This Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act

of (a) "causing
any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
as amended.[13] The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at
the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.[14]

As we explained in Bautista v. Sandiganbayan[15]:

Indeed, Sec. 3, par. (e), RA 3019, as amended, provides as one of its elements that the public officer
should have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or by giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The use of
the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), or as aptly
held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not, however, indicate
that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either
mode or under both.[16] (Underscoring supplied.)

The Court En Banc likewise held in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[17] that proof of the extent or quantum of
damage is not essential. It is sufficient that the injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to
be substantial enough and not merely negligible.[18] Under the second mode of the crime defined in
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 therefore, damage is not required. In order to be found guilty under the
second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.[1 (Alvarez vs. People G.R. No. 192591 June 29,
2011)