Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 233 views

    Gallego V

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    Gallego v. Sandiganbayan addresses whether an information charging a public official with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by giving an undeserved high score to an examination answer was defective. The Supreme Court held that the information was not defective, as it clearly stated the necessary details of the offense and the phrases used in the law to describe how the offense could be committed did not mean distinct offenses were charged. The Court also found that the law's prohibition of "unwarranted benefits" was not unconstitutionally vague, as it penalized public officials who gave unjustified preferences to private parties through partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence in performing their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gallego V

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    233 views2 pages
    Gallego v. Sandiganbayan addresses whether an information charging a public official with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by giving an undeserved high score to an examination answer was defective. The Supreme Court held that the information was not defective, as it clearly stated the necessary details of the offense and the phrases used in the law to describe how the offense could be committed did not mean distinct offenses were charged. The Court also found that the law's prohibition of "unwarranted benefits" was not unconstitutionally vague, as it penalized public officials who gave unjustified preferences to private parties through partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence in performing their duties.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    GALLEGO V

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gallego v. Sandiganbayan addresses whether an information charging a public official with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by giving an undeserved high score to an examination answer was defective. The Supreme Court held that the information was not defective, as it clearly stated the necessary details of the offense and the phrases used in the law to describe how the offense could be committed did not mean distinct offenses were charged. The Court also found that the law's prohibition of "unwarranted benefits" was not unconstitutionally vague, as it penalized public officials who gave unjustified preferences to private parties through partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence in performing their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    233 views2 pages

    Gallego V

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    Gallego v. Sandiganbayan addresses whether an information charging a public official with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by giving an undeserved high score to an examination answer was defective. The Supreme Court held that the information was not defective, as it clearly stated the necessary details of the offense and the phrases used in the law to describe how the offense could be committed did not mean distinct offenses were charged. The Court also found that the law's prohibition of "unwarranted benefits" was not unconstitutionally vague, as it penalized public officials who gave unjustified preferences to private parties through partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence in performing their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GALLEGO V.

    SANDIGANBAYAN

    FACTS:
    -

    An information was filed in the Sandiganbayan by Tanodbayan Special


    Prosecutor Punzalan-Castillo against Gallego et al. for violation of Sec. 3( e )
    of RA 3019
    o

    Gave a score of 18 out of 20 to an examinees answer notwithstanding


    the fact that said examinee wrote the Lords prayer

    Petitioners filed a motion to quash the information against them on the ff.
    grounds:
    o

    The facts alleged do not constitute an offense; or in the alternative,

    The information charges more than one offense

    MANILY CONTENDS THAT THE TERM UNWARRANTED IS AMBIGUOUS

    Sandiganbayan sustained conviction and denied motion to quash

    SUPREME COURT
    Section 3(e) of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not suffer from the
    constitutional defect of vagueness. The phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad
    faith" and "gross inexcusable negligence merely describe the different modes by
    which the offense penalized in Section 3(e) of the statute may be committed, and
    the use of all these phrases in the same information does not mean that the
    indictment charges three distinct offenses.
    The information definitely states the names of the parties, the tune, place, manner
    of commission and designation of the offense. The argument that failure in the
    information to state the reasons why the benefits bestowed are unwarranted
    renders it defective is without merit informations need only state the ultimate facts;
    the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial

    The assailed provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices


    Act considers a corrupt practice and makes unlawful the act of a
    public officer in:

    ... or giving any private party any unwarranted


    benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge
    of his official, administrative or judicial functions
    through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
    gross inexcusable negligence, ... (Section 3[e], Rep.
    Act 3019, as amended.)
    It is not all difficult to comprehend that what the afore-quoted
    penal provisions penalizes is the act of a public officer, in the
    discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions, in
    giving any private party benefits, advantage or preference which
    are unjustified, unauthorized or without justification or adequate
    reason, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
    inexcusable negligence.
    Neither is the information defective. As held in the case of People vs. Buenviaje, 47
    Phil.536, where the defendant was charged with violation of the Medical Law and
    the information charged both illegal practice of medicine and illegally advertising
    oneself as a doctor, it was held that "the information was not bad for duplicity
    inasmuch as the acts charged were merely different means of committing the same
    offense, notwithstanding the fact that they are prohibited by separate sections of
    the statute."

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy