5

Javarata v Sandiganbayan 127

SCRA 363
Facts

Hilario Javarata, assistant principal of La Union Barangay Highscool, was accused of prejudicing
and damaging, by taking various sum of money, classroom teachers namely Romeo Dacayanan,
Domingo Lopez, Marcela Boutista and Francisco Dulay. it was alleged that Javarata used his
influence as public official by taking advantage of his moral and official asendency over the
teachers.

Javarata was found guilty ,by Sandiganbayan, of violationg Section 3(b) of R.a. 3019 which
reads “Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers – in addition to acts an omissions of
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitue corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared unlawful

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving 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”

Issue

whether or not Javarata violated the above-quoted provision of the stature?

Held

No. there is no question that Javarata at the time material to the case was a “public  officer” as
defined by section 2 of R.A. 3019, “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent
or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation,
even normal from government” it may also be said that any amount which Javarata received in
excess of the P36.00 was in the concept of a gift or benefit. The pivotal question, however, is
whether Javarata, an assistant principal of the highschool in the boondocks, Tubao, La Union, “in
his official capacity has to intervene under the law” in the payment of the salary differentials of
the complainants. it should be noted that the arrangement was “ to facilitate its salary
[differential payments]”. the Accused and the classroom teachers both agreed that the accused
followed-up papers in manila with the obligation to reimburse the accused of his expenses.
There is no law which invest the petitioner which the power to interevene in the payment of th