Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cabrera v. People
Cabrera v. People
Cabrera v. People
DECISION
The second punishable act is that the accused is said to have given
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to a private party. Proof of
the extent or quantum of damage is not thus essential. 15 It is sufficient that
the accused has given "unjustified favor or benefit to another." 16
In the instant case, Librado's and Fe's violation of the aforesaid Section
3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 basically hinges on two delictual acts, namely: (1) the
awarding of procurement contract (for the purchase of medicines) to a
private person (DLI) without the benefit of competitive public bidding as
provided under the LGC, as referred to in Criminal Case Nos. 27555 and
27557, and (2) by making illegal reimbursements of amounts representing
the expenses for their unauthorized travels to Manila, as referred to in
Criminal Case Nos. 27556 and 27558.
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jose R. Hernandez, with Associate Justices Gregory
S. Ong and Roland B. Jurado, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-60.
2. Id. at 61-68.
5. Id. at 67.
6. Id. at 12.
7. Id. at 21.
8. Id.
9. 484 Phil. 350 (2004), citing [Ingco] v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112584, May 23,
1977, 272 SCRA 563, 574.
34. Froelich & Kuttner v. Collector of Customs, 18 Phil. 461, 480 (1911), citing
Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Chap. 255.
35. Id.
38. See also: Field Investigation Unit-Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v.
De Castro, G.R. No. 232666, June 20, 2018.
39. Rollo, p. 51.
40. Id. at 56.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
41. Sison v. People , supra note 30, at 586.
42. Abubakar v. People , supra note 11.
43. Id.
44. Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 1, August
17, 1960.