Case Analysis (Major Output for Midterm Period)

in
Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards
Asst. Prof I Magdaraog, MT

Case Issue#1. A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act in an Information that reads:

That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and
Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there willfully and
unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land which
the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00
of the approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of
P4,000, thus causing undue injury to B and the Government."
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he
correct?
- The argument made by A is Yes, indeed. The information omitted to claim that the accused's
manifest partiality, gross inexcusable negligence caused the excessive harm to the government,
which are necessary elements of the offense charged, a violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused employed for the DPWH's Office of the
District Engineer, which has nothing to do with determining and establishing the value of the
expropriated land, for which the government is required by law to make restitution. The material
makes no claims that the land was overvalued or that the government suffered a disadvantage
from having to pay the amount. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having
followed up the payment for B land which the Government has already appropriated, and that the
accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for
his services.

Case Issue#2. After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was
arriving on PAL Flight NO. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug
agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attaché case. Upon
inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing
500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by
PO3 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner EDSA, Chief
Inspector Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the
trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2
remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which
the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the
transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team
followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged.
What are their respective criminal liabilities? Explain.
- The two police officers are guilty of breaking Section 27 of the R.A. 9165 of the same statute for
misappropriation and failing to account for dangerous medicines that have been seized or taken
into custody in this Section 27 of the R.A. 9165 is Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2022.
However, according to Article 11, Section 4 of RA 9165, Dante Ong is criminally responsible for
introducing dangerous drugs into the Philippines illegally that the penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity.

Case Issue#3.
- The complaint prosper is will not prosper because the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. No. 6713), expressly exempts those who serve the
Government in an honorary capacity from filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and from
resigning and divesting themselves of interest from any private enterprise Section 8A the
Statements and Disclosure that public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish
and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets,
liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests and Section 9 that divestment a public
 official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest
arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise

Case Issue#4.
- Gino and Gerry are both guilty of breaking Presidential Decree No. 46, which punishes any
public official or employee who receives, directly or indirectly, as well as private individuals who
give, offer, or receive any gift, present, or valuable item on any occasion, including Christmas,
when such gift or valuable item is given because of his official position, regardless of whether the
same is given for a past favor or favors, or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better.
Gerry properly anticipates additional favors from Gino as an importer. Included within the
prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or of
his immediate relatives and it also the offense or offenses committed by Gino and Gerry is the PD
46 (1997) A, who is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a Regional Trial
Court Judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift.

Case Issue#5. Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation
letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of
various multinational corporations requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used
the Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that
Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and
toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas
luncheon.
Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees did
she violate? Explain.
- Yes. Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity and the laws or decrees did
she violate are:
1. Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) the crime committed by a public officer who accepts a
gift given by reason of his office or position
2. RA 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when
he solicited and accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]). The Public officials and employees shall at all times be
accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity,
competence, act with patriotism and justice.