You are on page 1of 2

Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes
part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
The essential elements set out in the afore-quoted legislative definition of the crime of violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law are as follows:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction;
3. He either
a. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest; or
b. is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by any law.

Teves vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Edgar Teves, Mayor of Valencia, Negros Occidental and his wife Teresita Teves was charge of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practice Act. While in the performance and taking advantage of his official functions and conspiring with his wife, issued a license in favor of
Daniel Teves to operate Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center, said accused having a direct financial or pecuniary interest therein considering the fact
that said cockpit arena is actually owned and operated by him and a wife Teresita.
On 16 July 2002, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision (1) convicting petitioners Edgar and Teresita Teves of violation of Section 3(h) of the AntiGraft Law; (2) imposing upon them an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of nine years and twenty-one days as minimum to twelve years as
maximum; and (3) ordering the confiscation of all their rights, interests, and participation in the assets and properties of the Valencia Cockpit and
Recreation Center in favor of the Government, as well as perpetual disqualification from public office
Issue:
W/N Court erred in conviction of Teresita Teves as co-conspirator because conspiracy was not established.
Ruling:
Petitioner Teresita Teves must be acquitted. The charge against her is conspiracy in causing "the issuance of the appropriate business permit/license to
operate the Valencia Cockpit and Recreation Center." For this charge, she was acquitted. But as discussed earlier, that charge also includes conspiracy
in the possession of prohibited interest.
Conspiracy must be established separately from the crime itself and must meet the same degree of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. While
conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission
of the crime, all taken together, the evidence must reasonably be strong enough to show community of criminal design
Certainly, there is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring spouse. For a spouse or any person to be a party to a conspiracy as to be liable for the
acts of the others, it is essential that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design. Except
when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in
the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act must consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators.
Section 4(b) of the Anti-Graft Law, the provision which applies to private individuals, states:
SEC. 4. Prohibitions on private individuals.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in
Section 3 hereof.
We find no sufficient evidence that petitioner Teresita Teves conspired with, or knowingly induced or caused, her husband to commit the second mode of
violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law.