1. Section 3(e), R.A.

3019

Section 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:

xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, 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.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits
or other concessions.

xxx

In PP v. Robert Balao 1, SC ruled that the following are the essential

elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019:
1. That the accused are public officers or private persons
charged in conspiracy with them;
2. That said public officers committed the prohibited acts
during the performance of their official duties or in relation to
their public positions;
3. That they caused undue injury to any party, whether the
Government or a private party;
4. That such injury was caused by giving unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and
5. That the public officers acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Consigna v. PP2

There is no doubt that petitioner, being a municipal treasurer, was a

public officer discharging official functions when she misused such
position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta, who was misled into the
belief that petitioner, as municipal treasurer, was acting on behalf of the
municipality.

1 G.R. No. 176819, January 26, 2011

2 G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014

 In this case, it was not only alleged in the Information, but was proved
with certainty during trial that the manner by which petitioner
perpetrated the crime necessarily relates to her official function
as a municipal treasurer. Petitioners official function created in her
favor an impression of authority to transact business with Moleta
involving government financial concerns. There is, therefore, a direct
relation between the commission of the crime and petitioners
office the latter being the very reason or consideration that led to the
unwarranted benefit she gained from Moleta, for which the latter suffered
damages in the amount of P320,000.00.

As regards the two other elements, the Court explained in Cabrera

v. Sandiganbayan that there are two (2) ways by which a public
official violates Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his
functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. The accused may
be charged under either mode or under both. This was reiterated in Quibal
v. Sandiganbayan, where the Court held that the use of the disjunctive
term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019.

The last sentence of the said provision is not a restrictive

requirement which limits the application or extent of its coverage. This
has long been settled in our ruling in Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, where
we categorically declared that a prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of
the Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of whether or not the accused public
officer is "charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions." Quoted hereunder is an excerpt from Mejorada:

Section 3 cited above enumerates in eleven subsections the

corrupt practices of any public officers (sic) declared
unlawful. Its reference to "any public officer" is without
distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared
unlawful. We agree with the view adopted by the Solicitor General
that the last sentence of paragraph [Section 3] (e) is intended to
make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers (sic)
or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of
"public officers" may not come within the term. It is a strained
construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to
public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits
or other concessions. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
 Isabelo Braza v. Sandiganbayan 3
To be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the
accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in
the exercise of his official, administrative and judicial
functions. The element of damage is not required for violation
of section 3(e) under the second mode. In the case at bench, the
second information alleged, in substance, that accused public officers
and employees, discharging official or administrative function, together
with Braza, confederated and conspired to give FABMIK Construction
and Equipment Supply Company, Inc. unwarranted benefit or
preference by awarding to it Contract J.D. No. 06H00050 through
manifest partiality or evident bad faith, without the conduct of a public
bidding and compliance with the requirement for qualification contrary
to the provisions of R.A. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform
Act. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy
with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for
the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019. Considering that
all the elements of the offense of violation of section 3(e) were alleged
in the second information, the SC found the same to be sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction.
RAMON A. ALBERT v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN4, it was so said: Manifest
Partiality a clear or plain inclination to favor one side or person
rather than another; Evident Bad Faith connotes not only bad
judgment but also patently and palpably fraudulent and dishonest
purpose, or a conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill-
will. It partakes of the nature of fraud. Gross Inexcusable Negligence
refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time
of the commission of the offense:

3 G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013

4 G.R. No. 164015 February 26, 2009

 (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as
Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members

of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads:

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the

sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
xxx
Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not
allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the
same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not
exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court,
the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than
where the official holds office.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, as
prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan
trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court,
as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
 AnuncioBustillo v. Sandiganbayan5, SC held that suspension from
office is mandatory whenever a valid Information charges an
incumbent public officer with (1) violation of RA 3019.

2. Estafa thru Falsification

Article 171(4)
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
xxx
Fullero v. People6
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as
follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated by him; and
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling
authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is
opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances
to which the law is to be applied. A narration of facts is merely an
account or description of the particulars of an event or
occurrence.
In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity in the SALN
involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not call for
an application of law in a particular set of facts. Contrary to
petitioners assertion, statements concerning relationship may be
proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to
expression of opinion. When a government employee is required to
disclose his relatives in the government service, such information
elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it
bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have no
relevance to the employees eligibility for the position but pertains

5 G.R. No. 146217, April; 07, 2006

6 G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007

 rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing
power.
The second element is likewise present. Legal obligation
means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth
of the facts narrated.

Article 315(2)
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent
acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The
failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder
that said check has been dishonored for lack of
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]

Consigna v. PP7
Contrary to the submission of petitioner, false pretense and
fraudulent acts attended her transaction with Moleta. The law explicitly
provides that in the prosecution for Estafa under par. (2)(a), Art.
315 of the RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit,
consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of
the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false

7 G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014

 statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the
only motive which induced the offended party to part with his
money.

R.R. Paredes v. Calilung8

SC provided that the elements of estafa by means of deceit,
whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the
following: (a) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the
offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money
or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means; and (d) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.
Crime of Falsification as a necessary means to commit Estafa
Reyes9 opined that the falsification of a public, official, or
commercial document may be a means of committing estafa,
because before the falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been
consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an
element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial
document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already
existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial
document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by
the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document.
Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial
document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.

3. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave

misconduct, and serious dishonesty.

Philippine Retirement Authority v. Thelma Rupa 10 citing In re Report of

the Financial Audit Conducted on the Accounts of Zenaida Garcia 11

8 546 Phil. 198, 223 (2007)

9 Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 226 (2006)

10 415 Phil. 713 (2001)

11 362 Phil. 480 (1999)

 Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Jurisprudence,
however, is instructive on this point. The Court has considered the
following acts or omissions, inter alia, as Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service: misappropriation of public
funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work
without prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and
property, making false entries in public documents and
falsification of court orders.
Rimando Gannapao v. CSC12
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service;
requirements; examples. The acts of respondent constitute the
administrative offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, which need not be related to, or connected with, the
public officers official functions. As long as the questioned
conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his public office,
the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public
officer or employee. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is
no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave
offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
However, the Court has considered the following acts or omissions,
inter alia, as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service:
misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to
report back to work without prior notice; failure to safe keep public
records and property; making false entries in public documents;
falsification of court orders; a judges act of brandishing a gun and
threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation; and a court
interpreters participation in the execution of a document conveying
complainants property which resulted in a quarrel in the latters family.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr.13
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence
by a public officer."
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be
manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave
misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple
misconduct. Thus, a person charged with grave misconduct may be

12 G.R. No. 180141, May 31, 2011

13 570 Phil. 464, 473 (2008)

 held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve
any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.
Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice
Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a
definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal
definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his
duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a
private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is
necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of
the officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or
malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have
direct relation to and be connected with the performance of
official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful,
intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
office x x x.
LRT v. Salvana14

Dishonesty is a serious offense that challenges the integrity

of the public servant charged. To bar a government office from
appealing a decision that lowers the penalty of the disciplined
employee prevents it from ensuring its mandate that the civil service
employs only those with the utmost sense of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency.

Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-0538, serious dishonesty comprises the

following acts:

Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. The presence of any one of the

following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest
act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave

prejudice to the government.

b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to

commit the dishonest act.

c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the

dishonest act directly involves property, accountable
forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the
respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft
and corruption.

14 G.R. No. 192074, June 10, 2014

d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of
the respondent.

e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of

official documents in the commission of the dishonest act
related to his/her employment.

f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in

various occasions.

g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination,

irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not
limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.

h. Other analogous circumstances.