Lawyerly

GR No. 209845

2015-07-01

CARPIO, J.

Besides the Court finds no proof/evidence to show that the 400 pieces [of] tapping saddles that were allegedly delivered by Mr. Vermug were actually installed in the different households of the municipality." The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Maderazo processed the Request for Obligation and Allotment instead of the municipal engineer, received the amount of P160,000 on 28 January 1998, and covered up the non-existent tapping saddles by belatedly effecting the delivery of the tapping saddles, which did not even conform to the Job Contract. For his part, Veruen approved the Disbursement Voucher despite the lack of supporting documents, as found upon audit, in violation of his duties. Moreover, Maderazo and Veruen signed the glaringly incomplete and undated Inspection Report. Verily, Maderazo and Veruen acted in evident bad faith, or such state of mind affirmatively operating'with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[12] By disbursing P160,000 despite the non-existent tapping saddles, Maderazo and Veruen caused undue injury to the LGU of Caibiran for the said amount. Their concerted actions, which demonstrate a common design, justify the finding of conspiracy.

GR No. 156577

2014-12-03

ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.[33]

GR No. 187268

2013-09-04

JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[44] In Uriarte v. People,[45] this Court explained that Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality" when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[46] "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[47] "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[48] "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[49]

GR No. 187340

2013-08-14

ANTONIO B. SANCHEZ v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[26] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 189343

2013-07-10

BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SERENO, C.J.

The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.[63]

GR No. 195032

2013-02-20

ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

MENDOZA, J.

While it is true that the practice of the Sandiganbayan of conducting "provisional" or "conditional" arraignment of the accused is not specifically sanctioned by the Revised Internal Rules of the Procedure of the Sandiganbayan or by the regular Rules of Procedure, this Court had tangentially recognized such practice in People v. Espinosa,[25] provided that the alleged conditions attached to the arraignment should be "unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened." The Court further required that the conditions must be expressly stated in the order disposing of arraignment, otherwise, it should be deemed simple and unconditional.[26]

GR No. 171359

2012-07-18

BENJAMIN A. UMIPIG v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

[56] Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009, 580 SCRA 279, 289-290.

GR No. 171671

2012-06-18

PEOPLE v. ARISTEO E. ATIENZA

PERALTA, J.

The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[21] In Uriarte v. People,[22] this Court explained that Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23]

GR No. 155307

2011-06-06

M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

But as correctly noted by the Ombudsman, petitioner failed to point out specific evidence and concrete proof that respondents demonstrated manifest partiality or evident bad faith in the construction of the BGHMC and its retaining wall. There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[20] Evident bad faith, on the other hand, connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[21] It connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[22] Petitioner has not shown that respondents were impelled by such motives in the performance of their official duties and functions. Neither did petitioner establish that respondents acted with gross inexcusable negligence. As found by the Ombudsman: Respondents adopted emergency slope protection at the onset of the BGHMC Project. The Supplemental Agreement provided reinforced concrete slope protection and grouted rip rap, installation of polyurethane sheets and hiring of structural design specialist x x x. In fact, as recommended by complainant's Architect Angelo Lazaro three hundred (300) RSB soil nails were installed on site. The collapse was due to heavy rains and typhoon Feria. This was followed by the discovery of a pre-war tunnel under which caved-in and collapsed also. The delay was beyond the control of respondents. There was the Open public bidding and the review of plans and structural design by the Bureau of Design. These factors were beyond the scope of authority of respondents. Conformably to the series of acts done by the respondents, we find no negligence or inexcusable negligence as claimed by complainants. The recommendation of complainant's architect was even implemented and yet, due to "force majeure", the collapse happened.

GR No. 188487

2011-02-14

VAN D. LUSPO v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, which are "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[48] Manifest partiality and evident bad faith connote that the crime is committed by dolo, while gross inexcusable negligence indicates its commission through culpa.[49] In the recent Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[50] we reiterated the definitions of such modalities, viz.: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[51]

GR Nos. 172476-99

2010-09-15

BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CARPIO, J.

An arraignment is that stage where, in the mode and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. The accused is formally informed of the charges against him, to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.[23]

GR Nos. 177105-06

2010-08-12

JOSE REYES Y VACIO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[27]

GR No. 184537

2010-04-23

QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

MENDOZA, J.

That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. [14]

GR No. 176546

2009-09-25

FELICITAS P. ONG v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[21]

GR No. 183141

2009-09-18

EDGARDO H. CATINDIG v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Soriano v. Marcelo,[28] citing Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[29] this Court discussed the second element, to wit: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. (Emphases supplied.)

GR No. 160772

2009-07-13

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO

CARPIO, J.

3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[9]

GR No. 160772

2009-07-13

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO

CARPIO, J.

In Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[10] we discussed the second element, to wit: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

	GR No. 209845 2015-07-01	MELCHOR G. MADERAZO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Besides the Court finds no proof/evidence to show that the 400 pieces [of] tapping saddles that were allegedly delivered by Mr. Vermug were actually installed in the different households of the municipality." The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Maderazo processed the Request for Obligation and Allotment instead of the municipal engineer, received the amount of P160,000 on 28 January 1998, and covered up the non-existent tapping saddles by belatedly effecting the delivery of the tapping saddles, which did not even conform to the Job Contract. For his part, Veruen approved the Disbursement Voucher despite the lack of supporting documents, as found upon audit, in violation of his duties. Moreover, Maderazo and Veruen signed the glaringly incomplete and undated Inspection Report. Verily, Maderazo and Veruen acted in evident bad faith, or such state of mind affirmatively operating'with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[12] By disbursing P160,000 despite the non-existent tapping saddles, Maderazo and Veruen caused undue injury to the LGU of Caibiran for the said amount. Their concerted actions, which demonstrate a common design, justify the finding of conspiracy.
	GR No. 156577 2014-12-03	ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.[33]
	GR No. 187268 2013-09-04	JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[44] In Uriarte v. People,[45] this Court explained that Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality" when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[46] "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[47] "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[48] "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[49]
	GR No. 187340 2013-08-14	ANTONIO B. SANCHEZ v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[26] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 189343 2013-07-10	BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
The action of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused.[63]
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
While it is true that the practice of the Sandiganbayan of conducting "provisional" or "conditional" arraignment of the accused is not specifically sanctioned by the Revised Internal Rules of the Procedure of the Sandiganbayan or by the regular Rules of Procedure, this Court had tangentially recognized such practice in People v. Espinosa,[25] provided that the alleged conditions attached to the arraignment should be "unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened." The Court further required that the conditions must be expressly stated in the order disposing of arraignment, otherwise, it should be deemed simple and unconditional.[26]
	GR No. 171359 2012-07-18	BENJAMIN A. UMIPIG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
[56] Albert v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, February 26, 2009, 580 SCRA 279, 289-290.
	GR No. 171671 2012-06-18	PEOPLE v. ARISTEO E. ATIENZA PERALTA, J.
The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, that is, through "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[21] In Uriarte v. People,[22] this Court explained that Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[23]
	GR No. 155307 2011-06-06	M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
But as correctly noted by the Ombudsman, petitioner failed to point out specific evidence and concrete proof that respondents demonstrated manifest partiality or evident bad faith in the construction of the BGHMC and its retaining wall. There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[20] Evident bad faith, on the other hand, connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[21] It connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[22] Petitioner has not shown that respondents were impelled by such motives in the performance of their official duties and functions. Neither did petitioner establish that respondents acted with gross inexcusable negligence. As found by the Ombudsman: Respondents adopted emergency slope protection at the onset of the BGHMC Project. The Supplemental Agreement provided reinforced concrete slope protection and grouted rip rap, installation of polyurethane sheets and hiring of structural design specialist x x x. In fact, as recommended by complainant's Architect Angelo Lazaro three hundred (300) RSB soil nails were installed on site. The collapse was due to heavy rains and typhoon Feria. This was followed by the discovery of a pre-war tunnel under which caved-in and collapsed also. The delay was beyond the control of respondents. There was the Open public bidding and the review of plans and structural design by the Bureau of Design. These factors were beyond the scope of authority of respondents. Conformably to the series of acts done by the respondents, we find no negligence or inexcusable negligence as claimed by complainants. The recommendation of complainant's architect was even implemented and yet, due to "force majeure", the collapse happened.
	GR No. 188487 2011-02-14	VAN D. LUSPO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The second element provides the different modes by which the crime may be committed, which are "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," or "gross inexcusable negligence."[48] Manifest partiality and evident bad faith connote that the crime is committed by dolo, while gross inexcusable negligence indicates its commission through culpa.[49] In the recent Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[50] we reiterated the definitions of such modalities, viz.: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[51]
	GR Nos. 172476-99 2010-09-15	BRIG. GEN. JOSE RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
An arraignment is that stage where, in the mode and manner required by the Rules, an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. The accused is formally informed of the charges against him, to which he enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.[23]
	GR Nos. 177105-06 2010-08-12	JOSE REYES Y VACIO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.[27]
	GR No. 184537 2010-04-23	QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. [14]
	GR No. 176546 2009-09-25	FELICITAS P. ONG v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[21]
	GR No. 183141 2009-09-18	EDGARDO H. CATINDIG v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Soriano v. Marcelo,[28] citing Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[29] this Court discussed the second element, to wit: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. (Emphases supplied.)
	GR No. 160772 2009-07-13	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO CARPIO, J.
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[9]
	GR No. 160772 2009-07-13	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO CARPIO, J.
In Albert v. Sandiganbayan,[10] we discussed the second element, to wit: There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. "Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

RAMON A. ALBERT v. SANDIGANBAYAN