G.R. No.

L-2971 April 20, 1951

FELICIANO MANIEGO y CATU, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

Feliciano Maniego was employed as a laborer to work as the person in charge of delivering
summons and subpoenas in the Municipal Court of Manila. Nevertheless, Maniego was
permitted to write motions for dismissal of prescribed traffic cases against offenders without
counsel, and to submit them to the court for action, without passing through the regular clerk.
Felix Rabia, the complainant herein, appeared and inquired from the accused about a subpoena
that he received. In connection with a traffic violation, and that the said violation has already
prescribed. But then Maniego informed Rabia that he is penalized with a P15 fine, and that
Maniego can fix this if Rabia pay him P10. Rabia payed Maniego in which he pocketed. And
then Maniego was charged for violating article 210 of the RPC, but maniego contends that at that
time he was not a public officer because he was merely hired as an ordinary government
employee.

ISSUE:

Whether Maniego is not a Public officer.

RULING:

NO. No. Maniego is considered a public officer under Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code
which includes all persons “who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine
Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class.” That definition is quite
comprehensive, embracing as it does, every public servant from the highest to the lowest. For the
purposes of the Penal Code, it obliterates the standard distinction in the law of public officers
between “officer” and “employee”. Further, even assuming that Article 203 can’t be applied,
although Maniego was originally engaged as a laborer, he was temporarily performing public
functions when he was permitted to draft motions. And as in the performance thereof he
accepted, even solicited, monetary reward, he certainly guilty as charged. The receipt of bribe
money is just as pernicious when committed by temporary employees as when committed by
permanent officials.
G.R. No. 148862. August 11, 2005
RUBIN TAD-Y y BABOR, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Rubin Tad-y y Babor, is an engineer at the Office of the City Engineer in Bacolod
City. He was accused of accepting a bribe of P4,000 in exchange for signing and approving a
building occupancy permit. The bribe was allegedly solicited from Julio Encabo, an electrical
contractor representing the owner of the building. Then the PNP conducted an entrapment
operation and Babor was found guilty for direct bribery.

ISSUE:

Whether Babor is guilty for the crime of direct bribery

RULING:

No. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of direct
bribery. The essential elements of direct bribery are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the
offender accepts an offer, promise, gift, or present; (3) the offer or gift is accepted with a view to
committing a crime, executing an unjust act, or refraining from doing an official duty; and (4) the
act agreed upon or executed is connected with the performance of the offender's official duties.
For the crime of direct bribery, all the elements must be established, the act opening of an
envelope in front of the witnesses and handing the envelope to another does not constitute as an
act of accepting bribe.