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 Summary (G.R. No. 156643)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioners: Francisco Salvador B. Acejas III and Vladimir S. Hernandez.
Respondent: The People of the Philippines.

Key Dates

– December 17–22, 1993: Initial meetings; Aoyagi’s passport taken as guaranty and legal services contracted.
– January 5 and 8, 1994: Negotiation meetings at Aristocrat Restaurant and Hotel Nikko.
– January 12, 1994: Entrapment and turnover of supposed “payoff” at Diamond Hotel; arrests follow.
– February 8, 1994: Information filed for direct bribery under Article 210, Revised Penal Code.
– March 8, 2002: Sandiganbayan Decision finds Hernandez, Conanan, Perlas, and Acejas guilty.
– January 3 & 14, 2003: Sandiganbayan Resolutions affirm convictions and deny motions for reconsideration/new trial.
– June 27, 2006: Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990).
– Revised Penal Code Article 210 (Direct Bribery): receiving gifts or presents in consideration of acts relating to official duties that do not constitute crimes.
– Rules on conspiracy (Revised Penal Code Article 17).
– Code of Professional Responsibility (lawyer’s ethical obligations).

Facts

BID agent Hernandez served a mission order to investigate Takao Aoyagi’s immigration status and held his passport as a guaranty of appearance. Through police officer Perlas and lawyer Acejas, the Aoyagis were introduced to negotiate its return. A contract for legal services was signed on December 22, 1993, stipulating a P50,000 acceptance fee (half due upon engagement). The Aoyagis left for Davao, returned in early January 1994, and met with Hernandez, Conanan, Perlas, and Acejas to discuss retrieval of the passport and alleged Yakuza/drug allegations against Aoyagi.

Prosecution’s Version

Witnesses (Aoyagi spouses and NBI agents) testified that from January 5 onward, petitioners conspired to extort P1,000,000 in exchange for the passport’s return. Partial payments were negotiated; marked money totaling P25,000 was handed over during an NBI-arranged entrapment at Diamond Hotel on January 12. Aoyagi testified that Hernandez refused the envelope, pointed to Acejas to receive it, and Acejas passed it to Perlas. Victoriano later collected the envelope before NBI agents intervened.

Defense’s Version

Hernandez maintained he held the passport only as guaranty under a valid mission order and returned it at BID direction. Acejas asserted he acted solely as counsel: he negotiated the recovery, threatened litigation against Hernandez if the passport was not returned, and believed the brown envelope contained his firm’s outstanding legal fee. He denied knowledge of extortion and left the scene due to a purported car-theft signal from Victoriano.

Sandiganbayan’s Findings

– Elements of direct bribery and conspiracy were proven beyond reasonable doubt: a public officer (Hernandez) received money in consideration of an official act (returning the passport).
– Hernandez and Conanan demanded money; Perlas negotiated; Acejas accepted the envelope and delivered it to Perlas.
– Victoriano was acquitted for lack of proof of conspiracy.
– Inconsistencies in witness statements were deemed immaterial.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

Hernandez contended: lack of clear evidence of conspiracy, overreliance on uncorroborated testimony, and absence of requisite elements for direct bribery.
Acejas argued: his acts fell within lawyer-client privilege and duties, the arrangement was not entrapment but instigation by the Aoyagis, material witness discrepancies, and suppression of the principal victim’s testimony.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

– Direct bribery (second form) requires: (1) public officer; (2) receipt of gift/present; (3) in consideration of a lawful official act; (4) related to official duties. These were met.
– Hernandez’s pattern of meetings outside official premises, demand for partial payment, and directing the envelope to Acejas negated his claim of purely pr



...continue reading

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.