Scribd
Upload
148 views1 page

Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan, 127 SCRA 363: GR No. L-56170

Hilario Jaravata was accused of violating Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding and receiving payments from classroom teachers out of their salary differentials. Jaravata argued he did not violate the act. The court found that while Jaravata was a public officer, his role as assistant principal did not require him by law to intervene in the payment of salary differentials. The arrangement was for Jaravata to facilitate the paperwork in Manila in exchange for reimbursement of expenses from the teachers. The court determined Jaravata's official intervention was not required by law for the transaction.

Uploaded by

Ulyssis Bangsara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views1 page

Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan, 127 SCRA 363: GR No. L-56170

Hilario Jaravata was accused of violating Section 3(b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding and receiving payments from classroom teachers out of their salary differentials. Jaravata argued he did not violate the act. The court found that while Jaravata was a public officer, his role as assistant principal did not require him by law to intervene in the payment of salary differentials. The arrangement was for Jaravata to facilitate the paperwork in Manila in exchange for reimbursement of expenses from the teachers. The court determined Jaravata's official intervention was not required by law for the transaction.

Uploaded by

Ulyssis Bangsara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

. Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan, 127 SCRA 363 GR No.

L-56170
CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Hilario Jaravata was accused of violating Section 3(b) of
Republic Act No. 3019. Jaravata, being the assistant principal of Leones, Tubao, La Union
Barangay High School made demand and received payments from classroom teachers Romeo
Dacayanan, Domingo Lopez, Marcela Bautista, and Francisco Dulay in the amount of P118.00,
P100.00, P50.00, and P70.00 out of their salary differentials.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Jaravata did not violate the said Act.

RESOLUTION: Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act provides the following:

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public


officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law.

There is no question that Jaravata at the time material to the case was a "public officer" as
defined by Section 2 of R.A. No. 3019, i.e. "elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even normal from the government." It may also be said that any amount which
Jaravata received in excess of P36.00 from each of the complainants was in the concept of a
gift or benefit. The pivotal question, however, is whether Jaravata, an assistant principal of a
high school in the boondocks of Tubao, La Union, "in his official capacity has to intervene under
the law" in the payment of the salary differentials for 1978 of the complainants. It should be
noted that the arrangement was "to facilitate its [salary differential] payment accused and
the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-up the papers in Manila with the
obligation on the part of the classroom teachers to reimburse the accused of his
expenses.

Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public officer whose official intervention is required
by law in a contract or transaction

You might also like