Yes, the contention of A is correct.

The information failed to allege that the undue injury to B and the
government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross

.Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District
Engineer of the DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land
expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no
allegation in the information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was
disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having
followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and that the
accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for his
services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused
should be merely charged administratively

ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of
a child be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep.
Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated
in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.

2.Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who conspired in taking the attache case are liable for
the following crimes defined under RA. 9165: a) Sec. 27 for misappropriation or failure to account for
the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 3(ee) for their acts as
protector/coddler of Dante Ong who imported drugs In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution
for illegal importation or illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, where the penalty is life
imprisonment to death, they are also liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-A of the Revised Penal
Code. With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A.
9165, if PR 181 is an international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic flight, he is liable for violation of Sec. 5,
RA. 9165 for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs. Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Marked Money
(2000) At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and apprehend A, a long
suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation. At the appointed time, the poseur-buyer
approached A who was then with B. A marked P100 bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave the
poseur-buyer one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were then positioned
behind thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift enough since A and B were able to run away.
Two days later, A was arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that during the
operations, the police officers were not able to seize the marked money but were able to get possession
of the marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for violation of Section 4, Article .
3Yes, the complaint will prosper under Sec. 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep. Act No.
3019, as amended], which requires all public officers within 30 days from assuming public office to file a
true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities. Violations of this law are mala prohibita which
admits of no excuses. RA 7438-Economic Sabotage; Illegal Recruitment (2004) RR represented to AA, BB,
CC and DD that she could send them to London to work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She
collected and received from them various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees
totalling P400,000. After their dates of departure were postponed several times, the four prospects got
suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment Authority). There they found out that RR was
not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad.

Both Gino and Gerry are liable for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, which punishes any public
official or employee who receives, directly or indirectly, and for private persons who give, offer any gift,
present or valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift or valuable thing is given
by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor or favors, or the
giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future. Being an importer, Gerry
reasonably expects future favor from Gino. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or
entertainment in honor of the official or employee or of his immediate relatives. PD 46 (1997) A, who is
the private complainant in a murder case pending before a Regional Trial Court Judge, gave a judge a
Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines, easily
worth P10.000.00. The judge accepted the gift knowing it came from A.

5.Yes, Commissioner Torres violated the following:

1. RA. 6713 — Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when he
solicited and accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]). 2. P.D. 46 — Making it punishable for public officials and employees
to receive, and for private persons to give, gifts on any occasion, including Christmas. 3. Indirect Bribery
(Art. 211, Revised Penal Code) for receiving gifts offered by reason of office. PD 46 (1994) Gino was
appointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Gerry, an
importer, hosted a dinner for 100 persons at the Westin Philippine Plaza in honor of Gino. What are the
offense or offenses committed by Gino and Gerry? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Both Gino and Gerry are liable
for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, which punishes any public official or employee who receives,
directly or indirectly, and for private persons who give, offer any gift, present or valuable thing on any
occasion, including Christmas, when such gift or valuable thing is given by reason of his official position,
regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor or favors, or the giver hopes or expects to receive
a favor or better treatment in the future. Being an importer, Gerry reasonably expects future favor from
Gino. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official
or employee or of his immediate relatives. PD 46 (1997) A, who is the private complainant in a murder
case pending before a Regional Trial Court Judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big basket
of assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines, easily worth P10.000.00. The judge accepted
the gift knowing it came from A. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? The Judge committed
the crime of Indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code. The gift was offered to the Judge
by reason of his office. In addition, the Judge will be liable for the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the
receiving of gifts by pubic officials and employees on occasions like Christmas. Plunder under RA 7080;
Prescriptive Period (1993) Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent
schemes /conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town,
acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income.