You are on page 1of 6

ANTI GRAFT AND CORRRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019

)

To be found guilty under said provision, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.1[17 The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 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 RA 3019 is enough to convict. .( G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, 2010,Rolando E. Sison Vs. People of the Philippines)

Explaining what “partiality,” “bad faith” and “gross negligence” mean, we held: “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.” “Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.” “Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and
1

1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In other words. Sison Vs. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense. For that. were able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the government. it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another. advantage or preference.”( G. the presence of one would suffice for conviction. The fact that he repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of RA 7160 on personal canvass proves that unwarranted benefit. advantage or preference was given to the winning suppliers. it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated—the first. Said law provides that in offenses punishable by a law.” 2[19] (citations omitted) The fourth element is likewise present. People of the Philippines) We find the penalty imposed in all three criminal cases within that prescribed by law. Petitioner did just that. by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit. in the exercise of his official.Rolando E. The private suppliers. The use of the disjunctive “or” connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. Ricardo L. Nos. The Sandiganbayan was correct in applying Sec. an accused may be charged under either mode or both. or the second.( G.R. Santillano Vs. 170339. petitioner must now face the consequences of his acts. These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the government. People of the Philippines) 2 3 . administrative or judicial functions. 2010. by causing undue injury to any party.thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a result of the purchases. including the government. March 9. the maximum term of the penalty should “not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum (should) not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. other than the Revised Penal Code. Nos.3 In order to be found guilty under the second mode. March 3. 170398-403. which were all personally chosen by respondent. 175045-46. 2010Engr.R.

March 3. and 6. Ricardo L. People. 3.”( G.R. No. recourses against them and their liabilities therefor are as defined in the above rulings. People of the Philippines) Plainly. 169195. 2010. GR. GR. under these rulings. and for their official acts that do not constitute impeachable offenses. 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. bribery.( A. This is supported by Sec. No. 175045-46.2010 . The Constitution provides that the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution. a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. 5. PIAB-C Office of the Ombudsman) COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (RA 9165) BUY-BUST OPERATION Form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan( People vs De leon. 4. No.2010) Prior surveillance not necessary where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment( Aparis vs People. other high crimes. G.9 Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded against for their transgressions. While in office and thereafter.2010) Chain Custody Rule Actions of the Police Officers in relation to the procedural rules on the chain of custody enjoy the presumption of regularity( Cacao vs. cannot prosper and should not be entertained. January 25. 2010Engr. feb.R. Nos. . 186471. but also those who induce or cause the public official to commit those offenses. January 22. or betrayal of public trust. Santillano Vs. 10-1-13-SC. graft and corruption. 180870. the law punishes not only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 9. treason.M. which includes private persons as liable for violations under Secs. March 2.Clearly. 17. based on the legal correctness of the official acts of Justices of the Supreme Court. Amante. 3. This is not to say that Members of the Court are absolutely immune from suit during their term. for they are not. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11.

R. Peralta. Jan. No.2010) Reasonble doubt exists when there is a failure to establish the integrity of seized drugs through an unbroken chain of custody( People vs De Guzman. 188900. 186498.186498. 7610) and Anti Rape Law 8353 . ( People vs De Guzman.2010) There must be justifiable grounds to warrant exception form the requirements of RA NO. 188900. Feb. Jan. EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA.R. to the police. March 26. 26.2010) Prosecution . no.2010) Non-compliance with the procedure is not fatal provided the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapses in the prescribed procedures( People vs. March 26. 181831.2010) Perfect Chain is not always the standard. no. March 29. 25. G. G.ust esure the unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed( ( People vs De Leon.R. (People vs. to the forensic chemist and finally to the court. 186471. March 29. (People vs Almorfe. Almorfe G. March 5. G. G.R. GR No. Habana. 9165 and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers..Link in the chain of custody of illegal drugs. 173472. G. March 26.2010) Non-compliance with the procedure does not render an accused illegal arrest or the items seized / confiscated from him inadmissible( People vs De Leon. ( People vs.2010) Requirememnts necessary to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movemtns from the accused. 25.2010) Non-compliance with the requirememt shall not render void or invalid the seizures and custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved ( People vs De guzman. G. 181831.186498.R. March 5.R. G. 186471.R. G.R.2010) ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS The non-presentaiton of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecution’s theory of the case (People vs.2010) SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE . Habana.R. No. form the moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence must be established.

8353. 186441. 03. People. or “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.2010) In addition. 4 5 . No. Mar.4[47] ( Flordeliz vs. 7610 must be proven: (1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. (2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. is below 18 years of age.A.Requisites for acts of lasciviousness under the revised penal code in addition to elements of sexual abuse under RA 7610 must be established ( Flordeliz vs. or intimidation. 186441. threat. whether male or female. Article III of R. 266-A. and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. 03. .) No. People. even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. . b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. GR No.A. .Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force.” which in part provides: Art. Mar.Child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below12 years old. c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.2010) The insertion of petitioner’s fingers into the victim’s vagina constituted the crime of Rape through sexual assault5[36] under Republic Act (R. and (3) The child. Rape: When And How Committed. GR No. the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5.

or any instrument or object. (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons. contract services. enlisting.” In the simplest terms. under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof. shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. into the genital or anal orifice of another person. illegal recruitment is committed by persons who.R. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. locally or abroad. G.6[37] Republic Act No. hiring or procuring workers. 185277.7[60] Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as “any act of canvassing. and includes referrals. utilizing. promising or advertising for employment. 8042). transporting. 8042.(People vs. MARCH 18. whether for profit or not. (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.2) By any person who.2010) 6 7 . Gallo. contracting. without authority from the government. individually or as a group. otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. and. three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No.