Morales gave instructions to Paruli about the entrapment operation Thereafter, together with Atty. Vasquez, SI Dave Alba, SI Andrew Bacayan, IA Dan Ebo, SI Rommel Austria, they proceeded to Valenzuela City, Regional Trial Court Branch 75. He was the team leader of the ‘entrapment operation. MM "© Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated April 1,2 "" Exhibit “A” for the Prosecution "* Exhibit “B" for the Prosecution. i "* Exhibit °C” for the Prosecution.DECISION Pe vs, JAIME F. BAUTISTA Crist, CAs NO.26537 PAGE 9 OF 35 Morales’ instructions to Paruli were for him to give the money to accused Bautista and thereafter, he should call them by cell phone, that will be the signal that he has already handed the money, ‘While Paruli was at the office of accused Bautista, the NBI agents were positioned at the ground floor of the sala of accused Bautista, a staircase away. While waiting, Morales received a call from Paruli signifying that he has already handed the money to accused Bautista. Thus, the NBI agents immediately went upstairs and entered the room of accused Bautista, The NBI team was accompanied by two staff of GMA-7 “Imbestigador’. They approached accused Bautista and told him that what he received was marked money. Accused Bautista became hysterical and refused to submit to body search. The NBI did not find the marked bills inside the room of accused Bautista. Next, they proceeded to the NBI Office in Manila. SI Bacayan and Dan Ebo accompanied accused Bautista to the Forensic Chemistry Division while Morales prepared the documents for inquest, ie. transmittal letter to the Ombudsman, affidavit of arrest” (On cross-examination, Morales stated that according to Paruli, it was Montes who demanded the money and not accused Bautista. Further, according to Morales, it was Atty. Embido who requested the presence of GMA-7. While they were waiting at the ground floor of the sala of accused Bautista, the GMA-7 team were not with them. They did not get the affidavit of the GMA.7 team because the NBI believes that they already have sufficient evidence to file a case with the Ombudsman. At the time of the entrapment, the pre-arranged signal was for Paruli to ring Morales’ cell phone. From the time Paruli went upstairs, it took about 15 minutes for him to give the pre-arranged signal. Paruli was still upstairs when he gave the signal, Morales testified that he never saw Paruli handing the money to accused Bautista. At the time they entered the room of accused Bautista, Paruli was about to leave the room. Paruli told them that the money was inside the wallet of accused Bautista. Accused Bautista, while holding his wallet, showed it to the NBI agents. On redirect, Morales stated that GMA 7 lent them the camera which was placed on the eye glasses of Paruli so that they will have evidence of the actual taking of the money. However, the NBI does not have a copy of the footages. Also, the marked money was found inside the wallet of accused Bautista. Morales demonstrated how accused Bautista showed his wallet to the NBI when they were still in his office, holding his wallet, pressing the left side and opening it without showing the other compartment inside the wallet. Answering the clarificatory questions propounded by the Court, Morales testified that before they entered the room of accused Bautista, Paruli told him that he had already given the money and that accused ® Exhibit“ forthe Prosecution, Mh {DECISION Pr ys, JAIME F, BAUTises CRIM, Cask NO.26537 Paci 10 0F 35 Bautista placed it inside his drawer. The NBI agents did not get the marked money from the wallet of accused Bautista, despite the information given by Paruli because he was continuously shouting at them. He admitted that the recovery of the money at the time of the entrapment is very important evidence against accused Bautista. He di ‘not personally see that the marked money were recovered from the wallet of accused Bautista Further, accused Bautista was not informed of his constitutional rights when they arrested him, On June 22, 2004, the Prosecution presented FILIPINA ILAGAN Y VARANAL (lagan for brevity), Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, She was offered as an expert witness for the prosecution. She testified as follows:”' At around 4:30 p.m., the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division received a request for an ultra violet light examination on the person of one Jaime Bautista” Correspondingly, llagan conducted the necessary examination. Thus, accused Bautista’s hands, body and his personal belongings were exposed to ultra violet light examinations. The examination revealed that the palms of the right and left hand of accused Bautista were positive for the presence of fluorescent specks and smudges. The pants of accused Bautista, more particularly the right side pocket and back were positive for the presence of fluorescent powder. The wallet, retrieved by accused Bautista from his right back Pocket, showed presence of fluorescent powder. The five thousand pesos consisting of 10 pieces of Php 500 denominations” found inside the wallet showed the presence of fluorescent powder and fluorescent markings of P-01-08. RRB-NGD FCD-NBI 3/10/01 which were placed by Forensic Chemist Resurrecion Ramos-Bajados of the NBI From the examination, Report No. P-01-82 dated March 22, 2001% was prepared by llagan. The report included a diagram indicating the left and right hands", the affidavit of llagan dated October 29, 2001* and the certification dated March 20, 20017” On cross-examination, tlagan testified that the wallet came to her | possession because he asked accused Baus to reeve it and that he ” Exhibit “H” for the Prosecution. 2 Exhibit “D-1 to D-10" for the Prosecution, 2 Exhibit “I” for the Prosecution. * Exhibit “J” for the Prosecution. ® Exhibit “K” for the Prosecution ” Exhibit “G” for the Prosecution.DECISION PP Vs, JAIME F. BAUTISE CRIM, Cas NO.26537 PAGE 11 OF 38 had no reaction when she asked for the wallet The contents of the wallet, were IDs, pictures and other money bills aside from the Php 500 bills that had fluorescent powder. The presence of the fluorescent powder was only in the side of the wallet were the marked money was taken. The diagram was used to illustrate the where the fluorescent powder were present, llagan testified that she cannot create an opinion as to how the money was touched but she can state which part of the palm that had direct contact with the powder, as she have already indicated in her diagram. On the clarificatory questions of the court, lagan testified that it is a standard operating procedure than when a person is asked to be subjected under ultra violet light examination in entrapment cases, his hands, palmer and dorsal, as well as his clothing and personal belongings are subjected to ultra violet fight examination, even though they are not included in the request. Their understanding of “the person of is the entire body including whatever he has in his pockets or in his pants during the entrapment operation. She also said that before the examination, she was not aware that the subject matter in the entrapment proceeding involves ten pieces of Php 500 bills. The money bills and the wallet were taken into custody by the investigating officers after the examination was concluded llagan also said that she is not aware that the police officers who arrested accused Bautista did not find the money inside the wallet. She stated that she discovered the marked money only by chance when she asked accused Bautista to retrieve whatever he has in his pocket and back pockets. She also testified that she was not aware that Resurreccion Ramos-Bajado had previously marked or dusted ten pieces of Php 500 bills that was used in the operation. On September 16, 2004, the Prosecution called to the witness stand Forensic Chemist Resurreccion Ramos. However, considering the willingness of the Defense to stipulate that the testimony of Forensic Chemist Resureccion Ramos, if presented, will be on the matter that she was the one who placed the markings P-01-08 RRB/NGD FCO-NBI 3/19/01 on the ten (10) pieces of Php 500 bills, and that, she will also corroborate the testimony of Forensic} Chemist Filipina Tagan, the Prosecution dispensed with the presentation of the said witness. Med I *Transeript of Stenographie Notes dated Sept4ber 16,2004DECISION PP vs, JAIME F. BAUTINT CRIM, CASE NO.265, PAGE 1208 35 On March 16, 2005, the Prosecution presented MR. Luts P, FOLLOsO (Folloso for brevity), driver Sierra Madre Trans., Co., Inc. He testified as follows:” (On March 16, 2001, at around 4:00 p.m., Folloso testified that he was ordered by Paruli to fetch him at Valenzuela RTC Branch 75. Upon his artival, he was further ordered by Paruli to drive him to the house of accused Bautista in Angono, Rizal, to know about the document needed for the release of SMTC''s buses that were impounded by the court Folloso said that, together with Paruli and an employee of Valenzuela RTC, they went to the house of accused Bautista. They arrived at around six o'clock in the evening. When they reached the house of accused Bautista, the court employee went inside. When he got out, the court employee pointed to accused Bautista who was then resting in a hammock in front of his house. Paruli approached accused Bautista and talked about the release order of SMTCI's buses. During this talk, Folloso said he was just right behind Paruli. Thereafter, Paruli handed money to accused Bautista who pocketed the same. He learned later on that Paruli gave accused Bautista Php 5,000. After accused Bautista received the money, he signed the release order. (On cross-examination, Folloso testified that before March 16, 2001 he already knew accused Bautista because it was the bus he was then driving that was impounded by accused Bautista, When Paruli gave the money to accused Bautista, he was three (3) meters away from Paruli, However, he does not know from which pocket Paruli got the money. He just saw a Php 500 bill on top of the whole amount. From the questions of the court, the witness testified that as of March 16, 2001 there was already a release order of the attached properties and he'saw this in the house of accused Bautista. He did not see the same but he is sure that it was the release order. Also, Folloso testified that accused Bautista was resting in a hammock in front of his house when they arrived. They parked outside the house of accused Bautista which was fenced. From the fence to the house of accused Bautista, it was about 3-4 meters. He did not enter the gate of accused Bautista because he stayed just in front of his pick-up. JU, | * Transcript of Stenographiic Notes dated March 16, 2005,DECISION PP Vs. JAIME F, BAwrtsts CRIM. Cast: NO.26537 Pact 13.08 35 Subsequently, DAN EBO Y OMAWAS, Intelligence Agent of the NBI, Intelligence Service Operations Division, NBI, was presented by the Prosecution on June 20, 2005. ‘The Prosecution and Defense stipulated on the testimony of this witness as regards his participation in the entrapment operation and that of the Head Agent Morales ‘The witness testified as follows™: The entrapment operation was about a complaint lodged by Paruli at the Intelligence Service Operations Division, NBI. Paruli complained among others that accused Bautista was asking for a sum of money in ‘exchange of releasing a particular resolution that was in connection with a case pending before the sala of accused Bautista. Ebo, testified that he was given an order and instruction by his chief, Intelligence Operations Division, Assistant Regional Director, Atty. Oscar Embido to join the team of operatives and to proceed to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75 of Valenzuela City, Paruli was given instructions by Atty. Noel Morales, who was then the team leader, to hand over the money to accused Bautista, After the entrapment operation, accused Bautista went with them to the Intelligence Service Operations Division, NBI, Taft Ave., Manila. They presented him to Asst, Regional Director Atty. Oscar Embido. Thereafter, Atty. Morales instructed him to bring accused Bautista to the Forensic Chemistry Division. Consequently, Ebo brought accused Bautista before Forensic Chemist Filipina llagan. Together with special Investigator Alba, he was present when the examination was conducted on accused Bautista. The examination revealed that accused Bautista was positive of fluorescent powder, The forensic chemist took ten (10) pieces of Php 500 bills of marked money from the wallet of accused Bautista On cross-examination, Ebo testified that when the forensic chemist retrieved the money from the wallet of accused Bautista, it was the first time he saw the money. He stated that during the entrapment operation, they were supposed to conduct a body search on accused Bautista but he shouted af them, ie > Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated Hine 20, 2005.DECISION PPys AINE F, BAUTISTA Grint. CASK NO.26537 PAGE 14.08 35, ‘Thus: Right after the chemist retrieved the money, she immediately conducted the examination. The money was turned over to him for the purpose of presenting it to Atty. Embido. Ebo further testified that at the time of accused Bautista’s warrantless arrest, he told accused Bautista that he has the right to remain silent and that he has a right to counsel During the entrapment operation, Ebo was situated just outside the door of accused Bautista. Once the money was given, Paruli was instructed to give the pre-arranged signal which is to call Morales on the cellphone. When Paruli got out of the office of accused Bautista, he said that he handed the money already. Ebo stood at the door as security, while Morales and the other agents went inside the office. While inside the office, Ebo overheard Paruli told Morales that the marked money was placed inside the drawer by accused Bautista. He was about to search the drawer but accused Bautista prevented him by saying that that he has no warrant of arrest. On August 31, 2005, the Prosecution formally offered its evidence” EXHBIT ‘DESCRIPTION a Complaint Sheet of Ranel T. Paruli against ___| Judge Jaime B Sinumpaang Salaysay of Ranel T. Paruli dated March 19, 2001 consisting of three | pages Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 40- | V-O1 for Damages with Writ of Preliminary Attachment entitled Claudia Cadium and Rolando Millar, plaintiff vs. Bonifacio dela Cruz, Sierra Madre Transit, Inc. (SMTCI) represented by Chito Oronce, defen Order dated March 1, 2001 of accused | Judge Bautista in Civil Case No. 40-V-01 B-3 Writ of Attachment in Civil Case No. 40-V- 01 dated March 6, 2001 B4 Urgent Motion to File Countetbond and thereafter to Release/Discharge attached | buses dated March 15, 2001 filed by SMTCI consisting of two (2) pages BS ‘Order dated March 16, 2001 oF accused] Judge Jaime Bautista in Civil Case No. 40- \ ™ osctn Foal Ofer of Eis eed Angst 30,2 ¢DECISION Pov, Jane F. Baurises CRIM. Cast, NO.26537 Pack 15.08 35 [v-01 _{ Judge Bautista in ‘Order dated March 16, 2001 of accused ivil Case No. 40-V-01 ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay of Luis Folloso on | Match 20, 2001 consisting of two (2) pages D NBI Disposition Form dated March 19, 2001 signed by SI Orlando L. Navallo and f _____| noted by Oscar L. Embido, Chief ISD D4 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number SR 521615 D2 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number ee ee D3 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number oe RV 430652 D-# Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number Eee ee | 994209 eee | D-5 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number | EE PD 179202 D« Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number HD 830216 D7 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number QW 242001 =e D-8 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number PY 727947 D-9 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Numbet_ SW 177774 D-10 Five hundred peso bill with Serial Number. PM 597878 ‘Arrest Information Sheet Bool nd Arrest Report___ Affidavit of Arrest dated March 20, 2001 signed by Agent/Special Investigators of the NBI namely: Noel Morales, Carlos Vasquez, Rommel Austria, Andrew Bacayan and Dan Ebo consisting of two (2) pages Certification dated March 20, 2001 of Forensic Chemist Filipina V. Tagan Routing Slip, P-01-82 dated March 20, 2001, ‘To Chief, FCD from Chief ISOD re: Judge Jaime Bautista. for examination of fluorescent powders Routing Slip. P-01-82 dated March 20, 2001. To AC, FCD ftom DDTS re: Request of Atty. Oscar Embido for examination under | UV light on the person of Judge Bautista. _| Physics Report No. P-01-82 dj ec March vaDECISION PPVS. JAIME P. BAUrist CRIM, Cas NO.26537 PAGE 160835 23, 2001 submitted by Filipina V. Tagan, | Forensic Chemist I and Neva G. Duya, Forensic Chemist Ill approved by Isabel Bernabe-Pagulayan, Acting Chief BCD noted by Sancho K, Chan, Jr. Deputy Director Technical Services, NBI Forensic Chemistey Division J Diagram indicating the palmer aspect of the left and right hands of accused Jaime Bautista Seca etenal yl Dorsal portion of Exhibit | showing the right front pocket, right back pocket of the pants worn by the accused and the wallet found at the right back pocket of the said pants where the ten (10) five hundred peso | ‘ bills were found. K ‘Affidavit of Filipina V. Ilagan dated | October 29, 2001 / L Physics Report No. P-01-08 dated March 20, 2001 submitted by Forensic Chemist | Resurreccion Ramos-Bajado and Neva G. Duya approved by Isabel Bernabe- Pagulayan Acting Chief FCD and noted by Sancho K. Chan, Jr. Deputy Director ‘Technical Services. Despite the opposition posed by the defense, the formal offer of documentary evidence by the Prosecution was admitted by this Court on September 29, 2005, On October 14, 2005, accused Bautista, by counsel, asked for leave to file demurrer on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. In a resolution dated November 30, 2005, this Court granted said motion. ‘DECISION PPYS. JAIME F. BAUTIST Grin. Cast NO.26537 PAGE TOF 35 Accordingly, accused Bautista filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated December 28, 2005 and subsequently, the Supplemental Argument on the Demurrer to Evidence dated January 2, 2006. The Demurer to Evidence was anchored on the contention that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime of direct bribery. The defense asserts that considering that complainant/witness Paruli never had the opportunity to talk personally with accused Bautista, the important element of the crime is wanting. They maintain that accused Bautista had no knowledge about the money being placed inside an envelope, thus, the intent to commit bribery is absent. Also, the Defense harbored on the inconsistencies of the testimony of Paruli. They claim that the inconsistency in the answers of Paruli significantly underscored the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution. Further, they alleged that the warantless arrest of the accused Bautista is unlawful, thus, the marked money is inadmissible in evidence for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. In a Resolution promulgated on April 4, 2006, this Court denied the demurrer to evidence ratiocinating that the prosecution has sufficient evidence considering the glaring proof of the following circumstances: a) the NBI entrapment team received a complaint from Par; b) During the enttapmen operation, Paruli told them that he already gave the matked money to the accused; and c) they found the white envelope inside the room of the accuse: ‘ ® Record, Vol. Il, page 163, TAS ihDECISION PPV, JAIME, Baurists Cham. Cask No.26537 PAGH 18 OF 35 Moreover, the accuscd’s claim of unlawful arrest was belatedly made. By entering a plea upon arraignment and by actively participating in the trial, accused was deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search. Further, the inconsistencies cited by the accused pertained to minor details, which strengthened, rather than impaired, the credibility of the witness. Consequently, presentation of evidence for the defense ensued. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE On August 17, 2006, the defense presented accused Bautista. He testified as follows: The incident that happened was not an entrapment operation but instigation. He recounts that a civil complaint was filed in his branch by the heirs of deceased passengers who are victims of a vehicular accident caused by Sierra Madre Transit. He is under the impression that Paruli developed the thinking that he is demanding money, but he has not demanded money, ‘A motion for imposition of attachment was filed by the plaintiff (heirs of deceased passengers) and a motion for iting of attachment was filed by defendant SMTCI. The motion to lift was set for hearing on March 16. ‘On said date, accused Bautista recounts that he was in the office during the day but sometime in the afternoon, he went home after presiding a hearing and prepared orders to be signed on Monday. At about six o'clock in the evening, while he was resting outside his residence, he was surprised that some court personnel arrived in his residence. He asked them what they were doing and they pointed to Paruli. Paruli approached ‘him and then the court personnel requested him to sign the Order lifting the attachment, Accused Bautista told them that all orders are to be signed on Monday. The court personnel told him that all the requirements were | complete. Both the court employee and Paruli were begging for him to sign the Order. They said that they were in a hurry to implement the | | Order. Thus, he signed the Order lifting the attachment in good faith After he signed the order, he noticed that Paruli placed something inside ® Record, Vol. I, page 276, Transcript of Stenographiie Notes dated August 17, 2006.DECISION Povs, JAIME P. BAUTISts CRIM, Case NO.26537 Pace 19 OF 35 the folder, but he does not know what it was. Accused Bautista then got ‘one copy of the Order as his personal copy and the other copy was to be submitted to the Clerk of Court. ‘On March 20, 2001 at about one o'clock in the afternoon, while he ‘was in his office, court stenographer, Mrs. Imelda Estanisiao went inside his chamber and said that someone was outside insisting to see him. When he let them in, Paruli was smiling and then he approached him. Paruli shook his hands vigorously. He asked him who he was and Paruli replied, “Sir, | need something from you.” And then he heard someone say, “Expedite the case,” he was not sure whether it was Imelda or Parut. He replied, "Expedite, then lets expedite it.” Then Imelda and Paruli went outside together. Estanisiao then said, “Sir, | didn’t notice there is an envelope there. Sir, there is an envelope.” Accused Bautista said that he did not notice whether it was Paruli who placed it on top of the table or someone else. Thereafter, he was surprised because Imelda said the NBI went inside the stockroom and then later on in his room. Imelda said the NBI was looking for the money. The NBI Agents went inside his office in full force and then they locked the door. The leader told him that he was being placed under arrest. He asked for what reason, the NBI Agent replied that he was given money. The NBI Agents told him that their boss will just taik to him. Hence, he went with them. Upon arriving at the NBI, he was ushered in for fingerprinting, photoprinting. Then, the media arrived. Thereafter, a lady chemist asked for his wallet. He informed her that he has Php 5,000 in his wallet as this was an allowance from the City Government of Valenzuela. After the lady chemist had possession of the wallet, she counted the money and she told the NBI that the money was there. Then, the lady chemist returned the wallet to him. On cross-examination, accused Bautista testified that on the March 16, 2001 hearing. he issued an Order, dictated in open court, giving the plaintiff ten (10) days to comment or oppose the urgent motion to file counterbond.** On even date, he issued an Order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment. The Order lifting the preliminary attachment was received by Paruli on the same date it was signed because he was the ‘one who went to his house and begged for him to sign despite the fact that he was not a party to the case, Accused Bautista testified that when he was resting outside his residence, Paruli together with a certain court personnel approached him and presented the Order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment” After he has signed it, it was the court personnel who gave a copy to Paruli Paruli then gave him an envelope or folder containing his copy of the ‘Order. Next, he returned the folder to the court personnel to be brought to the court When confronted with paragraph 13 of his affidavit” which states that “That this theory is supported by the circumstances leading to the alleged entrapment: First, on March 20, 2001, | was then resting inside the court's chamber when a \ Spa es ree pomni JMS * Exhibit “B-6" for the Prosecution. Exhibit “1” for the DefenseDECISION Pp vs JAIME E. BAuTisT CRIM. Cas NO.26537 Pack 20.08 35 lady staff ushered the complainant inside. | was surprised when he shook my hand vigorously (for the purpose of dusting my hands with chemical powder). He expressed to me his appreciation about my order of lifting the writ and hurriedly placed an envelope in my drawer and walked his way out. Since I was not feeling well at that time, | was too weak to even verify the contents of the envelope. About five to ten minutes thereafter, elements of the NBI numbering to about four forcibly barged into my chamber and forced me to admit receipt of the envelope. They even took my wallet as members of the media pestered on me by indiscriminately taking video footages which landed in the newsroom clearly stolen.” Accused said that he does not know whether Paruli placed it inside the drawer or on top of the table or on top of the drawer, but he maintains that he never took possession of the money. He said that he does not know who were inside his chamber when the agents arrived. Also, there was no search inside his chamber that transpired on March 20,2001. ‘On redirect, he said that he has no recollection of whether Paruli placed the envelope inside the drawer or on top of the table because he was under medication. He took stugerone as medication for diabetes which caused him to get dizzy. To corroborate the testimony of accused Bautista the Defense presented Ms. IMELDA ESTANISLAO (Estanislao for brevin), Court Stenograpber 10, Regional Trial Court, Valenzucla Br. 75. She testified as follows: At about one o'clock in the afternoon, there was a person who went to their office and insisted to see accused Bautista. She learned later on that this person was Paruli. As a litigant, she always see Paruli. At first, Paruli was looking for Anita Mariano, when she told him that Anita was not around, he insisted to see accused Bautista. Although she told Paruli that accused Bautista was still resting because itis still break time, he still insisted. Knowing that accused Bautista is accommodating, she let him in his chambers. When she entered accused Bautista’s chamber, saw accused Bautista not doing well. Since that morning, she knows accused Bautista is not doing well because when they were conducting their hearing, he reset some of the cases for the reason that he was not feeling well because of diabetes. After she let Paruli inside the chambers, she saw nothing unusual as she stayed inside with them, Paruli stayed inside the office for a shortime only. After their conversation, Paruli and accused Bautista shook hands then accused Bautista and Paruli went out of the chambers to the staff room. There were more or less five (5) personnel there. At the staffroom, three men said to them, "Where is the marked money? Where is the marked money?” and all of them there, weye shocked. They found later on that these men were NBI Agents.DECISION PPV. JAIME F. BAUTIST Cram, Case N0.26537 Pace 21 OF 35 On cross-examination, the witness testified that she was asked to testify by accused Bautista. Their staffroom was adjacent to the office of accused Bautista but it was a little bit far and separated by @ door. Accused Bautista’s office was always closed. When she told Paruli that accused Bautista was resting, Paruli told her that he will not take long and that his purpose was personal. Despite knowing that Paruli was a litigant, she let him in because he insisted. She did not hear their conversation because she was a bit far. She stayed there because she was holding a record and was searching for something then. She said that she never heard accused Bautista receive anything or demand any money. ‘The NBI asked them where the marked money was and perhaps this was after the NBI agents banged inside the office of accused Bautista. She further testified that she was not present during the time that accused Bautista was undergoing ultra-violet examination and she does not know that during the examination, the amount of Php 5,000 marked money was retrieved from the wallet of accused Bautista On December 20, 2006, the defense formally offered its evidence. Thu EXHIBITS _ DESCRIPTION Counter-Affidavit of Judge Bautista Supplemental-Affidavit of Judge Bautista 2 ‘Affidavit of Imelda Estanislao 2-A_____| Supplemental-A ffidavit of Imelda Estanislao 3 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Paruli 4 Complaint in Civil Case No. 5 | Order dated March 1, 2001 es 6 _| Writ of Attachment 7______ | Urgent Motion to file counter-bond Order dated March 16, 2001 In a minute resolution dated December 29, 2006, the Court admitted all exhibits offered by the Defense. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Accused Bautista is charged with the crime of Direct Bribery, define and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by BP JMDECISION Ppys, JAIME P, BAUTIST, CRIM. Cast: NO.26537 PAGE 22 0F 35 Blg 871) for allegedly demanding and receiving sum of Php 10,000.00 in exchange for the issued order to lift the writ of preliminary attachment and to release the attached properties of SMTCI Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code states: Art. 210. Direct Bribery ~ Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his 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 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 to prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of 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 BP 871, May 29, 1985) ‘The crime of direct bribery exists when the following elements concur: 1) the accused is a public officer, 2) that he reccived 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 it is his official duty to do; andDECISION PP ys. JAIME P, BAUTIST, CHUM. CASE NO.26537 PAGE 23 OF 35 4) that the crime ot act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.® First ELEMENT: The accused is a public officer ‘The first element of the offense is undisputed. It is submitted by both parties that accused Bautista is a public officer at the time of the alleged commission of the crime. Accused Bautista was the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75 of Valenzuela City at the time material to the case. SECOND ELEMENT: The accused received directly or through another some gift of present, offer or promise; ‘The thrust of accused Bautista’s defense is denial. He asserts that he never demanded and received Php 10,000 from Paruli in exchange of the issued order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment and release of the SMTCI buses. He claims that Paruli may have been victimized by unscrupulous petsons who used his name without his knowledge and consent in order to gain pecuniary advantage.” Moteover, accused Bautista harps on the inconsistencies of \¢ testimony of the prosecution witnesses in an attempt to exculpate himself. VAN * Marifosque vs. People, G.R. No. 156685, July 27,2004 ® Counter-Affidavit of Jaime Bautista dated March 29, 2001, Record, vol} 1jpage P25.DECISION Pp vs JAIME F. Baur. xine Case NO26537 PAGE 2408 35, avers that the witnes: and their testimonies lack credibility sufficient to warrant a conviction, Likewise, he questions the legality of his warrantless arrest. He argues that the same was unlawful as the same was not done in flagrante delcio.® He claims that the supposed entrapment is actually an instigation. Therefore, the alleged marked money is inadmissible in evidence. Regrettably, denial, like alibi, is an inherently puerile defense if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It is viewed as self-serving, negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.” ‘To merit integrity, it must be supported by strong evidence of culpability; otherwise, it will crumble in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Opposed to the bare denials of accused Bautista, the Prosecution presented firm and positive declarations of witnesses Paculi, Morales, Folloso, , i Ebo and Uagan. ‘These testimonies, bolstered by physical and document evidence, all together buttressed accused’s guilt. Thus, accused Bautista cant feign innocence since all the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent. / *' People vs. Sernadilla, 350 SCRA 243 People vs. Bagcal, 350 SCRA 402DECISION PPvs, Jae F. Baurisrs CRIM, Case. NO.26537 PAGE 25 OF 35 As testified to by Paruli, Montes told him that accused Bautista was asking for Php 10,000 for a favorable action on theit motion. The first Php 5,000 was given to accused Bautista on March 16, 2001 in front of his house in Angono, Rizal. After accused Bautista was given the money, he signed the release order of the attached SMTCI buses. ‘This was corroborated by the testimony of witness Folloso. Conversely, accused Baulista, while refuting a” receipt of the Php 5,000, he admitted signing the release order brought by a court staff and Paruli in his residence in Angono, Rizal. ‘This is despite knowledge that Paruli was not a party to the case. ‘This corrupt transaction brought about to different orders of even date, Exhibit B-5 and B-6. Subsequently, the balance of Php 5,000 was received by accused Bautista in an entrapment operation conducted by NBI Operatives on the basis of Paruli’s complaint for Robbery/Extortion, Paruli recounted that on March 20, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m., together with several NBI agents and equipped with GMA-7’s hidden camera attached to his eyeglasses, he proceeded to the sala of accused Bautista in RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City. Carrying the marked money composing of ten (10) pi of Php 500 bills, Paruli went inside the chamber of accused Bautfta accompanied by a lady staff. MS TSN dated August 17, 2006, pages 49-52.DECISION Ppvs. JAIME P. Baurists CRIM. Cas NO.26537 PAGE 260835 Upon seeing accused Bautista, Paruli handed the sealed envelope containing the marked money. Accused Bautista received it and placed it in his drawer. ‘Thereafter, with the use of his cellphone, Paruli gave the pre-arranged signal to the NBI agents who were then waiting outside. Cortoborating the testimony of Paruli, the NBI agents Morales and Ebo testified that Paruli filed a complaint for Robbery/extortion against accused Bautista with their office on March 19, 2001. Acting on the said complaint, they prepared to conduct an entrapment operation by requesting the Forensic Chemistry Division to mark with fluorescent powder ten (10) pieces of Php 500 bills. ‘The marked money was then placed inside a white envelope. Presented to support the testimonies are Exhibits A, B,C,D, and D-1 —D-10. When Paruli gave their pre-aeranged signal, the NBI Operatives entered the room of accused Bautista and confronted the latter. ‘The accused were shouting invectives and became hysterical. He refused the attempt of the agents for a body search. However, they were able to search the drawer of the accused and found the white envelope that held the marked money but which they found empty. Paruli then told them that the money was already in the pocket of accused. After several hours, they proceeded to the NBI Office in Manila with accused Bautista. While SI Bacayan and SI Ebo accompanied accused Bautista to the Forensic Division, Morales prepared the documents for inquest MADecision Pps, JAIME P, BAUTISTA CRIM. Cas NO26537 Pact 27 oF 35 Witness Tlagan, the NBI forensic chemist who conducted the ultra-violet light examination of accused Bautista testified and declared that she recovered the ten (10) pieces of Php 500 bills previously marked and dusted with fluorescent powder from inside accused Bautista’s wallet, which the latter got from the right back pocket of his pants. Amplifying, the guilt of accused Bautista is the result of the examination under ultra-violet light conducted by witness Ilagan, Exhibits G, I, J, J-1K and L.. It revealed the presence of yellow fluorescent powder on the following: 1. The palmer aspect of the left and tight hands in the form of specks and smudges; 2. Across the right outside seam near the right front pocket of the pants worn by the above-named subject, 3. ‘The outside surface of the right back pocket of the pants worn by accused; 4. Inside the wallet found at the sight back pocket of the pants worn by the accused Bautista where the ten (10) Php 500 were found. An examination made on the money bills showed the presence of yellow fluorescent powder and the fluorescent marking "P-01-80 RRB/NGD int NBI 3/19/01" made by NBI forensic chemist Ramos-Bajado, whose signatukds \ \ in invisible ink appeared on the bills.DECISION Pry. JAIME F. BAUTINC Cran, Casi: NO.26537 PAGE 28 OF 35 Notably, no evidence was offered to refute and discredit the findings of the NBI Forensic Chemist as to the presence of the fluorescent powder in the hands, pocket and wallet of accused Bautista. The physical evidence stand unrebutted and undisputed. For his part, accused claims that Panuli’s accusation is a brazen lie. It is downright malicious and highly preposterous since the amount is too insignificant for him co put his profession and good reputation on the line. He maintains that he signed the Order dated March 16, 2001 releasing the attached SMTCT properties in his residence and in the presence of Paruli because the latter begged him. He claims good faith in signing the said Order despite the fact that Paruli is not a party to the case. On March 20, 2001, he asserts that Paruli walked into his chambers and vigorously shook his hands (for the purpose of dusting his hands with chemical powder) and thereafter placed an envelope in his drawer.© About five to ten minutes thereafter, elements of the NBI forcibly barged into the chamber and forced him to submit receipt of the envelope. As regards the recovered Php 5,000 in his wallet, he avers that the same was an allowance from the City government of Valenzuela.” Unmistakably, defense’s denial is bereft of any clear and credible substantiation sufficient to extricate him from a finding of guilt. Accused’s “TSN dated August 17, 2006, page 19. “ Counter-Affidavit of Jaime Bautista. dated March 24, 2001, Record, Vol. I, page 225, “TSN dated August 17, 2006, page 36.DECISION PPVS. JXIMEF. BAUTE Crit. Cast NO.26537 PAG# 29 OF 35 version of events is implausible and does not inspite belief. His testimony do not bear the earmarks of truth and candor, revealing itself as nothing but self- serving. Viewed in any manner, accused’s proffer of denial simply cannot stand ution. ‘The against all the incriminating evidence presented by the Pro: categorical testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses in conjunction with the vis accused’s bare denials, physical and documentary evidence, vis-d unsupported with clear and convincing proof, the former, should be accorded greater weight Furthermore, contrary to accused’s assertions that the testimonies of the witnesses ate mere concoctions becausé of their inconsistencies and conflicts, these inconsistencies lend the testimonies mote credible and plausible. It is basic in law that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses are badges of truthfulness and candor for they erase any suspicion that the testimony was rehcarsed,"* Further, the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as itis ‘on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable.” ec ‘ * People vs. Albior, 352 SCRA 35. * People vs. Abundo, 349 SCRA $77Die 10s Pp Ween Mm Moreover, were there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives his positive and categorical declarations on the stand, made Gnder solemn oath, should be given full faith and credence.” In the instant case, there is ncither an allegation nor showing that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill-motive to defeat the veracity of their testimony. In fact, complainant Paruli reported the matter to the NBI after he vecived a Favorable action on his motion, Proving therefore thar Paruli was ner moved by abhorrence towa rds accused. \ccuised Bautista’s assail on the testimony of prosecution witness Paruli on the g ound that there is nothing to prove that accused Bautista agreed 10 accep! any bribe in exchange of releasing the attached buses considering thar the transiction was benvecn Paruli and Montes, not with accused Bautista, must fail. The law is clear Art. 210. Direct Bribery ~ Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his 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 three times the value of the gift, in addition to the penalty cortesponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed Xxx (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg MG < vople vs. Deka Cruz, 49 SCRA 124DEC te pes Honyerise Pa ction was between Montes and Paruli In is inconsequential thar the trans the subsequent chain of events unmistakably proved that accused Bautista agreed te receive Php 10,000 from Paruli in consideration of the release order fof the buses. “Thus, as heretofore discuss d, accused Bautista, signed the release order brought by a court staff and Paruli in his residence in Angono, Rizal atwer he was handed the first Php 5,000. “This corrupt transaction brow about to different orders of ¢ ndate, Exhibit B-S and B-6. ‘The Php 5,000 tion balance was received by accused in the entrapment ope! Peremptorily, accused Bautista assail his warrantless arrest, Te argues that the sume was illegal as it was not done dx flagrante delicto, Com sequently, the allege:d marked money is inadmissible in evidence for being the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” \ccused’s argument deserves scant consideration. 11 is clear that accused is estopped to question the illegality of the arrest by cnicring a plea of not guilty without moving to quash the information on such ground VAN People 9s, Rab 403, July 28. 1900Die re Pe Pr iweeiss ity attendant to an arrest was cured when accused voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court by entering a plea not pusliy and by partieiparing in the trial However, assuming that the procedural aberration was ised, the ame cannot stand Iv is well-settled that warrantless arcest based on personal knowledge of cts prounded on probable cause, which means actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, arc lawful In a replete of cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of warrantless arrest when the same is bused on probable cause, which means actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, “The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, inthe absence of itctual belief of the arresting officers, the uspicion that the person to be wrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts. 0, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong, in themselves to create onable the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. —\ suspicion rherefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.” In the case at har, at the time of attest, there isa clear showing of Sha Uimil as, Ramos Case, October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 281 JkDrea Pe probable cause based on reasonable grounds of suspicion that accused has commited the crime considering the giving of the pre-arranged signal of Parul and hereatier the discovery of the white envelope which contained the marked money ‘THiRD ELEMENT: The gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, of to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and Uhe third clement of the offense is present. ‘The money was given in consideration of the issued order to lift the attachment and to release the tached properties. i was undispured that accused Bautista issucd an Order dated March 16, 2001 oiving plainnifis Cadium and Millar ten (10) days to comment on the motion of SMUCT to accept counter-bond. However, after the first pay-off in the house of accused, an Order of even date releasing the attached properties was subsequently i signed in the residence of accused in the presence of Parult and a court employee after Paruli handed the first Php 5.000, “These two Orders, Exhibit B-5 and B-6, subsrana finding. that indeed the Php 10,000 was given in consideration of the telease order \ JHBFOURTH ELEMENT: That the crime or act relates (0 the exercise of his functions as a public officer. The fourth clement of the offense is unceringly present, ‘The act which accused Bautista agreed to perform — the issuance of the Order releasing the Writ of \tiachment - is connected and intimately ated with the performance Of his official duties being, then an Lixccutive Judge of the Repional ‘Trial Court Branch 75, Valenzuela City Jn the light of the foregoing, it is proved with moral cerrainty that accused Bautista, demand and receive Php 10,000 from Paruli in consideration of the issued order releasing, the writ of attachment of SMICIs buses, WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered Phe Court finds accused J INET), BAUTISTA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery defined and penalized under Art, 210 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Batas Pambansa Bly. 871. \ccordingly, in the absence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstance, applying, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is hereby sentenced to. suffer imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and | day of privion earreccional, as minimum, MRE 9 sears, 4 months and | day of prisiow mayor, as maximum, and to pay it fine of Php 30,000.00, He is likewise sentenced to suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification SO ORDERED. (Quezon City, Philippines vie Chairman {Drew tes We Concur EFREN N. DE\LA CRUZ Nor \SSOCLPTE JUSTIC ATTESTATION Fantest that the canclusions in the abowe decision were reached in consuliition befvre the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division Chairman CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIN, 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 10 the writer of the opinion of the Coutt’s Division: TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CasTRO Presiding Justice