Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PACIFICO C. VELASCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175750-51 2014-04-02	SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
As regards the two other elements, the Court explained in Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan[33] that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both.[34] This was reiterated in Quibal v. Sandiganbayan,[35] where the Court held that the use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
	GR Nos. 168951 & 169000 2013-07-17	DR. ROGER R. POSADAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan,[29] this Court explained that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. Moreover, in Quibal v. Sandiganbayan,[30] the Court held that the use of the disjunctive term"or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.[31] Here, petitioners were charged with committing the offense under both modes.
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
In a catena of cases, this Court has held that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.[45] The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.[46] In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.
	GR NO. 167048 2006-04-07	MARIETTA T. CAUGMA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., 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.[73] It must be stressed that mere bad faith is not enough for one to be liable under the law, since the act of bad faith must in the first place be evident.[74] Elaborating on the meaning of evident bad faith, this Court held in Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan:[75]