**Facts:**
The case originated when four Informations were filed on July 23, 2002, against Librado M. Cabrera, his wife Fe M. Cabrera, and Luther Leonor for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Informations detailed instances from January 30, 1998, to September 1, 1999, accusing the Cabreras and Leonor (occupying the positions of Municipal Mayor and Municipal Councilor of Taal, Batangas) of conspiring to give unwarranted benefits to Diamond Laboratories, Inc. (DLI) by purchasing medicines without public bidding and by reimbursing unauthorized and illegal travel expenses from municipal coffers to themselves, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Taal and the government.
Following their arraignment, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the Informations, arguing that they failed to quantify the undue injury or specify the unauthorized benefits. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, prompting the petitioners to raise the matter to the Philippine Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asserting that the Sandiganbayan erred in its application of the law.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the Informations filed against the petitioners sufficiently allege the elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash.
**Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. It held that the Informations adequately stated the acts or omissions constituting the offense as required by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court elucidated that the Informations need only to specify the act or omission complained of that constitutes the offense, and that quantification of undue injury can be established during the trial. The Court clarified that Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 can be violated in two ways: causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to a private party, with each constituting a mode of committing the offense.
**Doctrine:**
The essential elements for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 include: (1) the offender is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with a public officer, (2) the offense was committed in relation to the public officer’s duties, (3) the act resulted in undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a party, and (4) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
**Class Notes:**
– **Essential Elements of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019:** Public officers can violate this provision by either causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of their functions, with these acts constituting different modes of commission of the offense.
– **Quantification of Undue Injury:** It is not requisite in the Information but must be proven during the trial to establish the extent of damages or injury.
– **Legal Sufficiency of the Information:** The Information must state the acts or omissions so complained of as constitutive of the offense, without the need for extrinsic evidence at the stage of evaluating its sufficiency.
**Historical Background:**
This case underscores the judiciary’s stringent approach towards official misconduct within the context of the Philippines’ ongoing struggle against corruption among public officials. Enacted to penalize corrupt practices of public officers and private persons conspiring with them, Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 embodies the legislature’s intent to uphold integrity and accountability in public service, reflecting the country’s enduring commitment to good governance and the rule of law. The decision reaffirms the principle that public officials are held to higher standards of behavior and are accountable for their actions, further emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing laws aimed at curbing corruption.
Leave a Reply