Title
United States vs. Te Tong
Case
G.R. No. 8645
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1913
A police official entrapped Te Tong in a bribery attempt by agreeing to substitute seized gambling evidence for money, leading to his arrest. The court ruled it as attempted bribery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 8645)

Parties, Venue, and Material Dates

The United States was the plaintiff and appellee, while Te Tong (alias Tunga) was the defendant and appellant. The conviction was for attempted bribery, and the trial court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of 6,000 pesetas plus an additional fine of 750 pesetas, together with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and it further declared confiscated P500, representing the amount offered as the bribe. The events central to the case occurred on August 28, 1912, August 30, 1912, and September 1, 1912.

Factual Background: The Gambling Raid and the Seized Evidence

On August 28, 1912, Robertson conducted police operations as comandante of the Province of Cebu. On that date, Yap Shut and Te Tong, together with others, were surprised in a jueteng gambling game and were arrested and charged with gambling. During the arrest, the police officials seized various books belonging to the person in charge of the game and other articles and utensils used therein. Robertson kept these items under his personal supervision, placing them in an iron safe in his office.

Factual Background: The Unidentified Chinaman’s Proposal and Robertson’s Agreement

On the night of August 30, 1912, an unknown Chinaman was found by Robertson conversing with Robertson’s Chinese cook in the kitchen. Robertson asked the cook the Chinaman’s identity. The cook informed him that the Chinaman wished to speak about the seized books, explaining that certain interested Chinamen desired permission to remove those books from Robertson’s possession and substitute others in their place. Robertson agreed to the substitution on the condition that he would be paid a sufficient sum of money. The unknown Chinaman then left.

Factual Background: Te Tong’s Visit, the Substitution, and the Money Payment

On the night of September 1, 1912, Te Tong went to Robertson’s house, informing him that he brought with him a sum of money intended as consideration for the substitution. Prior to this meeting, Robertson arranged for two members of the police force to position themselves secretly so that they could observe and hear what transpired. Robertson then lit the lamp, opened the iron safe, and took out the books. Te Tong examined the books and selected two of the larger volumes, identified as those containing evidence highly damaging to his case. After picking these books, Te Tong delivered other books similar in appearance as substitutes. After the substitution, Robertson demanded immediate payment. Te Tong stated that the money was at his house, but Robertson insisted on immediate payment. Te Tong then produced a roll of bills totaling P500 and delivered it to Robertson.

As Te Tong began to leave the office, Robertson called the two policemen who had been placed in secret positions. They came forward and stated that they had seen and heard all that occurred. Te Tong was then arrested. The Court of First Instance found the facts proved beyond shadow of doubt. The case therefore turned on whether the acts amounted to attempted, frustrated, or consummated bribery.

The Core Issue on Appeal

The only issue raised on appeal was the juridical classification of the bribery act—whether it should be treated as attempted bribery rather than frustrated or consummated bribery—given that Robertson had agreed to the substitution, had taken possession of the books, and had received P500 during the encounter.

Arguments and the Trial Court’s Treatment

The trial court convicted Te Tong of attempted bribery and imposed monetary penalties, subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency, and confiscation of the P500 shown to have been offered. On appeal, the Court confronted jurisprudence addressing similar factual patterns where the officer—though appearing to accept the offer—actually served as part of enforcement that prevented the corruption from being fully realized.

Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning: Jurisprudence Treating Similar Acts as Attempted Bribery

The Court held that its prior decisions in substantially similar cases classified the crime as attempted bribery. It cited earlier holdings including U. S. vs. Sy-Suikao, U. S. vs. Paua, U. S. vs. Camacan, and U. S. vs. Tan Gee.

In U. S. vs. Sy-Suikao, the defendant offered an internal revenue officer a payment arrangement tied to allowing withdrawal of spirits without exacting taxes. Although the officer pretended to accept and to enter the agreement, the officer reported the matter and arranged for the arrest of the defendant after only part of the withdrawal occurred. The Court in that case ruled the offense was attempted bribery.

In U. S. vs. Paua, the accused paid P200 to an inspector in the customhouse of Manila as a guaranty for an agreement to pay P500 if the inspector issued a certificate for a steamer, even though the conditions required for the certificate were not met. The inspector was said to have pretended to accept the sum, to entrap the accused, and then promptly reported the incident to superiors and to the police. The Court treated the act as attempted bribery.

In U. S. vs. Camacan, officers guarded a corral where carabaos were kept. Camacan approached one officer and offered P40 for permission to remove four carabaos. The officer accepted the agreement and part of the money was paid; however, the carabaos were not actually delivered because the officer sought to entrap the accused. The Court ruled the act as attempted bribery.

In U. S. vs. Tan Gee, the Court characterized the situation as similar and likewise held it to be attempted bribery. While the decision acknowledged that there was “some authority to the contrary,” it declared that the Court would follow the “substantially uniform holding” that the offense in such circu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.