Q: Merencillo, an examiner of the BIR, demanded money from a taxpayer in exchange for the

approval of a certificate authorizing registration. An entrapment operation was conducted where

Merencillo was caught in the act receiving the money. He was charged for violating R.A. 3019, the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and direct bribery under the RPC. Is there double
jeopardy in this case?
A: No. Sec. 3 of RA 3019 provides that “in addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law”. One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a
felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being
charged with a felony under the RPC. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged
simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
(Merencillo vs. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007)

Q: Tad-y, a structural analyst of the Office of the City Engineer of Bacolod City, allegedly
demanded money from Encabo for the issuance of certificate of final inspection and certificate of
occupancy. An entrapment operation was conducted where Tad-y supposedly received the money.
Can Tad-y be held liable for direct bribery?
A: To be liable for bribery, it is sufficient if the actions of the government officer, affected by the bribe,
are part of any established procedure consistent with the authority of the government agency. However,
where the act is entirely outside of the official functions of the officer to whom the money is offered,
the offense is not bribery. In this case, it is incredible why Tad-y would demand the said amount as
precondition to his signing a certificate of occupancy considering that it is only the Building Official
who is specifically vested with authority to sign said certificate. Moreover, the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tad-y demanded the money. The circumstances surrounding the
entrapment also disprove any intention on the part of Tad-y to accept the money and consider it his
own. (Tad-y vs. People, G.R. No. 148862, August 11, 2005)

Q: Sazon, a Senior Management Specialist of the DENR, demanded from R&R Shipyard
supporting documents for the banned species of logs found in the latter’s premises. R&R failed to
provide the documents. Sazon then demanded P100,000.00 from R&R accompanied by threats of
prosecution and confiscation of the logs. He received the money in an entrapment operation. Is
Sazon liable for the crime of robbery extortion?
A: Yes. In robbery there must be intent to gain and unlawful taking or apoderamiento, which is defined
as the taking of items without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Sazon received the
money for her personal benefit, thus the elements of unlawful taking and intent to gain are present.
Sazon also employed intimidation to get the P100,000.00. By using her position as Senior Management
Specialist of the DENR, he succeeded in coercing R&R to choose between two alternatives: to part
with their money or suffer the burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs.
(Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150873, February 10, 2009)