Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARIEL C. SANTOS v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192591 2011-06-29	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.[13] 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.[14]
	GR No. 164891 2011-06-06	VIRGINIA M. GUADINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We explained the foregoing elements in Santos v. People[24]: As may be noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue injury to any party, or the giving to any private party of unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officer's functions. In Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, and again in Santiago vs. Garchitorena, the Court has made it abundantly clear that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. This is not to say, however, that each mode constitutes a distinct offense but that an accused may be proceeded against under either or both modes.
	GR No. 155307 2011-06-06	M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
More importantly, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that it suffered damages when its property lost lateral support by reason of the collapsed retaining wall. In the case of Santos v. People[26] cited in the case of Soriano v. Marcelo,[27] the Court equated the concept of "undue injury," in the context of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, with the civil law concept of "actual damage." It is required that undue injury must be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.[28] Speculative or incidental injury is not sufficient. The damages suffered cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture or guesswork[29] but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding specific facts which could afford some basis for measuring compensatory or actual damage. The Memorandum of the Office of the City Engineer of Baguio City, which petitioner has not refuted, clearly stated that "the retaining wall is located approximately 7.50 meters to the nearest building line of the complainant. x x x [T]he main structure of the complainant is evaluated to be outside the critical slip circle which is approximately 5.00 meters lateral distance from the retaining wall x x x." Absent any controverting evidence submitted by petitioner which would clearly prove actual damage of its property, the Ombudsman will not be faulted for relying on the said memorandum report.
	GR No. 171609 2007-08-17	DR. JUANITO RUBIO v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
(4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[11] As may be noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue injury to any party, or the giving to any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officer's functions.[12] The records disclose that Merit indeed tendered the lowest bid of Twelve Thousand Pesos (PP12,000.00) salary per month for every guard who will render eight hours of work per day. In fact, the BAC recommended to petitioner to award the security service contract to Merit. However, petitioner declined because Merit's bid price rate violates PADPAO's Memorandum Circular NR. 1, Series of 2001, the pertinent portion of which is reproduced hereunder: MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR
	GR NO. 169251 2006-12-20	DEMIE L. URIARTE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
(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. The essential elements of this crime have been enumerated in several cases[66] decided by this Court, as follows: The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;