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 officers 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

thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. 2[19] (citations omitted) The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violatedthe first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense, an accused may be charged under either mode or both. The use of the disjunctive or connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.3 In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions. Petitioner did just that. 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. These suppliers were awarded the procurement contract without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible price for the government. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by respondent, were able to profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the government. For that, petitioner must now face the consequences of his acts.( G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, 2010,Rolando E. Sison Vs. People of the Philippines)

We find the penalty imposed in all three criminal cases within that prescribed by law. The Sandiganbayan was correct in applying Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Said law provides that in offenses punishable by a law, other than the Revised Penal Code, 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.( G.R. Nos. 175045-46. March 3, 2010Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano Vs. People of the Philippines)

2 3

Clearly, the law punishes not only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who induce or cause the public official to commit those offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9, which includes private persons as liable for violations under Secs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. .( G.R. Nos. 175045-46. March 3, 2010Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano Vs. People of the Philippines)

Plainly, under these rulings, a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, based on the legal correctness of the official acts of Justices of the Supreme Court, cannot prosper and should not be entertained. This is not to say that Members of the Court are absolutely immune from suit during their term, for they are not. 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, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.9 Only after removal can they be criminally proceeded against for their transgressions. While in office and thereafter, and for their official acts that do not constitute impeachable offenses, recourses against them and their liabilities therefor are as defined in the above rulings.( A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC. March 2, 2010, Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, 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, GR. No. 186471, January 25,2010) Prior surveillance not necessary where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment( Aparis vs People, GR. No. 169195, feb. 17,2010) 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. People, G.R. 180870, January 22,2010

Link in the chain of custody of illegal drugs, form the moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence must be established. (People vs. Peralta, G.R., 173472, Feb. 26,2010) Non-compliance with the procedure is not fatal provided the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapses in the prescribed procedures( People vs. Habana, GR No. 188900, March 5,2010) Non-compliance with the procedure does not render an accused illegal arrest or the items seized / confiscated from him inadmissible( People vs De Leon, G.R. no. 186471, Jan. 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.R. 186498. March 26,2010) Perfect Chain is not always the standard. ( People vs De Guzman, G.R.186498, March 26,2010) Prosecution ,ust esure the unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed( ( People vs De Leon, G.R. no. 186471, Jan. 25.2010) 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, G.R.186498, March 26,2010) Requirememnts necessary to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movemtns from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court. (People vs Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29,2010) There must be justifiable grounds to warrant exception form the requirements of RA NO. 9165 and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. ( People vs. Almorfe G.R. 181831, March 29,2010) ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS The non-presentaiton of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecutions theory of the case (People vs. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5,2010) SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE , EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA. 7610) and Anti Rape Law 8353

Child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below12 years old- 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. People, . GR No. 186441, Mar. 03,2010) In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 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; and (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.4[47] ( Flordeliz vs. People, . GR No. 186441, Mar. 03,2010)

The insertion of petitioners fingers into the victims vagina constituted the crime of Rape through sexual assault5[36] under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which in part provides: Art. 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

4 5

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.6[37]

Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, 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; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.7[60]

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.(People vs. Gallo. G.R. 185277, MARCH 18,2010)

6 7