LAST week, the BIR dismissed five provincial employees for alleged "mishandling" of tax money. They were all small fellows compared to big city supervisors and examiners on the take.

The Customs office also relieved six employees for allegedly releasing plastic resin declared as packaging materials contained in THREE container vans, too big a "show" to be missed.

The two revenue-raising offices did not state if the 11 employees would immediately face indictment under the law punishing graft and corrupt practices.

If the sanction stops after dismissal or relief or reassignment to other divisions in the same bureau, chances are the clean employees may get contaminated with their ways.

The anti-graft law provides a maximum of 15 years of prison term for every count of graft committed by government employees, a penalty stiff enough to discourage the so-called money-related offenses.

Some judges multiply 15 years by the number of counts, say, 20, to emphasize the point that graft is a kind of special offense and arrive at the total of 300 years in prison.

In the martial law years, some DPWH officials involved in overpricing the purchase of land to widen highways in the Visayas were given prison terms of more than 1,000 years. One such official died of a heart attack.

The judges and prosecutors know that, except for the death penalty, the maximum prison term imposable will not exceed 40 years in the Penal Code. But one prosecutor I know told his barkada that giving 300 years or more to corrupt employees and officials may cause others to pause, ponder, and shy away from corruption.

Corrupt officials are dictated by habit and are not even scared to commit so obvious a questionable deed like clearing three vans of misdeclared cargo that deprived the government of large amounts in duties and taxes.

Years ago, one GSIS clerk "cleared" a few salary-loan checks for his pocket. The anti-graft court multiplied the number of checks by the proper penalty. The clerk was ordered to serve 25 years for his small vices. The clearly harsh penalty shocked the bureaucracy who thought some bigger fellows in that office did not miss a meal for a bigger offense.

The anti-graft law was enacted on Aug. 17, 1960, to cover acts not squarely addressed by the Penal Code. The penalty includes "perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the government any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income."

In the more sophisticated case like plunder, a public officer … "who amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth … in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (R50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death."

At the coffee shop, an interesting question came up: If the amount amassed or STOLEN is R1 less than R50 M is the crime still plunder?

One of the best guesses is the crime would slide back to the anti-graft law that imposes 15 years per count but the total penalty is still subject to the Penal Code limit of not more than 40 years.

The difference is it removes the probability of facing a DEATH sentence and the matter of asking for bail is not farfetched.

But why the difference of only P1 to remove the penalty of death. The answer is: SEARCH ME! Questions of this kind have hounded Criminal Law professors since the Penal Code was revised on Jan. 1, 1932. (The code was written and enacted in Spanish. The original Spanish text of the code prevails over the English text or translation.)

The actual situation is it is easier to add R5 or R100 to make a round figure of R50 M or more than to deduct R1, or R5 from it to make a difference in the penalty to be imposed. (Comments are welcome at rvp@fastmail.ph.inter.net)