[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
94 views1 page

Soriano JR Vs Sandiganbayan

- The Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor accused Lauro Soriano of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly accepting a bribe in exchange for influencing the outcome of a preliminary investigation. - The issue was whether a preliminary investigation conducted by a fiscal is a "contract or transaction" under the Anti-Graft law. - The court held that a preliminary investigation is neither a contract nor a transaction, and does not involve consideration, so Soriano could not be convicted under the Anti-Graft law. However, the elements of bribery under the Revised Penal Code were present, so the court found Soriano guilty of bribery instead.

Uploaded by

Estee Xooh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views1 page

Soriano JR Vs Sandiganbayan

- The Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor accused Lauro Soriano of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly accepting a bribe in exchange for influencing the outcome of a preliminary investigation. - The issue was whether a preliminary investigation conducted by a fiscal is a "contract or transaction" under the Anti-Graft law. - The court held that a preliminary investigation is neither a contract nor a transaction, and does not involve consideration, so Soriano could not be convicted under the Anti-Graft law. However, the elements of bribery under the Revised Penal Code were present, so the court found Soriano guilty of bribery instead.

Uploaded by

Estee Xooh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-65952 July 31, 1984

LAURO G. SORIANO, JR., petitioner,


vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Dakila F. Castro for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

FACTS:

The principal issue in this petition to review a decision of the Sandiganbayan is whether or not the
preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint conducted by a Fiscal is a "contract or transaction"
so as to bring it within the ambit of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor accuses LAURO G. SORIANO, for Violation of Section 3,


paragraph (b) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
committed as follows.

It is obvious that the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Neither was it
a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. A
transaction, like a contract, is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and
this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner

The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code
because to do so would be violative of as constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him. Wrong. A reading of the information which has been reproduced
herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right
to be informed

ISSUE:WON Prosecutor Lauro Sorioano guilty of the crime of bribery?

HELD:YES, the judgment of the Sandiganbayan is modified in that the petitioner is deemed guilty
of bribery as defined and penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two
(2) years of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay a fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00)
Pesos. The rest of the judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.

You might also like