Search results
- In G.R. Nos. 224765-68, petitioner Benjamin P. Bautista, Jr. (Bautista) also filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Bautista Petition), seeking the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution, which likewise found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67194BENJAMIN P. BAUTISTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE ...
People also ask
Did Bautista violate Section 3(E) of Ra 3019?
Who was Abarra and what did he do if he violated Ra 3019?
Did Felta violate Section 3(E) of Ra 3019?
What is a violation of Section 3(E) of Ra 3019?
In a recent case penned by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, we ruled that the former Chair of Presidential Commission on Good Government is guilty of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) in light of findings that he leased vehicles which likewise did not undergo public bidding.
LIONEL ECHAVEZ BACALTOS, Accused-Appellant. Appellant Lionel Echavez Bacaltos seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated May 17, 2019 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-18-CRM-0010 finding him guilty of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Whether the accused-appellants' right to due process was violated. Whether the accused-appellants' right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them was violated. Ruling: The Sandiganbayan found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The Information charged petitioner with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 when, through his actions characterized by manifest partiality, Felta was given unwarranted benefit, advantage, and preference.
A violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three (3) ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
Contrary to the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, we find no sufficient evidence to hold Suba criminally liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. It is settled that the burden is on the prosecution to prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As for his co-accused, the Sandiganbayan found Abarra guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for allowing the seizure of the van, ordering the distribution of the confiscated meat products to the different offices of the municipality and for submitting a Confiscation Report.
