Downloaded 29 times
More Related Content
RA 3019.pptx
- 1.
- 2. (a) Persuading, inducingor 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, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
- 4. (b) Directly orindirectly 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 part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
- 6. (c) Directly orindirectly 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.
- 7. Complainant was Mrs.Salvacion Luzana, neighbor of the petitioner, Mayor Tecson. In The Court finds Demetrio Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined in Sec. 3 (c) of Republic Act 3019.
- 8. (d) Accepting orhaving 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. (e) 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.
- 10. (f) Neglecting orrefusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, 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.
- 12. (g) Entering, onbehalf 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.
- 14. (h) Directly orindirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from having any interest.
- 16. (i) Directly orindirectly 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. (j) 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.
- 18. k) Divulging valuableinformation 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.
- 19. Every public officerafter 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, shall prepare and file a 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 statements in the following months of January.
- 23.
Editor's Notes
- #4 The Petitioners were, Arturo Jimenez, Civil Aviation Authority – Mactan Cebu Airport General Manager Rodolfo Montayre, Assistant General Manager Camilo Villa, Chief of the Logistics Section Josefina Sucalit, Technical Inspector of the COA Vs. Sandiganbayan Dario, Centeno and Robles were CAA Manila employees, however, they were on leave during the transaction. There was a bidding to purchase electrical supplies worth P299,175.00. The contract was awarded to Rocen Enterprise owned by the wife of Estanislao Centeno. The company is engaged only in the business of dealing in "paper products and printed matter.” Sucalit, COA, went to Manila pursuant to a travel order issued by Jimenez, the airport General Manger, to canvass prices of the articles. Curiously, Rocen submitted the lowest quotation for the items requisitioned. When the contract was awarded to it, Rocen merely procured the items requisitioned from UTESCO, a losing bidder. Arturo Jimenez had the responsibility, as head of office, to see to it that the purchases were from reputable suppliers. Instead of discharging this responsibility, Jimenez approved the award to Rocen Enterprises, which was represented by Centeno, Robles and Dario. Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy among the petitioners Conspiracy is a direct violation of the existing rules and regulation under section 3(a) of RA 3019. The court ruled that a massive and gigantic conspiracy existed between and among the 4 accused, namely David, Centeno, Dario and Robles as well as all of the high ranking officials of CAA Mactan.
- #6 The petitioner stated that the facts make out a case of direct bribery under Art.210 of the Revised Penal Code and not a violation of R.A. 3019 sec.3 (b). The offense of direct bribery is not the offense charged and is not included in the offense charged. The element of being engaged in a contract or transaction is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. Judgment was modified. Petitioner is guilty of direct bribery under Art.210 of the RPC.
- #8 The Petitioner was Mr. Demetrio Tecson, a Municipal Mayor. Complainant was Mrs. Salvacion Luzana, neighbor of the petitioner, Mayor Tecson. In September 1989, upon the offer of Mayor Tecson, the two agreed to engage in an investment business. The issue was whether or not the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt As pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, all elements under Sec. 3 (c) concur in the case: First, Tecson was a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. 2. Second, in his official capacity as Mayor, he signed and issued a Mayor's Permit to and in the name of Mrs. Luzana for their investment business 3. Third, before he released the Mayor's Permit, he requested and received P4,000.00 to be used in the fiesta. 4. And fourth, Mayor Tecson requested and received the amount of P4,000.00 as cash advance in consideration of the help he gave. The Court finds Demetrio Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined in Sec. 3 (c) of Republic Act 3019.
- #10 The accused were: Virgilio Dacalos and Josephine Angsico, both public officers of the National Housing Authority of Quezon City. While in the performance of their official functions, conniving, confederating, and mutually helping each other and with a private individual who was also the General Manager of A.C. Cruz Construction. The first and second elements, the offenders being public officers and the act was done in the discharge of official, administrative or judicial functions, are present in the case. In the third and fourth elements, pieces of evidence proffered by the prosecution were not enough to indicate moral certainty that they conspired with each other in causing payment to AC Cruz Construction. Also, there was no direct and competent proof that the payment was received. Thus, leads to the acquittal of the accused, Virgilio Dacalos and Josephine Angsico, of the charge of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Thus, failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- #12 JUAN CONRADO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Facts: In Antipolo, Rizal, a public officer of the Regional Trial Court did willfully and unlawfully neglect and refuse to serve within reasonable time, a copy of the Order issued by Executive Judge denying plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Despite due demand and request made by defendant Mariano Lim, the copy of said Order of July 11, 1984 being served on plaintiffs' counsel only on February 22, 1985. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt Elements of Sec. 3 (f): a) The offender is a public officer; b) The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand or request has been made on him; c) Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having acted on the matter pending before him particularly that 5-month has elapsed; and d) Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another. However, the record is lacking of evidence to indicate that the petitioner's failure to act was motivated by any gain or benefit for himself or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interested party or discriminating against another. It is not enough that an advantage in favor of one party, as against another, would result from one neglect or refusal. The petitioner is hereby acquitted of the charge on reasonable doubt.
- #14 HENRY T. GO, petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents. In Quezon City, the accused VICENTE C. RIVERA, JR., Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), in conspiracy with accused HENRY T. GO, Chairman and President of the Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO), did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter into an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA), after the project for the construction of the NAIA IPT III was awarded to Paircargo Consortium/PIATCO, which term is more beneficial to PIATCO, disadvantageous to the government. Petitioner, a private individual, stands charged with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019. The first element of the crime is that the accused must be a public officer who enters into a contract on behalf of the government. The philosophy behind this is that, the public officer is duty bound to see to it that the interest of the government is duly protected. As emphasized in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 3019 provides for the prohibition on private individuals. If warranted, petitioner Go should be charged for violation of Section 4(b). The allegation that Rivera "in conspiracy with accused Henry T. Go" committed the alleged acts in violation of Section 3(g) was insufficient of evidence. Consequently, petitioner Go’s case was dismissed.
- #16 The petitioners are Jaime H. Domingo in G.R. No. 149175, entitled "Jaime H. Domingo, et al. vs. People of the Philippines," and Diosdado T. Garcia in G.R. No. 149406, entitled "Diosdado T. Garcia vs. People of the Philippines." Petitioner Domingo, mayor of the Municipality of San Manuel, Isabela while Petitioner Garcia, is the proprietor of D.T. Garcia Construction Supply, and, incidentally, is the godson of Mayor Domingo in marriage. The facts were during Domingo’s incumbency a Multi-Purpose Pavement (MPP) project was undertaken for the paving and repair of the barangay roads. The allocated budget for the project was ₱520,000 to be charged against the 20% Economic Development Fund (EDF). A special audit team was created by COA to examine the infrastructure and EDF expenditures of the municipality. The audit found out that two checks, were discovered to have been issued by the municipality to Mayor Domingo. The disbursement voucher for the checks, however, indicated that the claimant of the checks was D.T. Garcia Construction Supply for the payment of the cost of gravel and sand. Another check appeared to have been issued to D.T. Garcia Construction Supply but was indorsed by Garcia himself to the Municipality of San Manuel. Mayor Domingo handed the said check to the municipal treasurer who later encashed it to replenish the various cash items of the former. Apparently, Mayor Domingo would occasionally advance the salaries of the municipal employees when the same were not remitted to the municipality in time for payday. The municipal treasurer, in turn, would reimburse Domingo when the funds become available. More over, the audit team concluded that D.T. Garcia Construction Supply was used by Mayor Domingo as a dummy to cover up his business transaction with the municipality of San Manuel. This is in violation of Section 34 of R.A. 7160, Section 108 of P.D. 1445 and Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. Consequently, Mayor Domingo was charged with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 for having financial interest in a business transaction.
- #18 Petitioner Teodoro C. Borlongan, former President and Director of Urban Bank In a sworn complaint-affidavit filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner Borlongan charged respondents Rafael B. Buenaventura and Norberto C. Nazareno in their respective capacities as Governor, BSP, and President, PDIC, of giving undue preference to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) when they allowed LBP to enforce collection from Urban Bank Inc. on the promissory notes of the NFA. Issue: Whether there was undue preference given to LBP over UBI The assignment of said NFA notes to LBP was completed on 29 March 2000 before the closure of UBI on 26 April 2000. As of that date, LBP, as assignee, had full rights to enforce collection of the NFA notes. Respondent Nazareno merely confirmed LBP's authority to enforce collection on the subject NFA promissory notes on the basis of the perfected Deed of Assignment executed by UBI in favor of LBP, which was notarized on 29 March 2000 or before the closure of UBI. It is clear that respondents did not give undue preference to Land Bank of the Philippines when it allowed the latter to enforce collection on the subject National Food Authority promissory notes. Hence, no basis to charge respondent with violation of Section 3(j) of R.A. 3019. The case was DISMISSED.
- #21 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND MIRIAM R. CASAYURAN, Respondent. Facts: The DOF-RIPS filed a Complaint-Affidavit initiating criminal, administrative, and forfeiture charges against Casayuran for violating Section 8 of R.A. 6713 in relation to Section 7 of R.A. 3019. She did not file her SALN for the calendar years (CY) 1995, 1997, and 1998, as certified by the HRMD of the BOC and the letter of the Ombudsman. Issue: Whether the Ombudsman incorrectly dismissed the criminal and forfeiture charges against Casayuran. Held: The Ombudsman is correct in ruling that Casayuran can no longer be penalized for non-filing of her SALNs for CYs 1995, 1997, and 1998 under R.A. 6713. The prescriptive period for filing an action for violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 is eight (8) years pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3326. Based on Section 2 of the same law, the period shall begin to run either from the day of the commission of the violation of the law or, if the violation be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Since 2013 pa nagfile ng kaso ang DOF-RIPS, umabot ng 15yrs bago sila nakapagfile kaya nadissmiss ang kaso.
- #23 ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUAN S. ARMAMENTO, respondents. Respondent, feeling aggrieved of the malicious impounding of his vehicle, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint for bribery and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 against petitioners as well as Lubrica and de Jesus. He alleged that prior to the impounding of his taxi, the four LTO officers had been collecting "protection money" from him. They went to his office and proposed they would not apprehend his drivers and impound his vehicles for violations of LTO rules, provided he gives them the amount of P400.00 every 15th and 30th day of the month. For sometime, he had given the petitioners the amount but when his business was not doing good, he failed to give the amount to the said LTO employees. Issue: Whether or not petitioners were guilty as proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Held: Yes. The Court ruled that the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of direct bribery and crime defined in Sec 3(e) RA 3019 are present. Elements of crime penalized under Sec. 3(e) RA No. 3019: That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; That said public officers committed the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; They caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; Such injury was caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; The public officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.