Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

(Took effect August 17, 1960)

Gov’t includes:
 National govt
 Local govt
 GOCC
 All other instrumentalities and agencies of the Rep and their
branches

Public officer includes:

 Elective and appointive
 Permanent or temporary
 Classified, unclassified or exemption service receiving
compensation, even nominal
Elements of “Receiving any gift”
 Accepting directly or indirectly
 From any person
 In behalf of himself or family or relative within 4th
degree by affinity or consanguinity
 Even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
festivity
 If the value of the gift is manifestly excessive.

Except: from a member of the public officer’s

immediate family
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an offense
in connection with the official duties of the latter,
or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit such violation or offense.
“Sec. 3 (a) of RA 3019 requires a deliberate
intent on the part of the public official
concerned to violate those rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority, or to commit an offense in
connection with official duties.” Reyes v.
Atienza, GR No. 152243, 23 Sept. 2005.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any
other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
The elements of the offense are:

(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/her official capacity under the law. (OSIAS vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. Nos. L-46148-49, 1996 Apr 10)
Section 3(b) penalizes three distinct acts – 1) demanding
or requesting; 2) receiving; or 3) 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
a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene
under the law. Each of these modes of committing the
offense is distinct and different from one another.
Proof of existence of any of them suffices to warrant
conviction. (Palacios vs Pp, GR No. 168544, Mar. 31,
2009)
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or
for another, from any person for whom the
public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain,
any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be
given, without prejudice to Section thirteen
of this Act.
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure or
obtain, for a person any government permit or license;
(3) he directly or indirectly requested or received from
said person any gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit for himself or for another; and
(4) he requested or received the gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit in consideration for help
given or to be given. (Mendoza-Ong vs
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146368-69, 2003 Oct 23)
In contrast, Section 3 (c) earlier quoted in the present case applies
regardless of whether the gift’s value is manifestly excessive or
not, and regardless of the occasion. What is important here, in
our view, is whether the gift is received in consideration for help
given or to be given by the public officer. The value of the gift is
not mentioned at all as an essential element of the offense
charged under Section 3 (c), and there appears no need to
require the prosecution to specify such value in order to comply
with the requirements of showing a prima facie case. (Mendoza-
Ong)

*In practice, I have been informed, that the Office of the

Ombudsman actually requires the value of the gift to be stated in
the information that it files in court.
 For one to be found guilty under the foregoing provisions,
the following elements must be present and proven beyond
reasonable doubt:
 (a) the accused is a public officer;
 (b) he or she accepted or has a member of his or her family
who accepted employment in a private enterprise; and,
 (c) such private enterprise has a pending official business
with the public officer during the pendency of official
business or within one year from its termination.
(Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 237864, [July 8, 2020])
 A purely ministerial act or duty, in contra-distinction
to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment, upon the propriety of the act done. If the
law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him
the right to decide how or when the duty shall be
performed, such duty is ministerial only when the
discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of
official discretion nor judgment. (Villanueva)
(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.
a) The accused must be a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions;
b) He must have acted with:
manifest partiality;
evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence.
c) That:
- his actions caused undue injury to any party, or
- he gives any private party unwarranted benefits, adv, or
preference in the discharge of his functions. (Velasco v.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 160991, 28 Feb 2005)
 We agree with the view adopted by the Solicitor
General that the last sentence of paragraph [Section 3]
(e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers
and employees of officers (sic) or government
corporations which, under the ordinary concept of
“public officers” may not come within the term. It is a
strained construction of the provision to read it as
applying exclusively to public officers charged with the
duty of granting licenses or permits or other
concessions. (CRUZ versus SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R.
No. 134493, 2005 Aug 16)
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office
plagued by all too common problems ---- dishonest or
negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple
assignments or positions, or plain incompetence ---- is
suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply
because he did not personally examine every single
detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception,
and investigate the motives of every person involved in
a transaction before affixing his signature as the final
approving authority. (ARIAS vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. No. 81563, 1989 December 19)
Unlike in Arias, however, there exists in the present case
an exceptional circumstance which should have
prodded petitioner, if he were out to protect the
interest of the municipality he swore to serve, to be
curious and go beyond what his subordinates prepared
or recommended. In fine, the added reason
contemplated in Arias which would have put
petitioner on his guard and examine the check/s and
vouchers with some degree of circumspection before
signing the same was obtaining in this case. (Cruz)
We refer to the unusual fact that the checks issued as
payment for construction materials purchased by the
municipality were not made payable to the supplier,
Kelly Lumber, but to petitioner himself even as the
disbursement vouchers attached thereto were in the
name of Kelly Lumber. The discrepancy between the
names indicated in the checks, on one hand, and those
in the disbursement vouchers, on the other, should
have alerted petitioner - if he were conscientious of his
duties as he purports to be - that something was
definitely amiss. tes.
Elements:
(1) that the accused are public officers or private persons
charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) that the prohibited act/s were done in the discharge of
the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial
functions;
(3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether
Government or a private person;
(4) that such injury is caused by giving any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference to such party; and
(5) that the public officers acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. (Cruz)
Finally, it is puerile for petitioner to contend that Kelly
Lumber’s act of refunding the amount subject of double
payment argues against the idea of the government
suffering damages. The injury suffered by the government
is beyond cavil. This conclusion was aptly explained by the
Sandiganbayan in the following wise:

Damage to the government in that instance [referring to the

alleged double payment] is inevitable for the simple reason
that money taken from the coffers was used by someone
else for about two years and without paying interest and
without authority for its use.
 The well-settled rule is that "private persons, when
acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be
indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the
pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law
to repress certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act
or which may lead thereto. (Canlas v. People, G.R. Nos.
236308-09 (Resolution), [February 17, 2020])
 Private individuals who have family
relations or close personal relations with a
public official;
 Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present, gift, material or pecuniary
advantage;
 From any person who has business with the
government in which the public officer has
to intervene.
 President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives;
 Spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the 3rd civil degree;
 To intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business,
transaction, contract or application with the
Government
 Within thirty days after assuming office, and
thereafter, on or before the 15th day of April following
the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the
expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation
or separation from office;
 File a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and
liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and
sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and
family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid
for the next preceding calendar year.
 A public official who acquires during his incumbency,
whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an
amount of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income,
 Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried
children of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall
be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this
section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary.
 Ground for indefinite period of administrative suspension.
 Incumbent public officer;
 Criminally prosecuted (3019, Title 7, Bk 2, RPC, any
offense involving fraud upon government or public
funds/property);
 Simple, complex, whatever stage of execution or mode
of participation;
 Pending in court – suspended from office;
 Convicted – lose all retirement or gratuity benefits
 Acquitted – reinstatement and entitled to salary and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension.
The Sandiganbayan properly construed
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 as covering two
types of offenses: (1) any offense involving
fraud on the government; and (2) any
offense involving public funds or property.
(Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 154098,
27 July 2005)
The phrase “any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property” is clear
and categorical. To limit the use of “government”
as an adjective that qualifies “funds” is baseless.
The word “public” precedes “funds” and
distinguishes the same from private funds. To
qualify further “public funds” as “government”
funds, as petitioner claims is the law’s intent, is
plainly superfluous. (Miranda)
“x x x administrative complaints commenced under the
Ombudsman Law are distinct from those initiated
under the Local Government Code. x x x the shorter
period of suspension under the Local Government
Code is intended to limit the period of suspension that
may be imposed by a mayor, a governor, or the
President, who may be motivated by partisan political
considerations. In contrast the Ombudsman, who can
impose a longer period of preventive suspension, is not
likely to be similarly motivated because it is a
constitutional body. (Miranda)
 Section 10. Jurisdiction with the RTC.
 Section 11. Prescription is 10 years.
 Section 12. Public officers cannot resign or retire
pending an investigation, criminal or administrative,
or pending a prosecution for violation of RA 3019 or
RPC (bribery)
 Section 14. 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, shall be excepted from the
provisions of this Act.