Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Villa vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:
A criminal compliant was filed against Jimenez, Montayre, Sucalit and Villa for violation of Sec
3a of RA 3019. The case involved questionable payments made by the CAA Mactan to Rocen
Enterprises and Sprayway Corp., dealers in paper products and printed matter, for the purchase
of electrical items and the cost of their installation, in the total amount of P299,175.00.
Dario, Centeno and Robles negotiated with Jimenez for the purchase of transformers and
electrical supplies for the Mactan International Airport. On June 1, 1975, Montayre issued
Requisition and Issue Voucher 6-513-75. Jimenez approved the requisition and Leonor certified
to the availability of funds. Jimenez signed Advertisement No. 16-75, and in due time the
required invitations to bid calling for sealed proposals for the furnishing and delivery of the
supplies were issued. On June 15, 1975, Jimenez sent Sucalit to Manila to canvass the subject
supplies at various reputable dealers or manufacturers in Manila. Sucalit delivered Advertisement
Forms to Rocen Enterprises in Pasay City, Utilities Equipment and Supply Corporation
(UTESCO) in Quezon City, and Intrade Corporation in Makati. On June 25, 1975, the sealed
bids were opened by the Bidding Committee. The Committee prepared an Abstract of Bids
signed by David, Villa, Sucalit, Wigberto Fuentebella, Leonardo Mahinay, and Fermin Beltran,
approving the lowest bid, which was that of Rocen Enterprises. On the same day, a Purchase
Order addressed to Rocen Enterprises was prepared and signed by David and approved by
Jimenez, with Leonor certifying to the availability of funds. From June 25-30, 1975, four reports
of inspection were prepared and signed by Sucalit, Villa and Montayre; four certificates of
delivery were signed by Montayre and Villa; and four general vouchers for P70,180, P75,900,
P99,000 and P53,020 respectively were prepared and signed by Villa, Montayre, Leonor and
Jimenez. On June 30, 1975, four treasury warrants in the amounts respectively of P70,180,
P57,980, P99,000, P53,020, all payable to Rocen Enterprises and/or Fernando Dario, were issued
in payment for the articles requisitioned. The Warrant Register at the airport shows that five
checks in the separate amounts of P70,180, P99,000, P53,020, P57,980, P17,920, were delivered
to Centeno.
It turned out that the requisitioned articles were delivered at Cebu City only on July 6, 1975, and
were shipped by UTESCO, a losing bidder, to Rocen Enterprises, c/o Mrs. Remedios Centeno
via the vessel Sweet Faith. The freight and handling charges of P5,500.00 incurred in connection
with the delivery were reimbursed under a General Voucher signed by Jimenez, Montayre and
Leonor to Rocen Enterprises. Rocen Enterprises, the winning bidder, was ostensibly owned by
Remedios Centeno, wife of Estanislao Centeno. Its line of business, as registered with the
Bureau of Domestic Trade on August 9, 1974, was "paper products and printed matter."
ISSUE: WON Sec 3a of RA 3019
HELD: Yes. A close scrutiny of the circumstances of this case clearly indicates that Jimenez and
Sucalit were indeed involved in a scheme violative of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Dario, Centeno and Robles were CAA Manila employees and were on leave during the period of
the questioned transaction. They were seen by prosecution witnesses at Mactan Airport in the
company of Jimenez, who admitted he knew the three. Robles and Centeno are incorporators of
Rocen Trading, Inc., which was the Rocen Enterprises at the time the transaction was
consummated. This was a sole proprietorship registered in the name of Remedios Centeno, wife
of Estanislao Centeno, and engaged only in the business of dealing in "paper products and
printed matter."

When the requisition of the items was made, Sucalit went to Manila pursuant to a travel order
issued by Jimenez to canvass prices of the articles. It is not explained why she delivered an
advertisement form to Rocen Enterprises, which was a supplier only of paper products and
printed matter but not of the needed electrical items. 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. These acts and omissions of
Jimenez and Sucalit violated paragraph (a) of Section 3 of R.A. 3019 in relation to the
Unnumbered Presidential Memorandum. They were persuaded, induced or influenced, and
persuaded, induced or influenced each other, to award the purchase of electrical items to an
entity which was not even a supplier of electrical items in disregard of the Presidential
Memorandum directing that procurement of supplies by government offices should be from
reputable suppliers. Rocen was not a "reputable supplier" as it was dealing only in paper
products and printed matter at the time of the transaction in question.
BAVIERA vs SOLETA
FACT:
Manuel V. Baviera filed several complaints[2] against officers or directors of the Standard
Chartered Bank (SCB), Philippine Branch, including Sridhar Raman, an Indian national who was
the Chief Finance Officer of the bank, as respondents with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
(6). A HDO was then issued by Dummantong against Raman. Thereafter, The former went to
Singapore leaving Guttierez as the acting Secretary of Justice. Sec Merceditas, verbally allowed
the separture of Raman. Thus, she was charged with violation of Sec 3a of RA3190.
ISSUE: WON it is proper.
HELD: No. With respect to the charge of violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019, there is
no evidence, documentary or testimonial, to show that respondent GUTIERREZ has received
material remuneration as a consideration for her alleged use of influence on her decision to allow
Mr. RAMAN to travel abroad. As to the charge of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
3019, no actual or real damage was suffered by any party, including the government as Mr.
Raman immediately returned to the Philippines,
Garcia vs SAndiganbayan
FACTS:
Miranda filed a criminal case against Garcia, RD of LTO X, for violation of Sec 3b of RA 3019
for his alleged borrowing of motor vehicles from Oro Asian Automotive Center Corporation.
Yungao is the driver and liason officer of the company which is engaged in the assembly of
motor vehicles. HE had to report to LTO all chasis and enhine number prior to assembly and a
Conduct Permit after a motor vehicle has been completely assembled, for purposes of carrying
out the necessary road testing of the vehicle concerned. After the said road testing and prior to its
eventual sale/disposition, the vehicle has to be first properly registered with the LTO. Garcia is

the approving authority at that time. Garcia frequently borrows the motor vehicles from Vhiong,
Owver of company
Issue: WON proper
HELD: No. Section 3(b)[20] of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the following elements: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested
or received a gift, a present, a share a percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any
other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; (5) in which
the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene. We agree with
petitioner that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the fourth element. It is
very clear from Section 3(b) that the requesting or receiving of any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit must be in connection with a contract or transaction. To establish the
existence of the fourth element, the relation of the fact of requesting and/or receiving, and that of
the transaction involved must be clearly shown.
The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210[23] of the Revised Penal Code consists of
the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or
through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has
been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime,
or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act
relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.[24] Thus, the acts constituting direct
bribery are: (1) by agreeing to perform, or by performing, in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official
duties; (2) by accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duty; or (3) by agreeing to
refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which is his official duty to do, in consideration
of any gift or promise.
MERCENILLO vs PEOPLE
FACTS:
Estillore went to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) office in Tagbilaran City to ask for the
computation of taxes due on the sale of real property to Ramasola Superstudio, Inc. and to apply
for a certificate authorizing registration (CAR).[9] At the BIR office, she was entertained by
revenue examiner Lourdes Fuentes who computed the documentary stamp tax (P37,500) and
capital gains tax (P125,000) due on the transaction. The computation was approved by petitioner
in his capacity as group supervisor. Estillore paid the taxes in the bank and returned to apply for
a CAR. She submitted the application together with relevant documents to Fuentes for
processing. Fuentes prepared the revenue audit reports and submitted them together with the
application for the CAR to petitioner for preliminary approval. [The application was to be
forwarded thereafter to the Revenue District Officer (RDO) for final approval.] Fuentes advised
Estillore that the CAR would be released after seven days. At around 10:00 a.m. of the same day,
private complainant Maria Angeles Ramasola Cesar[10] (Cesar) received a call from Estillore.
She was told that petitioner wanted to see her for some negotiation. She proceeded to petitioners
office where the latter demanded P20,000 in exchange for the approval of the CAR. She reported
the same to the police and a nuy bust operation was commenced.

ISSUE; WON bribery and RA 3019 may be charged at the same time.
HELD: Yes. The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 are:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit;
(3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person;
(4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the
government and
(5) he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in connection with a
contract or transaction has the right to intervene.[31]
On the other hand, direct bribery has the following essential elements:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
(3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a
view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his
official duty to do and
(4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties.
Clearly, the violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical nor necessarily inclusive of
direct bribery. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense
are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the mere request or
demand of a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a violation of
Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present is
required in direct bribery.
Mendoza Ong vs Sandiganbayan
FACTS: