View full case

JUANITO T. MERENCILLO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Juanito Merencillo, an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from an incident on September 28, 1995, in Tagbilaran City, where Merencillo allegedly demanded and extorted P20,000 from Maria Angeles Ramasola Cesar in exchange for the release of her Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR) for a land purchase.

Cesar, frustrated with Merencillo's demand, sought the help of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and arranged an entrapment operation. She met with Merencillo and handed him a white envelope containing marked money. Merencillo reacted to the thickness of the envelope and a member of the entrapment team photographed him holding it. When Merencillo tried to throw the envelope out the window, it hit the ceiling and fell to the first floor. The entrapment team then identified themselves and arrested Merencillo.

During the trial, Merencillo denied the charges and claimed that he never asked for money. He argued that he was surprised when the policemen arrested him upon receiving the white envelope from Cesar.

After the trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Merencillo guilty as charged.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding petitioner's evidence and affirming the RTC decision.

  2. Whether or not petitioner was placed in double jeopardy.

  3. Do minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony?

  4. Can a person be charged with both violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) and a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act?

  5. Is there double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code?

  6. Whether or not there is double jeopardy in this case.

  7. Whether or not the charges against the petitioner are separate and distinct offenses.

RULING:

  1. The Sandiganbayan did not err in disregarding petitioner's evidence. The findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan were supported by evidence and were not against the law and jurisprudence. The trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and its findings and evaluation of evidence should be respected on review. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were considered by the RTC and the Sandiganbayan, but they were ruled to be minor and did not detract from the overall credibility of the witnesses.

  2. Petitioner was not placed in double jeopardy. The crimes of violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and direct bribery (Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code) are distinct offenses with different elements. The prosecution's theory was that petitioner violated Section 3(b) of RA 3019 by demanding and receiving money from the private complainant. The prosecution also charged petitioner with direct bribery for the same act of demanding and receiving money. Since the elements and penalties for the two offenses are different, petitioner's prosecution for both offenses does not constitute double jeopardy.

  3. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. The inconsistencies referred only to minor details that did not detract from the truth of the prosecution's testimonial evidence. As long as the testimonies agree on essential facts and the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other, the inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be successfully invoked as grounds for acquittal.

  4. A person can be charged with both violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act. Section 3 of RA 3019 declares certain acts as corrupt practices of any public officer and are deemed unlawful. Being charged with violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 does not constitute double jeopardy, as it does not prohibit charging a person simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code. The test to determine double jeopardy is whether one offense is identical or necessarily includes the other.

  5. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code. The offense charged under Section 3 of RA 3019 is not identical or necessarily included in the offense of direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code. They have distinct elements and while they may have common elements, not all essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other offense. Therefore, the rule against double jeopardy does not apply.

  6. No. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy applies to a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different offense. In this case, although the charges stemmed from the same transaction, the act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses, direct bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

  7. Yes. The charges against the petitioner are separate and distinct offenses. Direct bribery encompasses a wider scope and includes the performance of an act constituting a crime, the execution of an unjust act that is not a crime, and agreeing to refrain or refraining from doing an act which is the petitioner's duty. The petitioner was charged with direct bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which have different elements.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The calibration of evidence and the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses belong to the trial court. Appellate courts generally respect the trial court's findings and conclusions, especially if there is no arbitrariness or overlooked material facts and circumstances.

  • Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses may be considered by the court, but minor inconsistencies that do not affect the overall credibility of the witnesses do not detract from their testimonies.

  • Double jeopardy does not apply if the accused is charged with distinct offenses with different elements and penalties, even if based on the same act.

  • Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly with respect to irrelevant details, do not affect the substance, veracity, or weight of their testimonies. In fact, such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony as they guard against memorized falsities.

  • Charging a person with violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act does not constitute double jeopardy. The offenses are not identical or necessarily included in each other as they have distinct elements.

  • Double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof, or whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other.

  • Double jeopardy applies when there is a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different offense.

  • Direct bribery and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act are separate and distinct offenses.

  • Double jeopardy does not attach when there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged.