Lawyerly

GR No. 169385

2015-08-26

BERSAMIN, J.

Anent the second element, we have enunciated in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[22] that the three modes of committing are distinct and different from one another, to wit:The second element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) may be committed. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property." These definitions prove all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction. (Italics is part of the original text)

GR No. 206162

2014-12-10

ALEX M. VALENCERINA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

[As defined], "[p]artiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property." [18]

GR No. 205561

2014-09-24

DIONISIO B. COLOMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

MENDOZA, J.

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."[10]

GR No. 189343

2013-07-10

BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SERENO, C.J.

Undue injury means actual damage.[83] It must be established by evidence[84] and must have been caused by the questioned conduct of the offenders.[85] On the other hand, unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference means giving a gain of any kind without justification or adequate reasons.[86]

GR No. 192591

2012-07-30

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As to the second element (that the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence), which involve the three modes of committing the crime, we have enunciated in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[45] that the three modes are distinct and different from each other, to wit: The second element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) may be committed. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are". "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. These definitions prove all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction.

GR No. 192591

2011-06-29

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The Court En Banc likewise held in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[17] that proof of the extent or quantum of damage is not essential. It is sufficient that the injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible.[18] Under the second mode of the crime defined in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 therefore, damage is not required. In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.[19]

GR Nos. 177105-06

2010-08-12

JOSE REYES Y VACIO v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

The second element includes the different and distinct modes by which the offense is committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of the existence of any of the modes suffices to warrant conviction under Section 3 (e).[28]

GR Nos. 170339

2010-03-09

ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict.[18]

GR Nos. 175045-46

2010-03-03

ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

We find the penalty imposed in all three criminal cases within that prescribed by law. The Sandiganbayan was correct in applying Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Said law provides that in offenses punishable by a law, other than the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the penalty should "not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum (should) not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."[24]

GR No. 172885

2009-10-09

MANUEL LUIS S. SANCHEZ v. REPUBLIC

ABAD, J.

Bad faith implies breach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and well understood obligation.[15] It does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will.[16] It partakes of the nature of fraud.[17]

GR No. 173333

2008-08-13

LUCIA MAGALING v. PETER ONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In order to pierce the veil of corporate fiction, for reasons of negligence by the director, trustee or officer in the conduct of the transactions of the corporation, such negligence must be gross. Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected;[47] and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Parenthetically, gross or willful negligence could amount to bad faith.[48]

GR Nos. 167860-65

2008-06-17

PEOPLE v. TEDDY M. PAJARO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The third element of the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) is satisfied when the questioned conduct causes undue injury to any party, including the government, or gives any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions to any private party. Proof of the extent or quantum of damage is thus not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or benefit received can be perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible.[41] The prosecution's evidence satisfactorily demonstrated that by countervailing the clearly delineated procedure laid down in COA Circular 92-382, appellants defrauded the government of a much needed resource by facilitating the release of local funds which no one can account for and which did not reach the pockets of its intended recipients.

GR NOS. 171322-24

2006-11-30

MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that petitioner as Manager of the Philippine National Bank was a public officer since at the time of the commission of the crime in 1991, PNB was a government entity. There is likewise no dispute that petitioner allowed the encashment of the subject checks without following the usual banking procedure which requires prior verification by the bookkeeper and the submission of additional documents to determine the genuineness of the signatures of prior indorsers. The conduct of the petitioner caused undue injury to Esteves and unwarranted benefit to Ilustre. Petitioner acted in gross negligence, which has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.[20]

	GR No. 169385 2015-08-26	TEOFILO GIANGAN v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Anent the second element, we have enunciated in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[22] that the three modes of committing are distinct and different from one another, to wit:The second element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) may be committed. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property." These definitions prove all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction. (Italics is part of the original text)
	GR No. 206162 2014-12-10	ALEX M. VALENCERINA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
[As defined], "[p]artiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property." [18]
	GR No. 205561 2014-09-24	DIONISIO B. COLOMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property."[10]
	GR No. 189343 2013-07-10	BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
Undue injury means actual damage.[83] It must be established by evidence[84] and must have been caused by the questioned conduct of the offenders.[85] On the other hand, unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference means giving a gain of any kind without justification or adequate reasons.[86]
	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the second element (that the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence), which involve the three modes of committing the crime, we have enunciated in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[45] that the three modes are distinct and different from each other, to wit: The second element enumerates the different modes by which means the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) may be committed. "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are". "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. These definitions prove all too well that the three modes are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of these modes in connection with the prohibited acts under Section 3 (e) should suffice to warrant conviction.
	GR No. 192591 2011-06-29	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court En Banc likewise held in Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan[17] that proof of the extent or quantum of damage is not essential. It is sufficient that the injury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible.[18] Under the second mode of the crime defined in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 therefore, damage is not required. In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.[19]
	GR Nos. 177105-06 2010-08-12	JOSE REYES Y VACIO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The second element includes the different and distinct modes by which the offense is committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of the existence of any of the modes suffices to warrant conviction under Section 3 (e).[28]
	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict.[18]
	GR Nos. 175045-46 2010-03-03	ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
We find the penalty imposed in all three criminal cases within that prescribed by law. The Sandiganbayan was correct in applying Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Said law provides that in offenses punishable by a law, other than the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the penalty should "not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum (should) not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."[24]
	GR No. 172885 2009-10-09	MANUEL LUIS S. SANCHEZ v. REPUBLIC ABAD, J.
Bad faith implies breach of faith and willful failure to respond to plain and well understood obligation.[15] It does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will.[16] It partakes of the nature of fraud.[17]
	GR No. 173333 2008-08-13	LUCIA MAGALING v. PETER ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In order to pierce the veil of corporate fiction, for reasons of negligence by the director, trustee or officer in the conduct of the transactions of the corporation, such negligence must be gross. Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected;[47] and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Parenthetically, gross or willful negligence could amount to bad faith.[48]
	GR Nos. 167860-65 2008-06-17	PEOPLE v. TEDDY M. PAJARO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The third element of the offense penalized in Section 3 (e) is satisfied when the questioned conduct causes undue injury to any party, including the government, or gives any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions to any private party. Proof of the extent or quantum of damage is thus not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or benefit received can be perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible.[41] The prosecution's evidence satisfactorily demonstrated that by countervailing the clearly delineated procedure laid down in COA Circular 92-382, appellants defrauded the government of a much needed resource by facilitating the release of local funds which no one can account for and which did not reach the pockets of its intended recipients.
	GR NOS. 171322-24 2006-11-30	MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that petitioner as Manager of the Philippine National Bank was a public officer since at the time of the commission of the crime in 1991, PNB was a government entity. There is likewise no dispute that petitioner allowed the encashment of the subject checks without following the usual banking procedure which requires prior verification by the bookkeeper and the submission of additional documents to determine the genuineness of the signatures of prior indorsers. The conduct of the petitioner caused undue injury to Esteves and unwarranted benefit to Ilustre. Petitioner acted in gross negligence, which has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.[20]

EUSEBIO V. FONACIER v. SANDIGANBAYAN PRESIDED BY MANUEL PAMARAN