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.