Title
Supreme Court
Acejas III vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 156643
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2006
Public officers and a lawyer conspired to extort P1M for a passport's return; entrapment led to their arrest and conviction for direct bribery.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156643)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural Background
    • Francisco SB. Acejas III and Vladimir S. Hernandez filed consolidated petitions for review (G.R. Nos. 156643 & 156891) seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s March 8, 2002 Decision and January 3 & 14, 2003 Resolutions in Criminal Case No. 20194.
    • They were convicted of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code for extorting P1,000,000 and receiving P25,000 in marked money from Takao Aoyagi and Bethel Grace Pelingon–Aoyagi in exchange for returning Aoyagi’s passport.
  • Underlying Transactions and Meetings
    • December 17–22, 1993: BID Agent Hernandez seized Aoyagi’s passport as guarantee of his appearance at a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) investigation. Aoyagi engaged the Lucenario Law Firm (through Acejas) via a Contract for Legal Services.
    • January 5 & 8, 1994: Multiple meetings at Aristocrat Restaurant and Hotel Nikko among Aoyagi spouses, Filomeno “Jun” Pelingon Jr., Police Officer Perlas, BID Agents Hernandez and Conanan, and Atty. Acejas to negotiate return of the passport. Demand was for P1,000,000.
    • January 12, 1994: At Diamond Hotel, a marked-money envelope (P25,000) was handed over after Hernandez returned the passport to Acejas, who passed it to Perlas. NBI agents then arrested Perlas, Acejas, and Victoriano; Victoriano was later acquitted.

Issues:

  • Hernandez’s Contentions
    • Insufficient evidence of conspiracy to extort.
    • Absence of elements required for direct bribery.
    • Overreliance on uncorroborated testimony of Filomeno Pelingon.
    • Acquittal of Conanan inconsistent with a finding of conspiracy.
    • Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
  • Acejas’s Contentions
    • Rejection of the conspiracy theory.
    • Protection by lawyer–client relationship and lawful duty.
    • Alleged entrapment rather than instigation by petitioners.
    • Challenges to witness credibility and alleged discrepancies.
    • Affidavit of desistance creates serious doubt.
    • Failure to establish “bad faith” element in bribery.
    • Non-fulfillment of direct bribery elements.
    • Suppression of evidence—non-presentation of the complaining victim.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.