#18. LAURO G. SORIANO, JR. vs.

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-65952 July 31, 1984
Facts: Thomas N. Tan was accused of qualified theft in a complaint lodged with the City
Fiscal of Quezon City which was assigned investigation to Soriano, Jr. who was then an
Assistant City Fiscal.

In the course of the investigation the petitioner demanded P4,000.00 from Tan as the
price for dismissing the case. Tan reported the demand to the National Bureau of
Investigation which set up an entrapment. Because Tan was hard put to raise the
required amount only P2,000.00 in bills were marked by the NBI which had to supply
one-half thereof. Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the accused GUILTY for
Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b), of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Issue: Whether or not the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint conducted by a Fiscal
is a "contract or transaction" so as to bring it within the ambit of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Ruling: No. It is obvious 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.

Tecson vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:

Petitioner was, at the time of the commission of the offense charged in the Information, the
Municipal Mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Upon the offer of Tecson, he and Mrs. Luzana
agreed to engage in an investment business. They would sell tickets and Luzana would buy
appliances and cosmetics at a discount, with the use of the proceeds of the sales of tickets, and
resell them. Tecson also acted as agent selling tickets.

After having already sold 40 tickets in the amount of P4,000.00, bringing with him a
Mayors Permit in the name of Mrs. Luzana for their business called LD Assurance Privileges, he
asked for a cash advance of P4,000.00 and he would not release the Mayors Permit unless the
cash advance was given him. Mrs. Luzana reluctantly acceded, saying that it was not the due
date yet, so he was getting the cash advances on his share. Tecson signed for the cash advance.
Mrs. Luzana secured a Business Permit in accordance with the instructions of Tecson. The
permit was in her name but the same was for the operation of Prosperidad Investment and Sub-
Dealership, the new name of the business.

With the revocation of her business permit, private complainant below filed an
administrative case against petitioner, for violation of Section 3 [c], R.A. No. 3019 and Section
60 of B.P. Blg. 337 (then Local Government Code) with the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG).

Issue: Whether or not the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes. The crime charged has four elements, namely:

(1) The accused is a public officer;
(2) That in any manner or capacity he secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for
a person any government permit or license;
(3) That he directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present
or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and
(4) That he requested or received the gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for the help given or to be given.
The elements of the offense charged having been proven beyond reasonable doubt,
petitioners conviction must therefore stand.

DIONISIO B. COLOMA, JR vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 205561; September 24, 2014

Facts:

Coloma was the Director of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) at the time
of the alleged violation of R.A. No. 3019. On November 19, 1999, he was designated as Special
Assistant and Action Officer to the Director, Logistics and Installation Services (LIS)of the
Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC). Gimenez assigned Coloma to assist in the search for a
suitable construction site of the Philippine National Police Regional Training Site.

Coloma’s designation as Special Assistant and Action Officer to the LIS-PPSC was
terminated, and he was transferred to the Philippine National Training Institute (PNPI). He was
likewise ordered torender a termination report relative to his participation and observation in the
construction of RTS 9.

SPO4 Concepcion stated that his team conducted an ocular inspection and interviewed
the supplier of materials and the Land Bank officials. Coloma was indicted in the Information
filed with the Sandiganbayan which reads that Coloma made it appear that the said project with
the budget of ₱5,727,278.59 was completed or almost completed as stated in his Memorandum
dated October 10, 2001, when upon ocular inspection conducted in June 2002, the fifty-capacity
barracks which was part of the project was not completed, and that the actual cost of the facilities
actually constructed is only Three Million One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (₱3,180,000.00),
to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Public Safety College in particular and the
government in general.

The Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed decision finding Coloma guilty as charged. It
found that all the essential elements of the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
were present in the case
Issue: Whether or not Coloma’s conviction for the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 was proper.

Ruling: Yes. Coloma was charged with the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
which has the following essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) 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. As observed by the Sandiganbayan, all these
elements exist in this case.

EFREN L. ALVAREZ vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 192591; June 29, 2011

Facts:

The Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Muñoz passed a resolution authorizing petitioner to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with API for the project in connection with the municipal
government’s plan to construct a four-storey shopping mall ("Wag-wag Shopping Mall"), a
project included in its Multi-Development Plan.

Petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
(SB-06-CRM-0389). The Sandiganbayan rendered judgment convicting the petitioner after
finding that: (1) petitioner railroaded the project; (2) there was no competitive bidding; (3) the
contractor was totally unqualified to undertake the project; and (4) the provisions of the BOT law
and relevant rules and regulations were disregarded and not followed. The said court also found
that the municipal government suffered damage and prejudice with the resulting loss of several
of its buildings and offices, and having deployed its resources including equipment, personnel
and financial outlay for fuel and repairs in the demolition of the said structures. Damage suffered
by the municipal government was quantified at ₱4.8 million, or 2% of the total project cost of
₱240 million, representing the amount of liquidated damages due under the performance security
had the same been posted by the contractor as required by law. As to the allegation of
conspiracy, the Sandiganbayan held that such was adequately shown by the evidence, noting that
this is one case where the Ombudsman should have included the entire Municipal Council in the
information for the latter had conspired if not abetted all the actions of the petitioner in his
dealings with API to the damage and prejudice of the municipality.

Issue: Whether or not damage or injury need to be proven to warrant the conviction of the
Accused-Petitioner.

Ruling: NO. The third element of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed in three
ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of
any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 is enough to convict.20 Damage or injury caused by petitioner’s acts though alleged in the
information, thus need not be proven for as long as the act of giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference either through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence was satisfactorily established. Contrary to petitioner’s
assertion, the prosecution was able to successfully demonstrate that he acted with manifest
partiality and gross inexcusable negligence in awarding the BOT contract to an unlicensed and
financially unqualified private entity.