This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.[69] If any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave is not manifest and is not proven by substantial evidence, a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct.[70] | |||||
|
2015-04-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This Court spelled out in Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman[21] the following elements of the offense falling under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: 1] The offender is a public officer; 2] The act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; 3] The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and 4] The public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.[22] On the other hand, in Fajelga v. Hon. Escareal,[23] an accused may be held criminally liable of Infidelity in the Custody of Documents under Article 226 of the RPC, provided that the following elements are present: | |||||
|
2014-04-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Misconduct is grave if corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule is present; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[8] If any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave is not manifest and is not proven by substantial evidence, a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct.[9] On the other hand, dishonesty refers to a person's disposition "to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."[10] | |||||