Jurisprudence for ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

Section 3 –– In R.A. No. 3019, it is clear that the party that is penalized is the public officer who commits any of the corrupt practices enumerated under Sec. 3; a “public officer” includes “elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government”; in this case, the offense charged is against public officers who, on behalf of the government, allegedly entered into a contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government; whether or not a person is a director or an officer of a corporation, so long as he or she is the party responsible for the offense, he or she is the party that ought to be charged. (Canlas vs. Bongolan, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018)

Section 3(e) and (g) –– The essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended, are: 1. The accused is a public officer discharging official, administrative or judicial functions or private persons in conspiracy with them; 2. The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; 3. The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, and 4. His action caused injury to the government or any private party, or gave unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference; on the other hand, to determine the culpability of private respondents under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, it must be established that: (1) they are public officers; (2) they entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government; the elements of evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence are lacking in the instant case. (PCGG vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 195962, April 18, 2018)

Section 3(g) –– The Court rules that respondents cannot be held liable under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019; in Froilan v. Sandiganbayan, this Court enumerated the elements of the offense as follows: “(a) that the accused is a public officer; (b) that he [or she] entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (c) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government”; in the case at bar, respondents exercised due diligence and sound business judgment before executing the sale; and although it is not an element to the offense, the sale does not seem to be tainted with any partiality, bad faith, or negligence; the law requires that the contract must be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government or that it be entered into with malice. (Canlas vs. Bongolan, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018)

Violation of Section 3 (e) –– A conviction under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 requires the concurrence of the following elements: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. He [or she] must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or [gross] inexcusable negligence; 3. That his [or her] action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. (Abubakar vs.People, G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018) 

––      The third element refers to two (2) separate acts that qualify as a violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; an accused may be charged with the commission of either or both; an accused is said to have caused undue injury to the government or any party when the latter sustains actual loss or damage, which must exist as a fact and cannot be based on speculations or conjectures; thus, in a situation where the government could have been defrauded, the law would be inapplicable, there being no actual loss or damage sustained; Pecho v. Sandiganbayan,cited; Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 only covers consummated acts, explained. (Abubakar vs.People, G.R. No. 202408, June 27, 2018)