CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ LUCIANO V. ESTRELLA, 34 SCRA 769

LUCIANO V. ESTRELLA,

34 SCRA 769

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Under Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019), it is enough to prove that the accused is a public officer; that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to that government. In other words, the act treated thereunder partakes of the nature of a malum prohibitum; it is the commission of that act as defined by law, not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated.

FACTS

Private respondents and several other people were charged with violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices for conspiring and confederating to­gether, on behalf of the Municipal Government of Makati, Rizal, enter into a contract or transaction with the JEP Enterprises, represented by Jose Gutierrez and Franco A. Gutierrez, for the delivery and installation by the JEP Enterprises to the Municipal Government of Makati, Rizal of traffic deflectors. Private Respondents were pronounced guilty as charged, and each was sentenced to a prison term of 6 years, with perpetual disqualification to hold public office. 

ISSUE

What determines whether or not Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) has been violated.

RULING

The court held that Under Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019), it is enough to prove that the accused is a public officer; that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to that government. In other words, the act treated thereunder partakes of the nature of a malum prohibitum; it is the commission of that act as defined by law, not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147