On
RA NO 3019 Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act

Persons Liable:

1. Any public officer who shall perform any of the following acts:
   (1) 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,
       or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced
       to commit such violation or offense.
         
                 NOTE: Persuasion need not be successful. The
                 gravamen of the offense is the persuasion.

   (2) 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.
 
   (3) 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.

       NOTE: If the act does not fall under b and c, then Art. 210,
       direct bribery, may apply.

   (4) 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.

       NOTE: The act is mala prohibita. Hence, the public official need
       not have even recommended the employment.

   (5) 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 function 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.

       NOTES:

       The best defense is that the partiality was not manifest. That
       the partiality is manifest is a heavy burden on the prosecution.

       Another defense is the Arias doctrine. The defense applies in a
       case where the accused is an approving officer and is on trial for
       signing an unjust contract.

       The defense is that the approving officer relied on the prior
       signatures of his subordinates and had no reason to suspect
       wrong-doing and was swamped with a lot of documents on that day
       that he signed.

       There is no attempted or frustrated stage of the crime defined
       in Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.

   (6) Neglecting or refusing, 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.

   (7) 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.
     
       In determining whether the contract was manifestly and grossly
       disadvantageous, it is not merely consideration of the
       pecuniary amount involved.

   (8) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest
       in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
       which he intervenes or take part in his official capacity, or in
       which he is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from
       having any interest.

       Under the Code of Professional Conduct, the public officer
       MUST divest his interest.

   (9) 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.

   (10)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.

   (11)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

2. Any person having family or close personal relation with any public
   official who shall capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such
   family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting
   or receiving any present, gift, or material, or pecuniary advantage
   from any person having some business, transaction, application,
   request, or contract with the government in which such public
   official has to intervene (Sec. 4)

3. Any person who shall knowingly induce or cause any public official
   to commit any of the offenses under (A). (Sec. 4)

4. Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or 3rd civil degree, of the
   affinity, within the  President of the Philippines, the Vice-President,
   the President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of
   Representatives, who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
   business transaction, contract or application with the government
   (Sec.5)

   This prohibition shall not apply to:
   1. Any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of
      the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
      dealing with the government along the same line of business;
   2. Any transaction, contract or application already existing or
      pending at the time of such assumption of public office;
   3. Any application filed by him, the approval of which is not
      discretionary on the part of the official(s) concerned but
      depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law,
      or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law;
   4. Any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in
      the exercise of a profession.

5. Any member of Congress, during the term for which he has been
   elected, who shall acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
   interest in any specific business enterprise which shall be
   directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or
   resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by
   Congress during his term.

6. Any public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress
   of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution and
   acquires or receives such interest during his incumbency.

   Unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer,
   who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or
   resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for 30
   days after such approval to retain such interest.

7. Any public officer who shall fail to file a true, detailed and
   sworn statement of assets and liabilities within 30 days after
   assuming office and thereafter on or before the 15 day of April
   following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the
   expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or
   separation from office (Sec. 7).

Prima Facie evidence Of and dismissal due to unexplained WEALTH (SEC.8)

1. If a public official has been found to have acquired during
   his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other
   persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of
   proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income.

2. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such
   public official may be taken into consideration, when their
   acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown.

3. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures
   incurred by the public official, his spouse or any of their
   dependents including but not limited to activities in any club
   or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including
   frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any public
   official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of
   proportion to legitimate income.

   NOTE: Competent court is the Sandiganbayan (Sec.10).

General Rule:

Prescriptive period is 15 years (Sec.11).
   Exceptions: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
   insignificant value offered or given as a mere
   ordinary token of gratitude of friendship according
   to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from
   the provisions of this act (Sec. 14).

NOTES:

No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation

Suspension while pending in court after valid information (cannot be automatic), and loss of benefits if convicted by final judgment; maximum duration of preventive suspension is 90 days;

Acquittal - reinstatement and salaries and benefits which he failed to receive

The courts are not bound by the statement of assets and liabilities filed.

Penalty of forfeiture can be applied retroactively.


Bar Exam Question (1997)

A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information
that reads:

That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue injury to B and the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no
allegation in the information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to
the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be merely charged administratively

Alternative Answers:

1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 applies only to officers and employees of government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a government corporation.

2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves a substantially identical information as the Information quoted in the question, the Supreme Court held that the Information was valid. While it is true that the information quoted In the question, failed to allege evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, said Information Is nevertheless adequate because it averred the three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, being employed in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused undue Injury to B and the Government, with the statement that BT the owner of the land, received only P1,000.00 instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and (3) that in the discharge of A's official administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and unlawfully appropriate for himself the
balance of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use the very words or language of the statute. It may also use words or language of similar import.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Ra 3019; Preventive Suspension (1999)

A public officer was accused before the Sandiganbayan of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Just after arraignment and even before evidence was presented, the Sandiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The accused questioned the said Order contending that it is violative of the constitutional provision against an ex post facto law. 

a. Will you sustain the objection of the accused? Why? 
b. What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before preventive suspension may be ordered?

Suggested Answer:

a. No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused. Suspension of the accused pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto law. Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime before it is made punishable.

b. The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be ordered are: 
(1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to RA 3019, as amended; and 
(2) there must be a determination of a valid information against the accused that warrants his suspension.

Bar Exam Question (2000)

RA 3019; Preventive Suspension (2000)

A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional validity of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before Judgment of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. 

Suggested Answer:

The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused public officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court (Sec. 13, RA. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan,279 SCRA 581 (1997); Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332 (1993)). Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all public officials Indicted upon a valid information under RA. No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or noncareer service
(Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998]).

Bar Exam Question (2003)

RA 3019; Public Officer (2003)

The Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas}, by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Theof Sto Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a consultant. Theof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Central Bank. May Theof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

No, Theof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for violation of Pres, Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is punished. Although Theof is a "public officer" within the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019 since he is not to intervene in his official capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Theof is administratively liable.

Alternative Answer:

Yes, Theof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a "public officer" within the purview of said law, and Theof received the valuable gift from a bank which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a "public officer". Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a transaction with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the government office to which the public officer is connected.