R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
AUGUST 2013
R.A. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
G.R. NO. 187340,
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury
to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his functions. Here, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly found the
concurrence of the three elements. First, petitioner, being the city engineer of Cebu, is undisputedly a public officer.
Second, the failure of petitioner to validate the ownership of the land on which the canal was to be built because of
his unfounded belief that it was public land constitutes gross inexcusable negligence. In his own testimony,
petitioner impliedly admitted that it fell squarely under his duties to check the ownership of the land with the
Register of Deeds. Yet he concluded that it was public land based solely on his evaluation of its appearance, i.e. that
it looked swampy. Moreover, the undue injury to private complainant was established. The cutting down of her palm
trees and the construction of the canal were all done without her approval and consent. As a result, she lost income
from the sale of the palm leaves. She also lost control and use of a part of her land. The damage to private
complainant did not end with the canals construction. Informal settlers dirtied her private property by using the
canal constructed thereon as their lavatory, washroom, and WASTE DISPOSAL site.
SEPTEMBER 2013
R.A. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
G.R. NO. 187268,
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013.
delivery an act or omission evidencing bad faith and manifest partiality. It must be borne to mind that any
procurement or acquisition of supplies or property by local government units shall be through competitive public
bidding. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he is aware of such requirement, however, he proceeded just
the same due to the alleged advice of the unnamed DECS representative that there was already a negotiated contract
a representation or misrepresentation he willfully believed in without any verification. As a Governor, he must
know that negotiated contract can only be resorted to in case of failure of a public bidding. As it is, there is no public
bidding to speak of that has been conducted. Intentionally or not, it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to
protect government funds. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very least, especially so, that
petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the Provincial School Board.
G.R. NO. 187268,
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013.
NOVEMBER 2013
R.A. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
G.R. NO. 168951 & G.R. NO. 169000,
DR. ROGER R. POSADAS AND DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
R.A. 3019; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; causing undue injury. Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 requires the
prosecution to prove that the appointments of Dr. Posadas caused undue injury to the government or gave him
unwarranted benefits. The Supreme Court has always interpreted undue injury as actual damage. What is
more, such actual damage must not only be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree
of certainty. A finding of undue injury cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon
speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. The element of undue injury cannot be presumed even after the supposed
wrong has been established. It must be proved as one of the elements of the crime. Here, the majority assumed that
the payment to Dr. Posadas of P30,000.00 monthly as TMC Project Director caused actual injury to the Government.
The record shows, however, that the P247,500.00 payment to him that the COA Resident Auditor disallowed was
deducted from his terminal leave benefits.
DECEMBER 2013
R.A. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION AND THIRD DIVISION
HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO PEREZ, RAMON ARCEO AND ENEST ESCALER
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION AND THIRD DIVISION
HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO PEREZ, RAMON ARCEO, ENEST ESCALER AND RAMON
CASTILLO ARCEO, JR.,
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; in connection with a contract or transaction. In issuing the questioned
resolution, the Sandiganbayan applied the restrictive meaning of the term transactionas used in section 3(b) of R.A.
3019 adopted in Soriano Jr. v. Sandiganbayan. In Soriano Jr., the Supreme Court (SC) pronounced 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 State here argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack
or in excess of jurisdiction for applying the interpretation of the term transaction inSoriano Jr. considering that the
term transaction should be construed more liberally. The SC did not give credence to the States position. It held
that it does not help the State any that the termtransaction as used in section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 is susceptible of
being interpreted both restrictively and liberally, considering that laws creating, defining or punishing crimes and
laws imposing penalties and forfeitures are to be construed strictly against the State or against the party seeking to
enforce them, and liberally against the party sought to be charged. Hence, the SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan did
not arbitrarily, or whimsically, or capriciously quash the information for failing to properly state the fourth element
of the violation of section 3(b) of R.A. 3019.
MARCH 2013
R.A. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
G.R. NO. 168539,