BARTOLOME A FABILE III JD 1B

I. CASE TITLE
FRANKLIN P. BAUTISTA, petitioner
vs
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

II. SYLLABUS
The use of the disjunctive term “or” between the phrases “by causing any undue
injury to any party, including the government” and “by causing any undue injury to any
party, including the government” and “by giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec 3 par.
(e), as two different modes of committing the offense, though it does not mean that each
mode constitutes a distinct offense, but, that an accused may be charge in either mode
or under both. – 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 disjunctive term
“or” connotes the either act qualifies as violation of Sec 3, par. (e), as to aptly held in
Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not indicate
that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be
charged under either mode or under both.

III FACTS OF THE CASE

An anonymous and unverified and unsigned letter-complaint allegedly prepared
by the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and Good Government Employees of
Davao del Sur was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charging
petitioner Franklin P Bautista, incumbent mayor of Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur
for violation of Sec 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Practices Act. The letter-complaint alleged, among others, that petitioner
caused the hiring of one hundred and ninety-two (192) casual employees in the
municipal government for political considerations and that the payment of their
honoraria and salaries were charged to the peace and order fund despite meager
savings of the municipality.
Petitioner argued on his counter affidavit orderd by Graft Investigation Officer II
(GIO II) Corazon A Arancon that the charges against him was unsigned, fictitious, and
fabricated. GIO II Arancon finds prima facie case for violation of Sec 3, par. (e), of RA
3019, as amended against petitioner and forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman
wherein the Ombudsman approved. An information was filed against the petitioner
before the Sandiganbayan.
On November 13, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information that
the acts charged therein did not constitute the offense stated in Sec 3, par. (e), of RA
3019 and assailing that the Ombudsman failed to properly establish a cause of action.
But the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash. Petitioner then filed a motion for
reconsideration but was also denied.
IV. ISSUE
Whether or not Sec 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended constitutes a distinct
mode of offense.
V. HELD
No, Sec 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended does not indicate that each mode
constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either
mode or under both. 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 disjunctive term
“or” connotes the either act qualifies as violation of Sec 3, par. (e), as to aptly held in
Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. But does not provides
that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, rather, an accused may be charged under
either mode or under both.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash and held that the phrases
“manifest partiality,” “evident bad faith,” and “gross inexcusable negligence” merely
described the different modes by which the offense penalized in Sec 3 par. (e), RA
3019, as amended, could be committed, and the use of all these phrases in the same
Information did not mean that the indictment charged three (3) distinct offenses.