Anti Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act
Marc Angelo V. Bantug
James Seimon V. Abrenica
 Section 3(d)
(d) 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.
 Elements of Section 3(d)
1) The public official or his family
member accepts employment
2) Must be in a private enterprise
3) The said enterprise must have
pending official business with
him:
a) During the pendency of his official
business with him.
b) Within one year after its termination
 Applicability
 Section 3(d) applies if a public official
occupies an office that regulates,
supervises or licenses the private
enterprise.
 Therefore, if he holds a public office
which is not connected with the said
private enterprise, the prohibition in
Section 3(d) does not apply.
 The evil sought to be avoided;
 Section 3(d) of RA 3019 was enacted
to avoid a situation where a public
official gives undue favor, preference
or advantage to a private enterprise
as a consideration for present or
future employment for the official
himself or a family member.
 Nature of the act punished
A public official may violate Section
3(d) of RA 3019 in two ways:
1) The public official himself accepted
employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with his office

2) The public official caused his family

member to accept such employment
 The need to prove pending official
business
 Ifthe private enterprise regularly
deals or transacts with the public
official, it suffices to prove that his or
his family member’s employment
with that private enterprise takes
place at anytime while any of its
official business with him is pending
or within one year after the last
official business is finished.
 Meaning of the term “family”
“Family relation is defined under
Section 4 of RA 3019 which
according to said section; “shall
include spouse or relatives by
consanguinity or affinity in the
third civil degree.”
(Valera vs. Sandiganbayan; G.R. No.
167278, February 27, 2008)
 Cases

 Valera vs. Sandiganbayan; G.R. No.

167278, February 27, 2008
 Section 3(e)
(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. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions
 Nature of the act punished
• There are two ways by which a public
official violates Section 3(e) RA 3019 in
the performance of his functions namely:
• By causing undue injury to any party, including
the government
• By giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference.

(The Accused may be charged under either mode

or under both.)
 Elements of Section 3(e)
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.
3) That his action caused any undue injury
to any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
 Applicability
• The provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other
concessions
 Partiality
 Issynonymous with “bias” which
“excites a disposition to see and
report matters as they 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
 Bad Faith
 Bad faith alone on the part of the
petitioner is not sufficient to make
her liable for violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019. Such Bad faith must be
evident.
 Gross Negligence
 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 willfully 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 thoughtless men never fail
to Take on their own property.
 Undue Injury
 Undue injury refers to the actual or real
damage occasioned by the acts of the
offender.
 Thus, there was no injury for the purposes
of criminal liability for the following:
– Injury must be more than necessary,
excessive, improper or illegal.
– Injury must be duly established as an element
of the crime.
– There is no injury in a contract where sufficient
consideration exists in favor of the
government.
 Particularity
 Manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence must
be alleged with particularity in the
information sufficiently.
 To sufficiently inform the accused of
the charge against him and to enable
the court properly render a decision.
 CASES:
 Cresente
y Llorente, JR. vs.
Sandiganbayan and Leticia Fuertes
(92 SCAD 418)

 Menesesvs. People of the Philippines

(303 SCRA 303)