1.
RA 3019
What is Graft?
Acquisition of gain or advantage by
dishonest, unfair or sordid means
especially through the abuse of one’s
position or influence in politics, business
etc. (Webster’s Dictionary)

2.
RA 3019
What is Corruption?
Dishonest or fraudulent conduct
committed by those in power (IOS 6
Dictionary)

3.
RA 3019
Constitutional basis of RA 3019

4.
RA 3019
RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)

5.
Definition of Terms
(a) "Government" includes the national government, the
local governments, the government-owned and
government-controlled corporations, and all other
instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the
Philippines and their branches.
(b) "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.

6.
Definition of Terms
(e) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf
of himself or of any member of his family or relative within
the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity,
even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the
circumstances manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons,
unless the context indicates otherwise.

7.
Persons Liable
Applies to both PUBLIC OFFICERS AND PRIVATE
PERSONS
"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. (Sec. 2 (b), RA 3019)
"Public Officials" includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the career or non-career service, including
military and police personnel, whether or not they
receive compensation, regardless of amount. Sec. 3
(b), RA 6713

8.
Persons Liable
Characteristics of Public Office
•Delegation of sovereign functions (legislative,
executive, judicial and of the State to an individual
•Exercised for a time being
•For the benefit of the public.
“in relation to office”
Inherent in the prohibited acts provided under RA 3019

9.
Persons Liable
Private Persons
Liability attaches when the private persons acts in
conspiracy with public officer
Conspiracy
“the act of one is the act of all”
Unity of purpose & unity in the execution
Requisites:
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement.
2. The agreement is to commission of felony.
3. The commission of the felony is decided upon.

10.
Influence Peddling & Family Ties
Section 4, RA 3019 – Prohibition on Private
Individuals
Act or acts of using one’s influence in government or
connections with persons in authority in order to obtain a
favor or preferential treatment for another person in return
for material remuneration.
WHO ARE INVOLVED
1. Person having some business, transaction, application,
request or contract with the government
2. Public officer who intervenes with business, transaction,
application, request or contract
3. Influence peddler (private person)

11.
Influence Peddling & Family Ties
Section 4 (b), RA 3019 – Prohibition on Private
Individuals
Private person knowingly inducing or causing public
officers to commit any of the prohibited acts are also
liable

12.
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth
WHEN- within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming
office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as
well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or
separation from office,
WHERE - file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the
case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the
Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the
officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the
corresponding House,
WHAT- true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including
a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his
personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the
next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office
less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their first
statements in the following months of January.

13.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (a), RA 3019
Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of
rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter,
Allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Public Officers - liable

14.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (b), RA 3019
Public Officers - liable
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any 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.

15.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (c), RA 3019
Public Officers - liable
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself
or for another
from any person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit or license
in consideration for the help given or to be given

16.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (d), RA 3019
Public Officers - liable
Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof
or within one year after its termination.

17.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (e), RA 3019
Public Officers - liable
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the
grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

18.
Prohibited Acts
Elements:
•The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions;
•He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
•That his action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government or gave any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions. (Cabrera et al. v.
Sandiganbayan 244 SCRA 224)

19.
Prohibited Acts
Undue injury -
to mean actual damage, similar to that in civil law. Thus, it
is required that the undue injury be specified, quantified
and proven to the point of moral certainty. (Buyagao v. Karon
et al. G.R. No. 162938. Dec. 27, 2007; Llorente v. Sandiganbayan
350 Phil. 820)
Partiality is synonymous with “bias” which ‘excites a
disposition to see and report matters as they are wished
for rather than as they are

20.
Prohibited Acts
Gross Negligence
characterized by want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act,
not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far as
other persons may be affected
Bad faith imputes a dishonest purpose or some more 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.
(Fonacier et al. v. Sandiganbayan 238 SCRA 655)

21.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (f), RA 3019
Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act directly or indirectly
within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him
for the purpose of obtaining, from any person interested in
the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage,
or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving
undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any
other interested party.

22.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (g), RA 3019
Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or
transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
“manifestly and grossly disadvantageous” – based on standard set for
each particular case
Overpricing as an indication but depends on the standard to be
determined from the evidence presented by the Prosecution
Curious case of “Walis Tingting” MARQUEZ V. SANDIGANBAYAN

23.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (h), RA 3019
Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest
in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
which
he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity
Prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having
any interest

24.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (i), RA 3019
Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in
such approval, even if he votes against the same or does
not participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transactions
or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

25.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (j), RA 3019
Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for
or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.

26.
Prohibited Acts
Section 3 (k), RA 3019
Divulging valuable information of a confidential character,
acquired by his office or by him on account of his official
position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date.

27.
Penalties
Section 9, RA 3019
Imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years,
perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or
forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and
other lawful income.
Violations of Section 3, 4, 5 and 6
Violations of Section 7
fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand
pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such
fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

28.
Penalties
Administrative Penalties
Principal Penalty - Dismissal from the service
Accessory Penalties – forfeiture of retirement benefits,
disqualification to hold public office and cancellation of
civil service eligibility

29.
Section 11
All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe
in ten years.
Prescription of Offenses
Section 12
No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire
pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or
pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under
this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
on bribery
Effect of pendency of investigation and
prosecution

30.
Suspension and loss of benefits
Section 13
Any public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or
under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he
shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any
law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which
he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the
meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.

31.
PRACTICAL
APPLICATIONS
REPORTERS:
ABABON, FELICIANO III
JAAMIL, PRINCESS

32.
DECISION:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision
dated March 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of
the Sandiganbayan (SB) in Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0595,
which found petitioner Raquil-Ali M. Lucman (Lucman) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 of Republic
Act No. (RA) 3019, entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act."

33.
THE FACTS:
The instant case stemmed from an Information charging Lucman of violation of
Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, the accusatory portion of which states:
On 8 September 2009 to 16 October 2009, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto
in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, RACQUIL-ALI M. LUCMAN, a public officer being
then the OIC-Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Region XII, committing the offense in relation to and in abuse of
his office, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully, and criminally request for himself
the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) from
Sergio Balolong, Aladin Saydala, and Hadji Abdulwahid D. Bualan, and actually
receive the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00)
from the said parties, in consideration for the assistance of accused Lucman in the
investigation, processing, and approval of the aforementioned parties' application
over two (2) parcels of alienable and disposable public lands located at Brgys.
Olympog and Tambler, General Santos City.

34.
CONTRARY TO LAW:
The prosecution alleged that sometime in August 2009, private complainants Hadji
Abdulwahid D. Bualan (Bualan), Sergio Balolong (Balolong), and Aladin Saydala
(Saydala; collectively, private complainants) went to the office of Lucman, then the
Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Regional Executive Director (RED) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII, to discuss with the latter
their intended applications for the issuance of Free Patent title.
During the said meeting, Lucman allegedly demanded Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) from them as consideration for the grant of their
applications. Private complainants acceded but asked to pay in
installments. Subsequently, on September 4, 2009, Bualan applied for Free Patents
on behalf of Balolong and Saydala before the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of General Santos City. On September 8, 2009, Lucman
called up Bualan and demanded Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as
part of their agreement, as the former needed the money for his trip to Manila.

35.
CONTRARY TO LAW:
Complying with Lucman's demand, Bualan proceeded to Tambler International
Airport where he gave Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Lucman's
driver for which the latter signed a cash voucher. Thereafter, Bualan regularly
followed up their applications with Lucman, but the latter told him to wait for two (2)
to three (3) months for approval. On October 16, 2009, Lucman again called up
Bualan and told him to go to the house of Balolong for the payment of One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00). Thereat, Balolong allegedly issued a check worth One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for which Lucman signed a check voucher. However,
despite the payment of a total of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00), their applications remained pending. Thus, private complainants
filed a joint complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of General Santos City.
Pleading "not guilty" to the charge, Lucman denied demanding and receiving money
from private complainants for and in consideration of the approval of their Free
Patent applications. He claimed that Bualan merely wanted to destroy his honor and
integrity. He further claimed that Bualan's testimony cannot be given any weight
since it was not corroborated either by other witnesses or by supporting documents.

36.
CONTRARY TO LAW:
Complying with Lucman's demand, Bualan proceeded to Tambler International
Airport where he gave Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Lucman's
driver for which the latter signed a cash voucher. Thereafter, Bualan regularly
followed up their applications with Lucman, but the latter told him to wait for two (2)
to three (3) months for approval. On October 16, 2009, Lucman again called up
Bualan and told him to go to the house of Balolong for the payment of One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00). Thereat, Balolong allegedly issued a check worth One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for which Lucman signed a check voucher. However,
despite the payment of a total of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00), their applications remained pending. Thus, private complainants
filed a joint complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of General Santos City.
Pleading "not guilty" to the charge, Lucman denied demanding and receiving money
from private complainants for and in consideration of the approval of their Free
Patent applications. He claimed that Bualan merely wanted to destroy his honor and
integrity. He further claimed that Bualan's testimony cannot be given any weight
since it was not corroborated either by other witnesses or by supporting documents.

37.
THE SB RULING:
In a Decision dated March 9, 2018, the SB found Lucman guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month with perpetual
disqualification to hold public office.
The SB found that the prosecution had established all the elements for violation of
Section 3 (c) of RA 3019, considering that:
(a) Lucman was the OIC-RED of the DENR, Region XII at the time of the
commission of the offense;
(b) as the OIC-RED, he had authority to grant applications for Free Patent, such as
the ones applied for by private complainants;
(c) he demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) and
actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00)
from private complainants; and
(d) the amount was for and in consideration of the grant of such applications.
Aggrieved, Lucman moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied in a
Resolution dated April 23, 2018; hence, this petition.

38.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT:
The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the SB correctly
convicted Lucman for the crime of violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019.
THE COURT’S RULING:
The petition is without merit.
Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 states:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

39.
THE COURT’S RULING:
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public
officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain,
any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given,
without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
As may be gleaned from above, the elements of the crime charged are as follows:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any
government permit or license;
(3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from said person any gift, present
or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another; and
(4) he requested or received the gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for help given or to be given.

40.
THE COURT’S RULING:
After a judicious review of the case, the Court is convinced that the SB correctly
convicted Lucman for violating Section 3 (c) of RA 3019. It is undisputed that
Lucman was a public officer at the time the offense was committed, then being the
OIC-RED of the DENR, Region XII. As the OIC-RED, he had the authority to grant
applications for Free Patents, such as the ones filed by private complainants. It was
likewise established through the testimony of Bualan and the evidence on record
that Lucman demanded Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00)
and actually received One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) from private complainants, and that these amounts were for and in
consideration of the grant of their applications.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to overturn the SB's findings, as
there is no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding
facts and circumstances of this case, and considering further the fact that it was in
the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the parties' witnesses. As
such, Lucman's conviction for violation of Section 3 (c) of RA 3019 must stand.

41.
THE COURT’S RULING:
As regards the proper penalty to be imposed on Lucman, Section 9 (a) of RA 3019,
as amended, states that the prescribed penalties for a violation of the said crime
includes, inter alia, imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and one (1) month
to fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Taking into consideration the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which
states that "in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the
Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court shall
order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than
the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a
maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed law," the Court deems it
proper to modify Lucman's sentence to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of
six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years, as maximum, with
perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

42.
THE COURT’S RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 9, 2018 and the
Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. SB-13-
CRM-0595 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Raquil-Ali M.
Lucman is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,"
and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9)
years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
SO ORDERED.
Reference: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64975

43.
PRACTICAL
APPLICATIONS
Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3109
REPORTED BY:
JAAMIL, PRINCESS

44.
Facts:
Petitioners Librado M. Cabrera (Librado) and Fe M. Cabrera (Fe) together with
accused Luther H. Leonor (Leonor), as public officers, were charged in four separate
Informations3 with violation of Section 3( e) of R.A. No. 3019, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 27555, Librado and Leonor, in their capacity as then Municipal
Mayor and Municipal Councilor, respectively, of Taal, Batangas, through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence, made several direct
purchases of medicines from Diamond Laboratories, Inc. (DLI), a corporation owned
by the relatives by consanguinity of Librado. The purchases were made without the
benefit of public bidding or canvass giving DLI unwanted benefit and depriving the
Municipality of Taal the opportunity to avail of a better price of the same quality of
supplies. The total costs of the purchases amounted to ₱503,920.35. Leonor, despite
being the Municipal Councilor, acted as the authorized representative of DLI as he
was the one who received all payments due and signed all pertinent documents of
the transactions.
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

45.
Facts:
In Criminal Case No. 27556, Librado, then Mayor of the Municipality of Taal,
Batangas, gave unwarranted benefit to himself by reimbursing, collecting and
appropriating the total amount of ₱27,651.83 representing the expenses he incurred
during his unauthorized and illegal travels to Manila.
In Criminal Case No. 27557, Fe and Leonor, in their capacity as then Municipal
Mayor and Municipal Councilor, respectively, of Taal, Batangas made several direct
purchases of medicines from DLI, a corporation owned by the relatives by
consanguinity of Fe's husband, Librado. The purchases were made without the
benefit of public bidding or canvass giving DLI unwanted benefit and depriving the
Municipality of Taal the opportunity to avail of a better price of the same quality of
supplies.
In Criminal Case No. 27558, Fe, then Mayor of the Municipality of Taal, Batangas,
taking advantage of her official position, gave unwarranted benefit to herself by
reimbursing, collecting and appropriating the total amount of ₱170,987.66
representing the expenses she incurred during her unauthorized and illegal travels to
Manila.
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

46.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the accused as charged in the four information constitute
the offense penalized under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
To warrant violation under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, the Court laid
down the essential elements of the crime, viz. :
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or [gross]
inexcusable negligence; and
3. That his 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. 10
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

47.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the accused as charged in the four information constitute
the offense penalized under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Criminal Cases Nos. 27555 and 27557
It was established in this case and admitted by petitioners, that DLI is a corporation
whose stockholders, directors and officers are the relatives of Librado. Petitioners'
refusal to conduct public bidding and to award the contract to the winning bidder,
smack of favoritism and bias in favor of DLI. Indeed, nothing demonstrates manifest
partiality more than the awarding of procurement contract to second degree relatives,
either by consanguinity or affinity, without the benefit of competitive public bidding.
By choosing DLI without public bidding, petitioners evidently give unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference in favor of private persons, through manifest
partiality.
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

48.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the accused as charged in the four information constitute
the offense penalized under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Criminal Cases Nos. 27556 and 27558
It bears to stress that mere unauthorized travel does not automatically equate to
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019. There must be proof that the said
unauthorized travel caused undue injury to the government or that it amounts to
giving unwarranted benefit or advantage to a private person or to oneself for that
matter. The act of petitioners in approving the disbursement vouchers without
compliance with the disbursement procedures (i.e., necessary supporting
documents, written permission of the government authorizing their travel) constitute
bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence in observing the law, causing undue
injury to the Municipality of Taal. The Municipality of Taal was effectively deprived of
the amounts of ₱27,651.83 and ₱170,987.66 which petitioners Librado and Fe
respectively reimbursed for themselves. Indeed, there is no greater proof of undue
injury to the government when public funds are used for an unjustified expense.
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

49.
Decision:
On November 19, 2009, the Sandiganbayan (4th Division) rendered its Decision
finding Librado and Fe guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019. Leonor was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
ACCORDINGLY, accused Librada Cabrera and Fe Cabrera are found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of having violated Republic Act 3019, Section 3(e) and are
sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of 6 years 1 month to 10 years for each
charge as follows:
1) Accused Librada Cabrera for the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 27555 and 27556
2) Accused Fe Cabrera for the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 27557and 27558
..xxx
For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused Luther H. Leonor beyond
reasonable doubt, he is ACQUITTED.
Costs against accused Librada Cabrera and Fe Cabrera.
SO ORDERED.4
G.R. No. 191611-14
LIBRADO M. CABRERA and FE M. CABRERA, Petitioners
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Reference: https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/

50.
Gregorio Singian, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan, GR
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013
For one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA No.
3019, the following elements must be proven:
a.) the accused is a public officer;
b.) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf
of the government;
c.) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
However, private persons may likewise be charged with violation of
Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019 if they conspired with the public officer.

51.
Thus, if there is an allegation of conspiracy, a private person may be held
liable together with the public officer, in consonance with the avowed policy
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which is to repress certain acts
of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or
corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
Gregorio Singian, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan, GR
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013

52.
THANK YOU!
END OF
REPORT!