RA 3019

Section 3(e)

1) That the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with
the public officers;

2) That said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance
of his official duties or in relation to his public position;

3) That he causes undue injury to any party, whether government or private

individuals; and

4) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. (People vs Sandiganbayan and Henry Barrera GR
153952-71)

There are two modes of committing the offense:

1. The public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government
2. The public officer gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his functions (Mayor Felipe Constantino
vs Sandiganbayan and People GR 140656)

Undue Injury
15. Respondents even justified the
purchase of electricity by FICELCO
from CPGI and made it appear that the
same will provide adequate and
reliable power service and purportedly
economical and social benefit to tis
captive market. However, it turned
out that the service provider was
still unreliable and only the
respondents enjoyed economical
benefits by earning millions of pesos
in profits to the extreme prejudice
and undue injury to the people of
the Province of Catanduanes and
the Phil Govt.
Undue Injury
- It cannot be presumed even after a
wrong or a violation of a right has
been established.
- Its existence must be proven as one
of the elements of a crime.
- It is required that the undue injury be
specified, quantified and proven to the
point of moral certainty. (Llorente v.
Sandiganbayan)
*Presuming that there was undue
injury, the law provides that the public
officer is the one who commits the act
in this case, it is the private
respondents who earned millions..

Manifest Partiality
Manifest Partiality * Manifest partiality is not present because
- there must be a showing of a clear, there is no other side that was affected. To
notorious or plain inclination or predilection favor one side there must be 2 sides involved.
to favor one side rather than the other. In this case, there is no reason to favor
 another because there was no other party
involved to favor against other than POWER
ONE/CPGI.

* Also, it cannot be assumed that the acts

were in favor of POWER/CPGI rather than
the consumers because their interest on the
matter is different but as consumer and not as
generating company.
Evident Bad faith
Evident bad faith * Evident bad faith is not present because all
- connotes a manifest and deliberate intent on acts of the respondents are within the bounds
the part of the accused to do wrong or cause of the law.
damage. 11 - The back to back lease is allowed under
the law
12 - Rescission of phase 1 and phase 2 is
allowed under the law
23 - ESA was amended and leased to
FICELCO then CPGI with the condition that
CPGI will rehabilitate the plant

*Assuming that there was bad faith, it was not

the public officer who committed bad faith.
The law provides that the public officer acted
with evident bad faith. Hence, respondents are
not liable.

Conclusion
- The second element is no present in this case. For Section 3e to be committed, it must be
the public officer that has caused the undue injury or has acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In this case, the respondents public
officer merely gave its approval on an ESA that was sufficient in form and in substance.
However, the allegation of the complainant is based on the act of FICELCO, POWER
ONE, and CPGI.
RA 3019
3(g)

1. That the accused is a public officer

2. The he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government
3. That such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government (people vs henry go GR 168539)

Conclusion:
- the third element is not present in this case. For section 3g to be committed, the contract
or transaction must be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. In this
case, the Contract of lease between NPC and FICELCO is not disadvantageous to the
Government. To the very least, it would advantageous since NPC would earn income
through the lease.