ESTUDIO Y REALIZACIÓN DE PROCESOS INICIALES

that three-month gap when he received

the letter and when the SEC issued the

order (Tiong Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No.

133608, August 26, 2008)

(b) Would your answer be the same if the order of suspension was issued before

the presentment for payment of the check when the drawee bank and the sending of notice of dishonor?

Answer: No. X is not liable for violation of BP Blg. 22. Considering that there was a lawful Order from the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. When a contract is suspended, it temporarily ceases to be operative; and it again becomes operative when a condition occurs - or a

situation arises - warranting the

termination of the suspension of the contract. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth takes place or its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. Thus, at the time A presented the check for encashment, it had no right to do so, as there was yet no obligation due from X (Gidwani vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15, 2014).

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES LAW

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is “manifest partiality” when there is clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. “Evident bad faith” connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. “Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable negligence” refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally,

with conscious indifference to

consequences insofar as other persons may be affected (Plameras vs. People, GR No. 187268, September 04, 2013).

The rules, regulations and policies of the COA and those mandated under the Local Government Code were knowingly sidestepped and ignored by the petitioner which enabled CKL to successfully get full payment for the school desks and armchairs, despite non-delivery – an act or omission evidencing bad faith and manifest partiality. It must be borne to mind that any procurement or “acquisition of supplies or property by local government units shall be through competitive public bidding”. The

petitioner admitted in his testimony that he is aware of such requirement, however, he proceeded just the same due to the alleged advice of the unnamed DECS representative that there was already a negotiated contract – a representation or misrepresentation he

willfully believed in, without any

verification. As a Governor, he must know that negotiated contract can only be resorted to in case of failure of a public bidding. As it is, there is no public bidding to speak of that has been conducted. Intentionally or not, it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to protect government funds. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very least, especially so, that petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the Provincial School Board (Plameras vs. People, GR No. 187268, September 04, 2013).

Failure of petitioner as City Engineer to validate the ownership of the land on which the canal was to be built because of his unfounded belief that it was public land constitutes gross inexcusable negligence. In his own testimony, petitioner impliedly admitted that it fell squarely under his duties to check the ownership of the land with the Register of Deeds. Yet he concluded that it was public land based solely on his evaluation of its appearance, i.e. that it looked swampy. Moreover, the undue injury to private complainant was established. The cutting down of her palm trees and the construction of the canal were all done without her approval and consent (Sanchez vs. People, GR No. 187340, August 14, 2013).

This crime has the following essential elements: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. 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 (People vs. Atienza, GR No. 171671, June 18, 2012,

Justice Peralta).

Crime of corruption under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is “manifest partiality” when there is a clear,

notorious, or plain inclination or

predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. “Evident bad faith” connotes not only bad judgment but also

palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. “Evident bad faith” contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable

negligence” refers to negligence

characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally,

with conscious indifference to

consequences insofar as other persons may be affected (People vs. Atienza, GR No.

171671, June 18, 2012,Justice Peralta)..

The act of destroying the subject fences without giving any notice to the private complainant does not amount to

manifest partiality and/or evident bad faith as indicated in the information. The

same could not be considered evident bad faith as the prosecution evidence failed to show that the destruction was for a dishonest purpose, ill will or self interest. The fence was destroyed because it is a tourist spot and it is also a port for the fishermen (People vs. Atienza, GR No.