Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 209845 2015-07-01	MELCHOR G. MADERAZO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Maderazo and Veruen are charged with the crime of violation of Section 3(e)[9] 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 undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[10]
	GR No. 156577 2014-12-03	ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To clarify, the Arias doctrine is not an absolute rule. It is not a magic cloak that can be used as a cover by a public officer to conceal himself in the shadows of his subordinates and necessarily escape liability. Thus, this ruling cannot be applied to exculpate the petitioners in view of the peculiar circumstances in this case which should have prompted them, as heads of offices, to exercise a higher degree of circumspection and, necessarily, go beyond what their subordinates had prepared.[59]
	GR No. 197567 2014-11-19	GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The elements of the crime of Violation of Section 3 (e),[62] RA 3019 are as follows: (a) the offender 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.[63]