Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARISTEO E. ATIENZA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169385 2015-08-26	TEOFILO GIANGAN v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The Sandiganbayan further erred in finding the presence of manifest partiality on the basis that there had been other allegedly illegal constructions that the accused did not similarly remove in their capacities as barangay officials. Bias should still not be imputed against them because they were acting on the complaint against the inconvenience brought about by the obstruction erected on the access road. Manifest partiality should be inferred only if there was a clear showing that there had been others who had been bothered by the similar allegedly illegal constructions and had complained, but the accused, in their capacities as barangay officials, did not deal with such complaint with the same alacrity. Indeed, in People v. Atienza,[24] the Court affirmed the findings of the Sandiganbayan that there was no manifest impartiality or bad faith on the part of the accused public officials where the evidence adduced did not show that they had favored other persons similarly situated.
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
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. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self- interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[149]
	GR No. 194157 2014-07-30	ROMEO R. ARAULLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN REYES, J.
There was also no showing that the labor officials' actions were performed with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence. The Court explained in People v. Atienza[30] that in order to determine whether any of these circumstances attends a case, the following parameters should be considered: 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. x x x [It] 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.[31] (Citation omitted)
	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. 191219 2013-07-31	SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Petitioners were charged with the crime of violation of Section 3(e) [22] of RA 3019 which has the following essential elements: (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 gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) 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.[23] As observed by the Sandiganbayan, all these elements are extant in this case: As to the first element, it is undisputed that both petitioners were public officers discharging administrative functions at the time material to this case.
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
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.[35]