Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELIAS C. QUIBAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The fourth element is likewise present. While it is true that the prosecution was not able to prove any undue injury to the government as a result of the purchases, it should be noted that there are two ways by which Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be violated--the first, by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or the second, by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. Although neither mode constitutes a distinct offense,[22] an accused may be charged under either mode or both.[23] The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.[24]
	GR No. 169888 2008-11-11	RAMON Y. TALAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the law does not require that the information must allege that the acts in question "caused injury to any party, whether the government or private party." The presence of the word "or" clearly shows that there are two acts which can be prosecuted under Section 3: First, causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, and, Second, giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantages or preference. Moreover, in Quibal v. Sandiganbayan,[30] the Court ruled that violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 requires proof of the following facts: x x x x
	GR NO. 134887 2006-07-27	PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE v. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO CARPIO MORALES, J.
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.[13] The civil case against Lichauco on the other hand involves three causes of action. The first, for injunction, seeks to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153ºE, the DOTC having previously assigned the same to PASI; the second, for declaration of nullity of award, seeks to nullify the award given to the undisclosed bidder for being beyond Lichauco's authority; and the third, for damages arising from Lichauco's questioned acts.
	GR No. 164921 2005-07-08	ROSENDO H. ESCARA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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.[45] Petitioner committed the prohibited act in relation to his public position as mayor of Polillo, Quezon. There was evident bad faith and manifest partiality when he signed the inspection report and the disbursement voucher because he had foreknowledge that the materials delivered by Guadines have already been confiscated by the DENR, which caused undue injury to the Government and gave unwarranted benefit to Guadines in the amount of P70,924.00.
	GR NO. 165751 2005-04-12	DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM v. SECOND DIVISION OF SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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.[22]