Abogadong Parak

Abogadong Parak Academic and educational purposes.

Bribery (Panunuhol):Tumutukoy sa krimen kung saan ang isang opisyal ng gobyerno ay tumatanggap ng alok, pangako, regalo,...
25/08/2025

Bribery (Panunuhol):

Tumutukoy sa krimen kung saan ang isang opisyal ng gobyerno ay tumatanggap ng alok, pangako, regalo, o anumang bagay na may halaga kapalit ng paggawa ng isang bagay na may kaugnayan sa kanyang tungkulin—maaaring ito ay isang krimen, isang bagay na hindi krimen, o pag-iwas na gawin ang isang tungkulin.

Ang pangunahing sangkot dito ay ang opisyal ng gobyerno na tumatanggap ng suhol.
May dalawang uri:

Direct Bribery (Direktang Panunuhol): Ang opisyal ay sumasang-ayon na gawin ang isang bagay (krimen man o hindi) kapalit ng suhol.

Indirect Bribery (Hindi Direktang Panunuhol): Ang opisyal ay tumatanggap ng regalo dahil lamang sa kanyang posisyon, kahit walang kapalit na aksyon.

“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...” -RPC

Corruption of Public Officials (Korupsiyon ng Opisyal ng Pamahalaan):

Tumutukoy sa krimen ng pribadong tao (hindi opisyal ng gobyerno) na nagbibigay ng suhol, regalo, o pangako sa isang opisyal ng gobyerno upang hikayatin itong gumawa ng bagay na magreresulta sa pananagutan ng opisyal sa direct o indirect bribery.
Ang pangunahing sangkot dito ay ang pribadong tao na nagbibigay ng suhol.

“In Direct Bribery, the public officer agrees to perform an act... in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer. Only the public officer may be charged under and be held liable for Direct Bribery... while the person who... gave the gifts or presents, may be indicted only under Article 212 for Corruption of Public Officials, regardless of any allegation of conspiracy.”
— Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan (2007)

2. Halimbawa
Halimbawa ng Bribery:

Isang traffic enforcer (opisyal ng gobyerno) ang humingi at tumanggap ng ₱500 mula sa isang motorista kapalit ng hindi pag-isyu ng traffic violation ticket. Dito, ang traffic enforcer ay maaaring kasuhan ng direct bribery dahil tumanggap siya ng suhol kapalit ng hindi paggawa ng kanyang tungkulin.
Halimbawa ng Corruption of Public Officials:

Ang motorista na nag-abot ng ₱500 sa traffic enforcer upang hindi siya tiketan ay maaaring makasuhan ng corruption of public official.

16/05/2025

Navigating the Sulu sea

06/05/2025

A PNP member, as a civil service employee, is prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity. When, indeed, a police officer be administratively and criminally liable for engaging or participating partisan political activity?

In the case of Malinias vs Comelec G.R No. 146943, the Supreme Court ruled:

Finally, Malinias asserts that private respondents should be held liable for allegedly violating Section 261 (i) of B. P. Blg. 881 because the latter engaged in partisan political activity. This provision states:
“Sec. 261 (i) Intervention of public officers and employees. – Any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices; any officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any police force, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may hereafter be organized who, directly or indirectly, intervenes in any election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer.”
Section 79, Article X of B.P. Blg. 881 defines the term “partisan political activity” as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.”

Malinias asserts that, in setting up a checkpoint at Nacagang, Tambingan, Sabangan, Mountain Province and in closing the canvassing room, Corpuz and Tangilag unduly interfered with his right to be present and to counsel during the canvassing. This interference allegedly favored the other candidate.
While Corpuz and Tangilag admitted ordering the setting up of the checkpoint, they did so to enforce the COMELEC’s fi****ms ban, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968, among others.

There was no clear indication that these police officers, in ordering the setting up of checkpoint, intended to favor the other candidates. Neither was there proof to show that Corpuz and Tangilag unreasonably exceeded their authority in implementing the COMELEC rules. Further, there is no basis to rule that private respondents arbitrarily deprived Malinias of his right to be present and to counsel during the canvassing.

The act of Corpuz and Tangilag in setting up the checkpoint was plainly in accordance with their avowed duty to maintain effectively peace and order within the vicinity of the canvassing site. Thus, the act is untainted with any color of political activity. There was also no showing that the alleged closure of the provincial capitol grounds favored the election of the other candidates.

Lesson: kahit pa nagbabantay ang pulis sa isang political rally hanggang wala siyang kinakampanyang kandidato o lantarang sumusuporta at nagsasabi or nanghihingi ng suporta na iboto ang isang kandidato. Basta nag aayos lang tayo ng katahimikan at kaayusan, ito ay hindi partisan activity.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AMeLHYWjT/

18/04/2025

Is an action to contest a falsified deed of sale imprescriptible?

In Viovicente, et al. v. Viovicente, et al., G.R. No. 219074 (2020), the Court reiterated:

"Article 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe... the action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an action for the declaration of its nullity, which does not prescribe."

In Catindig-Rodrigo v. Vda. de Meneses, G.R. No. 165851 (2011):

"...the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration... respondent's defense for the declaration of the inexistence of the contract does not prescribe."

In Uy v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 173186 (2015):

"Being an absolute nullity, the deed is subject to attack anytime, in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe."

In Espiritu, et al. v. Severina Realty Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 135920 (2001):

"An action for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe"

Exception: If the Action is Based on Fraud (Not Falsification/Nullity)

If the action is for reconveyance based on fraud (not on the absolute nullity of the contract), the law provides a four-year prescriptive period from the discovery of the fraud. However, if the basis is forgery or simulation (which makes the contract void), the action is imprescriptible.

For academic purposes only.

17/04/2025

Can a governor suspend BJMP personnel?

A provincial governor does not have the authority to suspend BJMP personnel. The power to discipline, suspend, or remove BJMP personnel is vested in the BJMP and the DILG, as provided by Republic Act No. 9263 and Republic Act No. 9592.

Disclaimer: For educational or academic purposes only. Not intended for a specific situation or current event.

Address

Pinagbuhatan
Pasig

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Abogadong Parak posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category