NAME: KYLE TRUNCHE L. MIÑOZA.

INSTRUCTOR: FAYE LORRAINE MINA

YEAR: 2ND YEAR. SUBJECT: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

COURSE: BA POLSCI

POSITION PAPER

As Suba appears before the court, he argues that the elements of RA No. 3019 Sec 3 (e) that were filed
against him were not sufficiently proven, and is asking for reversal decision of his case.

Summary on the part of the respondents.

The respondents argues that Suba's act of requesting, facilitating and receiving cash advanced for the
trip, even kmowing that their request of travel was denied, thus committed a violation of the RA No
3019 Sec 3 (e) manifest partiality, evident in bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In addition to
the contentions of the respondent they stated that Suba hasn't received or seen any actual written
granted of travel but still pushes it with use of the public funds in which he was evidently in bad faith.

Summary on the part of Suba.

Suba's contention at the court, he stated there was no bad faith, ill motive or any vested interest the
fact that he processed the cash advance, he was merely following the directives of his superior. Also
the cash that was used during the travel was relevant to his or the officials of PADC's function. In
terms of the travel approval, the PADC issued an approval of all foreign travels of it's officials.
( confirmed by the ruling section of this case). Suba added that the he already reimbursed the cash
advances in which it would make ineffective or nulify the element of damage or injury of the
government (e) (4).

Summary of the Court's Ruling.

The court found that during the travel of Suba and Navida on Beijing, China there was no bad faith, ill
motive and gross inexcusable negligence because the cash advanced was used in relation to their
functions as officials of the PADC in which it does not connote what the jurisprudence instructs about
what "bad faith" means.As the prosecution in this case failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all
the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 under which petitioner was charged, he should be
entitled to an acquittal. The petitioner ANTONIO M. SUBA was ACQUITTED of violation of RA 3019 Sec
3 (e)

Elements of the Crime under RA 3019.

1. Bad Faith

2. Manifest partiality

3. Gross inexcusable negligences

Suba was charged of an offense of requesting, facilitating, and receiving cash advances for the trip,
without the required travel authority.

Anti Graft Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019 Sec. 3 (e) (1 to4)

Conclusion.

In this case, Suba was aquitted due to the fact that the defendants was not able to prove Suba was
liable to the crime of RA 3019 Sec. 3 (e)and their contentions that Suba flew to Beijing, China using the
public fund without travel approval by the DOTC was a means of a "bad faith" mentioned in (e), the
court construe the meaning of "bad faith" it is "palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest
purpose to do some moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive, or ill will"

it cannot connote on what the jurisprudence instructs on what "bad faith" means because merely the
fact that the money he used was in his relation to his duty as a public official.

Personal view.

It is indeed the Sandigganbayan's fault of Suba why he was criminally liable for the violation of RA
3019 Sec 3 (e) were they could give Suba enough time to verify if there were travel approval or not. In
addition to this it seems like Suba was deprive of his rights as a accused because merely the fact that
the prosecution decided to convict him werre their evidences was more on presumptions, the court
said that there is no such thing as presumption of bad faith in involving violations of Anti-Graft
Corrupt Practices Act and there is always presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, (Art 66,
Constitution) in which it feels that Suba's right was deprived as a accused during his trial at the
Sandigganbayan.