Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is a staple in the Bar Exam, frequently asked and relevant to both special penal laws under Criminal Law, and the accountability of public officers under Political Law. In this video, we’ll break down the key offenses under the law, discuss important principles, and walk through relevant jurisprudence penned by the 2025 Bar Chair, Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier. Whether you’re reviewing for the Bar or simply want to understand how the law combats corruption in public service, this is for you.
Who is a public officer under this law?
The law defines a “public officer” as including both elective and appointive officials receiving compensation from the government.
It does not matter whether they are permanent or temporary, in the classified or unclassified or exempt service, or whether their compensation is merely nominal.
What are the corrupt practices punished under the law?
To recall these quickly, use the mnemonic FRAUD PRINCE:
- Financial interest in transactions where the officer has official capacity.
- Requesting or receiving gifts in relation to government contracts or transactions.
- Accepting employment in private enterprises with pending official business.
- Unqualified or illegal grant of licenses, permits, or privileges.
- Divulging confidential information to unauthorized persons.
- Persuading or influencing another public officer to violate rules or commit an offense.
- Requesting or receiving gifts for issuing a license or permit.
- Interest for personal gain in transactions requiring official approval.
- Neglecting or refusing to act on matters for material benefit.
- Causing undue injury through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence.
- Entering into contracts grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The common offenses and related core concepts
Section 3(e)
Section 3(e) makes it unlawful to cause undue injury to any party, including the Government, or to give any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Core Concepts:
- Manifest partiality is a clear, notorious, and plain inclination to favor one side. Mere relationship is not enough; improper use of the relationship must be shown.
- Evident bad faith refers to a state of mind motivated by self-interest, ill-will, or ulterior motives. Good faith is a valid defense.
- Gross inexcusable negligence is the absence of even slight care or a willful, conscious disregard of consequences.
- The office is a constituent element, meaning the crime cannot exist without the office, and the act must be in relation to that office in a direct, not accidental, manner.
- A private person may be held liable if they conspire with a public officer. In corporate settings, the veil of corporate fiction can be pierced to hold individuals liable.
- Damage to the government is not indispensable. The law is violated even if there is no injury, as long as there is an unwarranted benefit given.
- A violation of Section 3(e) is distinct from Malversation, and prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution under the other. The same act can give rise to separate offenses without violating double jeopardy.
Section 3(b)
Section 3(b) penalizes directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for oneself or another, in connection with any government contract or transaction where the public officer has to intervene in their official capacity.
Core Concepts:
- Mere receipt of a gift, even without a request, is punishable. Likewise, mere request, even without actual receipt, is enough.
- The value of the gift is immaterial. What is punished is the act of requesting or receiving, regardless of the amount.
- “Transaction” means one with monetary consideration and must be specifically described in the complaint. Preliminary investigations are not considered a transaction under this section.
- The fact of acceptance must be proven. The gift must be treated as property of the public officer. Mere physical receipt is insufficient without evidence of ownership or acceptance.
- A violation of Section 3(b) is distinct from Bribery. One is not a bar to the other.
- If the accused falsely claims influence over public officials, he may also be held liable for estafa.
Doctrines from Bar Chair-Penned Cases
A mistaken interpretation of the law, without proof of dishonest intent, does not constitute evident bad faith under Section 3(e).
In People v. Bacaltos (G.R. No. 248701, 28 July 2020), the accused mayor, was acquitted despite receiving honorarium from PhilHealth. His mistaken belief that he was qualified was based on a reasonable interpretation of existing PhilHealth guidelines, which did not clearly define the qualifications.
Under Section 7, public officials must file a truthful and complete Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.
In Spouses Miraflores v. Ombudsman (G.R. Nos. 238103 and 238223, 06 January 2020), failure to declare several assets, investments and income sources, and misdeclaring loans, were seen as bad faith. The omissions supported a finding of probable cause.
Section 3(e) requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence, and actual undue injury or benefit, backed by solid evidence.
In Cabarios v. People (G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41, 29 September 2021), the COA audit report was found insufficient to prove that a local government board member released funds to fictitious beneficiaries. The audit was considered inconclusive as it occurred two years after the release of funds, and relied on interviews, rather than in-person visits.
Final decisions in RA 3019 cases involving officers below SG 27 are appealable only to the Sandiganbayan.
In Hunnob and Galeon v. People (G.R. No. 248639, 14 October 2019), the SC ruled that the CA had no jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the accused barangay captain and treasurer from their conviction by the Regional Trial Court. The case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan following Section 4 of P.D. 1606.
Economic justification does not excuse clear policy violations.
In People v. Crisologo and Manlavi (G.R. No. 253327, 27 June 2022), the conviction of GOCC officers was affirmed. They sold aircraft parts below the required mark-up, causing ₱6.2 million injury. This notwithstanding the officers’ arguments about obsolescence of the parts and the need to generate revenue.
Reimbursement does not extinguish criminal liability.
In Leonardo v. People (G.R. No. 246451, 03 February 2021), a mayor used government funds and municipal vehicles for the purchase of personal equipment. Despite reimbursement, he was convicted due to evident bad faith.
Good faith reliance on legal advice can negate criminal liability.
In People v. Ramirez (G.R. No. 254552, 20 July 2022), Bids and Awards Committee members accepted the contractor’s amended Environmental Compliance Certificate, relying on legal advice, deliberations conducted, and clauses in the Invitation to Bid. They were acquitted of graft charges.
Violations in the procurement process require intent and injury to be punishable.
In People v. Marrero, et al. (G.R. No. 268342, 15 May 2024), local government officials were acquitted of graft charges in relation to the procurement of an ambulance. The court held that indicating the brand name in procurement documents, the revision of said documents, and discrepancies in the amount were reasonably explained as good faith efforts. Moreover, the ambulance was delivered complete with equipment and accessories negating the claim of injury.
Administrative lapses or questionable decisions without proof of corrupt intent or harm do not amount to graft.
In Locsin, Jr. v. People (G.R. Nos. 221787 and 221800-02, 13 January 2021), a college president was acquitted for including his children in the university’s work program as no injury or dishonest intent was shown.
Try this 2022 Bar Question
In 2003, the Province of Davao del Sur purchased two vehicles for the use of the Governor and Vice Governor, respectively. The purchase requests, which were all signed by Luis as then Governor of the province, requested for the acquisition of one unit of Ford Ranger XLT 4×4 and one unit of Toyota Hilux 4×4. The procurement of the subject vehicles did not undergo competitive public bidding as it was effected through direct purchase. The mode of procurement was approved by the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the province. The two vehicles were delivered to the provincial government, and after inspection and acceptance by the concerned officials, payments were issued to the suppliers.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed by a concerned citizen before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB) claiming that the purchase of the provincial government violated the procurement law. The OMB, after due investigation, verified that the provincial government did not comply with the required procedure of the procurement law. Based on this finding, the OMB filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information against Luis and the members of the BAC for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The Sandiganbayan found Luis and the members of the BAC guilty on the sole reason that violation of the procurement law constitutes evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part of the accused.
Is the Sandiganbayan correct? Explain briefly.
Hint: See if the Marrero doctrine applies
RA 3019 isn’t just a law. It’s a statement that public trust matters. Whether you’re answering a Bar question or serving the people, understanding anti-corruption laws helps shape a more accountable legal system. Keep reviewing smart, keep grounding your answers in jurisprudence, and remember: every concept you master brings you closer to the Bar you’ve worked so hard for. See you in the next one.