2017

R.A. NO 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

SUBMITTED BY:
ALIANZA, KATELENE
BUNIEL, CHRIS LLOYD
DE GUZMAN, PRINCESS KAY

0
I. Objective

• RA 3019 was enacted under the police power of the State to promote morality in public service,
to deter public officials and employees from committing acts of dishonesty and improve the tome
of morality in public service.1
• The law does not merely contemplate repression of acts that are unlawful or corrupt per se, but
even those that may lead to or result in graft and corruption. Thus, to require for conviction under
the Anti-Graft Law that the validity of the contract be first proved would be enervate, if not defeat,
the intention of the Act. 2
• Section 1 of RA 3019 provides no time distinctions. It is immaterial when a reprehensible act is
committed by a public officer, for the law does not draw a line between acts done during a former
term of office of a particular public officer and acts done during a later term.

II. Definitions

1. “Offense committed in relation to the office”

• Means that the relation between the crime and the office contemplated by the law has
to be such that in legal sense the offence cannot exist without the office.3

2. Term “office”
• Indicate that it applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding, and not
only the particular office under which he stands accused. 45

3. “Public Officer”
• Includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary,
whether in the classified or unclassified service receiving compensation, even
nominal, from the government.

• NOTE: such definition is expressly limited to the application of RA 3019

• The question of whether petitioner is a public officer under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act involves the appreciation of evidence and interpretation of
law, matters that are best resolved at trial.
• The use of the term “includes” indicates that the definition is not restrictive.

1
Morfe vs Mutuc, GR No L-20387, January 31, 1968
2
Marcos vs Sandiganbayan, GR No 127073, January 29, 1998
3
Sanchez vs Demetriou, GR No 111771-77, November 9, 1993
4
Segovia vs Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328
5
Bayot vs Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383

1
 • Other laws that define “Public Officer”
a) Art 203 of RPC – provides that a public officer is any person who, by direct
provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, takes
part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippines,
or performs in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
b) Section 2 (14) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987,
on the other hand, states: “Officer” – as distinguished from “clerk” or “employee”
– refers to a person whose duties not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves
the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the government.
c) Section 3 (b) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees), public officials include elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career
service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive
compensation, regardless of amount.

4. “Condonation”
• Of an officer’s misconduct committed during his expired term applies only to his
administrative but bot to his criminal guilt. It does not in any manner wipe out the criminal
liabilities incurred by him in a previous term.

5. “Government-owned and/or controlled corporations”

• Include those with or without original charters

6. “Receiving any gifts”

• includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member
of his family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity,
even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the
value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive. 6

7. “Person”
• Includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicates otherwise. 7

6
RA 3019 “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, Section 2 (c)
7
RA 3019 “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, Section 2 (d)

2
III. Acts Punishable under RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Law)

Sec 3 (a) – Ways of Violating

a. A public officer persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform (1) an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or (2)
an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter.

b. A public officer allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such

violation or offense.

Persons liable:
 Public Officer who persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations or an offense in connection with the official duties
of the latter and
 Public officer who allows himself to be so persuaded, induced or influenced

Note: Requesting or receiving any gift, present, or benefit is not required

Variant Crime: Art 243 of RPC (Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority)

Sec 3 (b) – Ways of Violating

a. Demanding or requesting;
b. Receiving; or
c. Demanding, requesting and receiving:

any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for oneself 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.

Elements:8
1. That the offense was committed by a public officer;
2. That such public officer requested and/or received a gift, present, etc.;
3. That the gift, present, etc. was for the benefit of said public officer;
4. That said public officer requested and/or received the gift, present, etc. in connection with a
contract or transaction with the government; and
5. That said officer has the right to intervene in such contract or transaction in his official capacity
under the law.

8
Osias vs CA, G.R. No. L-46148-49, April 10, 1996.

3
 Persons liable: Public Officer who, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law in any contact or
transaction between the Government and any other party.

Act Punishable: Directly or indirectly, requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with that contract or transaction.

Variant Crime: Art 210 of RPC (Direct Bribery)

Sec. 3 (c)
Persons liable: Public Officer who, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any Government permit or license for another person.

Act Punishable: Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit, for himself or for another in consideration for the help given or to be given.

Sec. 3 (d)

Person Liable: a public officer who had or has pending official business with a private enterprise.

Act Punishable: Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise
(1) during the pendency of the official business with him or (2) within one year after its termination

Sec. 3 (e) – Ways of Violating9

a. By causing any undue injury to any party, including the government; and
b. By giving any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.

Elements:10
1. That the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
2. That said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official
duties or in relation to their public positions;
3. The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross, inexcusable
negligence; and
4. The action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, OR gave any party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties.

Notes:
 Undue Injury – quantifiable in money.
 Manifest partiality – clear, notorious or plain inclination or predeliction to favor one side rather than
the other

9
Santiago vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993.
10
Nacaytuna v. People G.R. No. 171144, November 24, 2006.

4
 Evident bad faith – manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage
 Gross inexcusable 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 wilfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected
 This is an exception to the rule that in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent is not
a defense. Evident bad faith, being one of the elements of this particular subsection, good faith is a
valid defense.

Sec. 3 (f) – Ways of Violating

a. The accused’s dereliction must be without justification, AND must be for the purpose of:
 obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage in favor of an interested party, or
 discriminating against another interested party.

Elements:10
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. The said officer has neglected or refused to act without sufficient justification after due demand
or request has been made on him;
3. Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public officer having
acted on the matter pending before him; and
4. Such failure to act is for the purpose of obtaining directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of an
interested party, or discriminating against another.

Notes:
 Variant Crime: Art 223 – Refusal of Assistance
 The act must be motivated by any gain or benefit for the accused or knowingly for the purpose of
favouring an interested party or discriminating against another. It is not enough that an advantage in
favor of one party, as against another, would result from such neglect or refusal.
 It is not necessary that the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
 Neglect or delay of public function must be accompanied by a demand impliedly or expressly of any
benefit or consideration for himself or another. Absent such demand, the officer shall be merely
administratively liable.

Sec. 3 (g)

Elements:11
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government; and

10
Coronado vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94955, August 18, 1993.
11
Marcos vs. Sandiganbaya, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998.

5
 3. That such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

Person liable: any public officer who has the duty under the law to enter, on behalf of the Government,
into any contract or transaction with any person.

Act Punishable: Entering into such contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
Government

Note: It is not necessary that the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

Sec. 3 (h) – Ways of Violating

a. Any public officer who has director or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction:
 in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity; or
 in which he is prohibited by the Constitution from having any interest; or
 in which he is prohibited by any law from having any interest, such as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees (RA No. 76713).

Person liable: any public officer who intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in any business,
contract or transaction, or any public officer who is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from
having interest.

Act Punishable: Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in that business, contract or
transaction

Note: Actual Intervention is required in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest in
order that liability may attach

Sec. 3 (i)

Person Liable - any public officer who is a member of a board, panel or group which exercises discretion
in the approval of any transaction or act.

Act Punishable - Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having material interest
in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group.

Notes:
 The public officer is still liable even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of
the board, committee, panel or group.
 The public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong are presumed to have acquired
interest for personal gain.

6
 Can also be held liable under Art 215, RPC – Prohibited Transactions

Sec. 3 (j)

Person Liable: any public officer who has the duty of approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or
benefit.

Act Punishable: Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any
person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is
not so qualified or entitled.

Sec. 3 (k)

Person Liable: any public officer who, on account of his official position, or whose office, acquired valuable
information of a confidential character.

Acts Punishable:
1. Divulging valuable information to unauthorized persons
2. Releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

Act Punishable:

IV. Penalties for Violation

A. Violation of Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act

Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful act or omissions under these
sections shall be punished with:
1. Imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years,
2. Perpetual disqualification from the public office, and
3. Confiscation of or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

B. Violation of Section 7 of this Act

Any public officer violating any of the provisions under this section shall be punished by:
1. A fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or
2. By imprisonment not exceeding one year, or
3. By both such fine and imprisonment At the discretion of the Court

V. Suspension of Public Officer

The rule is that suspension of a public officer from office is mandatory but not automatic. There should
first be a hearing for the purpose. The court is mandated to immediately issue the suspension order of a

7
public officer after the validity of the information12 has been upheld in a pre-suspension hearing conducted
for that purpose. This rule is specific and categorical. It is not within the court’s discretion to hold in
abeyance the suspension of the accused officer.

Purpose of the pre-suspension hearing: to determine basically the validity of the information, from which
the court can have a basis to either (a) suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of
the case, or (b) withhold the suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or (c) correct any part of the
proceeding which impairs its validity.

The accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of
criminal proceedings against him, such as that:

 He has not been afforded the right to due preliminary investigation,

 That the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime which would warrant his mandatory
suspension from office under Section 13 of RA No. 3019, or
 He may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided for in Rule 117 of
the Rule of Court.13

VI. Prescriptive Period

Since this is a special law, the computation of the prescriptive period of the offense is governed not by the
provision contained in the Revised Penal Code, but that of Act No. 3326 which states that “Prescription
shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known
at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and
punishment.”14 Although Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended by B.P. Blg. 195, provides that the
offenses committed under the said statute shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years, prior to such amendment
which took effect on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive period for violation of said law was only ten (10)
years. Therefore, the longer prescriptive period being prejudicial to the accused, cannot be given
retroactive effect.15

In case where the violation “be not known at the time,” it should be from the date of discovery thereof
NOT from the day of commission.16

VII. Ombudsman’s power to investigate

According to jurisprudence, the Supreme Court must not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its
investigatory and prosecutor powers.17 The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate
any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the

12
Republic Act No. 3019 (1960), Section 13.
13
Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055. April 18, 2001.
14
Act No. 3326, Section 2.
15
People vs. Pacificador, G.R. No. 139405, March 13, 2001.
16
Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 135482, August 14, 2001.
17
L. D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, p. 567, 2004 Ed.

8
 purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.18 It has the power to investigate and
prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.19

Rationale behind the hands-off policy: the rule is based not only upon respect for such powers granted by
the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.20

VIII. Exceptions
• Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage;
• Practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private person or by any private
person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade
or occupation during his incumbency,
• EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation
involves conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any of the violation
penalized in this Act.

I. CASES

 NAVA v. PALATTAO G.R. No. 160211. August 28, 2006

“To sustain a conviction under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, it must be clearly proven that 1) the
accused is a public officer; 2) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and 3) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.
Petitioner is a public officer, who approved the transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby
suffered a substantial loss. The discrepancy between the prices of the SLTDs purchased by the DECS and
the samples purchased by the COA audit team clearly established such undue injury. Indeed, the
discrepancy was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government”

We must emphasize however, that the lack of a public bidding and the violation of an administrative order
do not by themselves satisfy the third element of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(g); namely, that the
contract or transaction entered into was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Lack of public bidding alone does not result in a manifest and gross disadvantage. Indeed, the absence
of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor
and may open the door to graft and corruption. Nevertheless, the law requires that the disadvantage
must be manifest and gross. Penal laws are strictly construed against the government

18
Republic Act No. 6770 (1989), Section 22.
19
Republic Act No. 6770 (1989), Section 15(1).
20
See Note 10, supra.

9
  NACATUYNA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 171144, November 24, 2006
“Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 requires proof of the following facts:
1.) The accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged
in conspiracy with them;
2.) The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty or in relation
to his public position;
3.) The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross, inexcusable negligence; and
4.) His action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, or gave any party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties.
All the foregoing facts were established beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner, as Municipal
Mayor, was a public officer. His acceptance of Marydole's resignation was done in the performance of
his official duty. It was also proved that Marydole never tendered the resignation letter hence petitioner
was evidently acting in bad faith when he made it appear that it was submitted. Worse, he accepted
the same knowing that it was never tendered in the first place. Petitioner's actuations caused undue
injury to Marydole because it resulted to her removal from office and the withholding of her salaries.”

 PCGG VS. Desierto, G.R. No. 140231, July 9,2007

In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to the February 1986 Edsa
Revolution that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos, we ruled that the government as the aggrieved
party could not have known of the violations at the time the questioned transactions were made.
Moreover, no person would have dared to question the legality of those transactions. Thus, the counting
of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992 after an
exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans.
As to when the period of prescription was interrupted, the second paragraph of Section 2, Act
No. 3326, as amended, provides that prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against
the guilty person.

10