Luciano v. Estrella.

GR NO. L-31622 | August 31, 1970 | Reyes. J.B.L.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

FACTS:
1. Mayor Estrella of Makati along with several other officials including several councilors and the Municipal
Treasurer of Makati were charged with violation of Section 3 (b) 1 and 4 (b)2 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
2. The charge was in connection to an anomalous contract with JEP Enterprises for the delivery of 59 traffic
deflectors worth P48,841 with 10% retention which was disadvantageous to the Municipality of Makati.
3. The Regional Trial Court found Mayor Estrella et. al guilty of the crime charged and was removed from
public office
4. Thereafter they appealed to the Court of Appeals where they filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground
of newly discovered evidence.
5. This newly discovered evidence consisted of the testimony of the provincial auditor who discovered that
such contract was not accompanied by a certification as to the availability of funds therefore which
renders the said contract null and void.
6. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and the case was remanded back to the Regional Trial Court
7. Luciano, the acting mayor of Makati then filed a petition for Quo Warranto, Certiorari, Prohibition and
Injunction, questioning the grant of the motion for new trial by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether or no, the Court of Appeals was correct in granting the Motion for New Trial?

HELD: No.

1. The elements of the offense punished under section 3(g) is that

a. The accused is a public officer.
b. That such accused entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government.
c. Such act or contract is grossly and manifestly advantageous to that government.

2. Thus, a cursory reading of the elements implies that the validity of the contract need not be proved to
result in conviction. The rationale for the omission of this element is that nothing can stop public officials
from entering in to transactions disadvantageous to the municipality as they can merely and deliberately
omit certain formalities to serve as an escape hatch in the event of discovery and prosecution.

3. Therefore, the absence of the certification by the municipal treasurer as to the covering funds would be
immaterial to the determination of Mayor Estrella et.al’s liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

1
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

2
Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce
or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.