Lawyerly

GR Nos. 204481-82

2015-10-14

VELASCO JR., J.

Lastly, there is, in the case at bar, reason to believe that Ronnel Bawalan is biased against petitioner, having an axe to grind against the latter for the untimely demise of Reynaldo Santos and Domingo Bawalan, Ronnel Bawalan's "cousin-in-law" and brother, respectively.[82] Bias is that which excites "a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are."[83] A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false. To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[84]

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Sison v. People[146] teaches that:“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias,” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

[154] Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.

GR No. 156577

2014-12-03

ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

It is not enough that undue injury was caused or unwarranted benefits were given as these acts must be performed 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 R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.[35]

GR No. 205561

2014-09-24

DIONISIO B. COLOMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

MENDOZA, J.

The second element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed in three ways, that is, 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 R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.[9]

GR No. 192685

2013-07-31

OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PEREZ, J.

(1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.[28]

GR No. 195032

2013-02-20

ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

MENDOZA, J.

It must be emphasized that Braza was indicted for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 under the second mode. "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 and judicial functions."[47] The element of damage is not required tor violation of Section 3( e) under the second mode.[48]

GR No. 166967

2013-01-28

EDNA J. JACA v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Gross inexcusable negligence is 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;[58] in cases involving public officials, it takes place only when breach of duty is flagrant and devious.[59]

GR No. 192591

2012-07-30

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The word unwarranted means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. In that regard, it is significant that the SB and the PBAC gave its official support to the project. Advantage means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. Preference signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.[62]

GR No. 175457

2011-07-06

RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Sison v. People,[30] we defined "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence" as follows: "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." x x x[31]

GR No. 192591

2011-06-29

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.[13] The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.[14]

GR Nos. 178701 and 178754

2011-06-06

ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, 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." [39]

	GR Nos. 204481-82 2015-10-14	ALBERT G. AMBAGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Lastly, there is, in the case at bar, reason to believe that Ronnel Bawalan is biased against petitioner, having an axe to grind against the latter for the untimely demise of Reynaldo Santos and Domingo Bawalan, Ronnel Bawalan's "cousin-in-law" and brother, respectively.[82] Bias is that which excites "a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are."[83] A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false. To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.[84]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Sison v. People[146] teaches that:“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias,” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
[154] Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.
	GR No. 156577 2014-12-03	ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
It is not enough that undue injury was caused or unwarranted benefits were given as these acts must be performed 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 R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.[35]
	GR No. 205561 2014-09-24	DIONISIO B. COLOMA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
The second element of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed in three ways, that is, 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 R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict.[9]
	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
(1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.[28]
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
It must be emphasized that Braza was indicted for violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 under the second mode. "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 and judicial functions."[47] The element of damage is not required tor violation of Section 3( e) under the second mode.[48]
	GR No. 166967 2013-01-28	EDNA J. JACA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Gross inexcusable negligence is 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;[58] in cases involving public officials, it takes place only when breach of duty is flagrant and devious.[59]
	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The word unwarranted means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. In that regard, it is significant that the SB and the PBAC gave its official support to the project. Advantage means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. Preference signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.[62]
	GR No. 175457 2011-07-06	RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Sison v. People,[30] we defined "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence" as follows: "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." x x x[31]
	GR No. 192591 2011-06-29	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court has clarified that the use of the disjunctive word "or" connotes that either act of (a) "causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government"; and (b) "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference," qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.[13] The use of the disjunctive "or" connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same time. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction.[14]
	GR Nos. 178701 and 178754 2011-06-06	ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, 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." [39]

ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE