Facts:

The case involves Ang Tex as the accused-appellant and the El Pueblo de las Islas Filipinas as the querellante-apelado. The events transpired on October 18, 1932, in Manila, where Ang Tex had rented a truck, identified as No. TH-530 Nueva Ecija, which was being driven by a chauffeur named Mariano Ronquillo. At approximately 5:30 PM, the truck was stopped due to an overload of cargo, leading to the arrest of Ronquillo. During this incident, Ang Tex approached Detective Pedro Manuel, who had arrested Ronquillo, and offered him P1.50 in an attempt to secure Ronquillo's release. The detective initially ignored this proposition, but Ang Tex persisted, suggesting that it would be better for Manuel to keep the money rather than let it go to the government. Consequently, Detective Manuel arrested Ang Tex and took him to the police station. Ronquillo was subsequently charged with violating the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila and was convicted. Ang Tex was charged with att...

Facts:

1. Incident Details:

   • The appellant, Ang Tex, rented a truck (No. TH-530 Nueva Ecija) driven by chauffeur Mariano Ronquillo.
   • On October 18, 1932, at around 5:30 PM, the truck was traveling along San Marcelino Street in Manila.
   • The truck was overloaded, leading to the arrest of the chauffeur, Mariano Ronquillo, by Detective Pedro Manuel.

2. Bribery Attempt:

   • Ang Tex offered Detective Pedro Manuel P1.50 to release the chauffeur.
   • Detective Manuel ignored the initial offer.
   • Ang Tex persisted, offering the money again, suggesting it would be better for Manuel to keep the money rather than let it go to the government.
   • Detective Manuel arrested Ang Tex and brought him to the police station.

3. Legal Proceedings:

   • Mariano Ronquillo was charged and convicted for violating the Revised Ordinances of Manila.
   • Ang Tex was charged with attempted bribery and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
   • He was sentenced to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the confiscation of the bribe amount.

4. Appellant’s Defense:

   • Ang Tex admitted offering P1.50 but claimed it was part of P5.00 that Detective Manuel had demanded from him.
   • The court found this defense unproven.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Elements of Attempted Bribery:

   • The crime of bribery requires an offer or promise of something of value to a public officer in exchange for an act related to their official duties.
   • Attempted bribery occurs when the offer is made but not consummated.

2. Credibility of Witnesses:

   • The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight unless there is a clear showing of error.
   • The court found Detective Manuel’s testimony more credible than Ang Tex’s defense.

3. Penalty Modification:

   • Under Articles 212 and 210, Paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for bribery is arresto mayor in its maximum degree and a fine not less than the value of the offer and not more than three times its value.
   • Since the crime was only attempted, the penalty was reduced to two degrees lower, resulting in arresto menor and a fine of P3.00.