Title
Supreme Court
Tad-y y Babor vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 148862
Decision Date
Aug 11, 2005
Two Bacolod City engineers charged with bribery for allegedly demanding P4,000 to approve a building permit; Supreme Court acquitted due to insufficient evidence and lack of authority to issue the permit.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148862)

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (criminal procedure and due process)
– Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 210 (Direct Bribery)
– Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code), Section 309

Antecedents of the Case

On July 26, 1995, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) filed Information against Tad-y and Velez for direct bribery (RPC Art. 210) and, separately in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), for violation of RA 3019 § 3(c). Both charges arose from allegations that on July 24, 1995, Tad-y solicited and received ₱4,000 from Encabo in exchange for signing or approving a building inspection certificate or occupancy permit for Wong’s Atrium Building.

Facts Established by Prosecution

Encabo testified that after construction finished on April 25, 1995, he sought final inspections and occupancy certification. While other OCE officers conducted inspections and signed certificates from May to June 1995, Petitioner Tad-y refused to inspect or sign unless the unpaid balance of ₱4,000 was paid. An altercation ensued between Encabo and Tad-y in early May 1995.

Entrapment Operation

Encabo reported the alleged extortion to PNP-CIS; Officer Muñoz arranged an entrapment on July 24, 1995. Encabo delivered a white envelope containing forty marked ₱100 bills (total ₱4,000) to Tad-y at Andre’s Bakeshop, signaling receipt by placing his eyeglasses on his collar. Tad-y handed the envelope under the table to Velez. Police immediately arrested both officers, retrieved the envelope from Velez, and confirmed the marked bills. Forensic testing revealed ultraviolet powder on Tad-y’s right forearm.

Testimony of Encabo and Laboratory Evidence

Encabo maintained that Tad-y signed the certificate of final inspection at the bakeshop only after opening the envelope and seeing its contents. Forensic Chemist Villavicencio’s report and sketch confirmed the presence of ultraviolet powder on Tad-y’s right arm, consistent with handling the envelope.

Defense of Petitioner and Witnesses

Tad-y denied demanding or receiving money. He argued that under PD 1096, only the City Building Official could issue a certificate of occupancy and that on July 24, 1995 he signed a certificate of final inspection, not an occupancy permit. Tad-y and Velez testified they believed the envelope contained inspection certificates, not money. Both described coercive actions by police during the arrest and parrying attempts to force Tad-y to touch the envelope’s contents. Tad-y pointed to inconsistencies in Encabo’s statements and absence of the actual signed certificate in evidence.

Trial Court Decisions

– MTCC (Sept. 28, 1998): Convicted Tad-y of direct bribery (RPC Art. 210 § 2), acquitted Velez. Sentenced Tad-y to 2 years 4 months to 3 years imprisonment and ₱8,000 fine, plus disqualification.
– RTC (Sept. 13, 1999): Affirmed MTCC verdict with modified penalty (4 months Arresto Mayor to 1 year 8 months 21 days Prisión Correccional).
– RTC (May 18, 2001, related case): Acquitted both Tad-y and Velez in RA 3019 § 3(c) prosecution.

Appeals and Higher Courts

– Court of Appeals (Feb. 2, 2001): Affirmed RTC decision in toto.
– Supreme Court: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues on Review

Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tad-y (1) agreed to perform an act connected to his official duties in consideration of ₱4,000, and (2) received the money pursuant to that agreement.

Legal Analysis on Direct Bribery

Direct bribery (RPC Art. 210) requires proof that a public officer:

  1. Received or agreed to receive a gift or present;
  2. In consideration of performing an act linked to official duties; and
  3. The act was unjust or involved refraining from official duty.
    Only an officer with authority or apparent power to perform the act may be guilty.

Assessment of Evidence and Credibility

– No evidence Tad-y ever demanded ₱4,000 for an occupancy permit, which only the Building Official could issue (PD 1096 § 309).
– The only document Tad-y signed was a certificate of final inspection on July 24, 1995, not an occupancy certificate; the Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the Building Official on July 27, 1995.
– Encabo’s testimony showed material c






...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.