CONFESSION TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION)
mFull description
case digestFull description
A short comprehensive digest of a case on ethicsFull description
Consti Law 2Full description
CrimProFull description
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan case digestFull description
SORIANO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [131 SCRA 184; G.R. NO.L65952; 31 JUL 1984] Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. The petitioner, who was an Asst. Fiscal, was assigned to investigate. In the course of the investigation, petitioner demanded Php.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. Tan reported it to the NI which set up anentrapment. Tan was given a Php.!000, mar"ed #ill, and an d he ha had d su supp ppli lied ed th the e ot othe herr ha half lf.. Th The e en entr trap apme ment nt su succ ccee eede ded d an and d an information was filed with the $andigan#a%an. After trial, the $andigan#a%an rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilt% as a principal in violating the Anti &raft and 'orrupt Practices Act ().A.*0+-. A motion for reconsideration was
denied
#%
the
$andigan#a%an,
hence
this
instant petition.
Issue: hether or Not the investigation conducted #% the petitioner can #e rega re garrde ded d
as
con co ntr trac actt
or
tra ran nsa sact ctio ion n
wit ith hin
the
pur urvi view ew
of
.)A )A.* .*0+ 0+. .
$ec.*.. 'orru 'orrupt pt pract practices ices of pu#lic offic officers ers / In addit addition ion to Held: ).A. *0+ $ec.* acts act s or omi omissi ssions ons of pu# pu#lic lic off office icers rs alre alread% ad% pen penali alied ed #% e1i e1isti sting ng law laws, s, the fol ollo low win ing g
shal sh alll
cons co nsttit itut ute e co corr rrup uptt pr prac acttic ices es
of
an% an %
pu#l pu #lic ic
off ffic ice er
and
arehere#% declared to #e unlawful2 111 #. 3irectl% or indirectl% requesting or receiving an% gift, present, share percentage or #enefit, for himself or for other person, in connection with an% contract or transaction #etween the &ovt. and an% other part% wherein the pu#lic officer in his official capacit% has to intervene under
the
law.
The petitioner stated that the facts ma"e out a case of direct #ri#er% under Art.!+0 of the )P' and not a violation of ).A. *0+ sec.* (#-. Theoffense of direct
#ri#er%
is
the offense charged
not
the offense charged
which
is
violation
and of
is
not
).A.*0+
included sec.*
in (#-.
The Th e res respon ponden dentt cla claime imed d tha that, t, tra transa nsacti ction on as use used d her hereof eof,, is no nott lim limite ited d to
commercial or #usiness transaction, #ut includes all "inds of transaction whether commercial, civil, or administrative in nature. The court agrees with the petitioner. It is o#vious that the investigation conducted #% the petitioner was neither a contract nor transaction. A transaction li"e a contract is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions. And this element is a#sent in the investigation conducted #% the petitioner. udgment modified. Petitioner is guilt% of direct #ri#er% under Art.!+0 of the )P'.