G.R. No. 1740 - People vs Gloria

The case involves Julio Gloria, an unsuccessful candidate for president of the town of Bayambang during the municipal elections held on December 1, 1903.
Following his electoral defeat, Gloria filed a protest with the provincial board of Pangasinan, alleging irregularities in the election process.

While his protest was under consideration by the provincial board, Gloria approached the provincial treasurer, who was also a member of the board.
He offered and promised to give the treasurer a sum of 200 pesos in exchange for his “aid and support” to bolster the protest against the confirmed election of the winning candidate.

The charge brought against Gloria was for an “attempt” to commit the crime of bribery.
All the facts as presented above were admitted at trial without dispute, which established the factual foundation of the case.
The central factual contention was whether the act of offering money to induce support for his protest amounted to an overt act in an attempt to commit bribery.

The appellant argued that his action was merely a proposal or offer to commit a crime, and not the actual commission of a criminal act.
He contended that, under the provisions of the Penal Code—specifically pointing to those articles that treat mere proposals differently—his action should not qualify as an actual attempt.

Whether the offer made by Julio Gloria to the provincial treasurer, in exchange for support in his electoral protest, constitutes an “attempt” to commit bribery under the Penal Code.

The appellant’s defense rested on the argument that his proposal was merely suggestive and did not amount to a direct attempt or overt act as defined by criminal law.
The issue further involved interpreting the scope of the Penal Code, particularly whether there exists any provision that penalizes a mere proposal when the act itself is incomplete.
It was necessary to determine if the refusal of the treasurer, which halted the progression of the bribery attempt, could be considered a factor that prevents the fulfillment of the crime’s elements, or if the act itself was sufficient to warrant criminal liability.