01) JARAVATA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
January 31 1984 / J. Abad Santos / Cruz, J. -No law invested petitioner with the power to intervene in the payment of the salary
differentials  far from exercising in any power, he sought to expedite the payment
TOPIC: Sec 3(b) Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act, power to intervene into of the same
contract or transaction
-His official capacity as assistant principal does not require him to intervene in the
DOCTRINE: payment of salary differentials
Sec. 3(b) refers to a public officer whose intervention in contract or transaction
is required by law. Hence, Jaravata’s official capacity as assistant principal WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED and conviction of petitioner Jaravata is set
does not require him to intervene in the payment of salary differentials of aside.
teachers.

FACTS.
 Petitioner Hilario Jaravata was the Assistant Principal of the Leones
Tubao,La Union Barangay HS. On 5 Jan 1979, he informed six classroom
teachers of the approval of the release of their salary differentials for
1978. To facilitate its payment, petitioner and the teachers agreed to
reimburse the petitioner of his expenses, which totalled P220. The sum
was divided among the six, at the rate of P36 each.
 The teachers actually received their salary differentials. Pursuant to their
agreement, they, with the exception of two teachers, gave the petitioner
varying amounts of money exceeding the P36. But as the school’s
administrator did not approve it, the petitioner was ordered to return the
money. Petitioner complied.
 The petitioner was charged with violating Sec 3(b) of RA No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; the Sandiganbayan found him guilty of
the same.

ISSUE: WON petitioner violated Sec 3(b) of RA No. 3019 - NO

RULING:
Sec. 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:
xxx (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person in connection with any
contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. Xxx

Petitioner was, at the time material to the case, a “public officer” as defined by Sec. 2
of RA No 3019, i.e. “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even normal from the government”, and it may be said that any
amount he received in excess of P36 from each of the complainants was in the nature
of a gift or benefit  But in the opinion of the Court, Sec 3(b) refers to a public
officer whose official intervention is required by law in a contract or transaction.