Skip to main content

GRAVE MISCONDUCT

1.   My lawyer shared the case of  Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court says;
We point out that to constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. The respondent in the present case summoned the SWAT for a purely personal matter, i.e., to aid her brother and sister-in-law. There was no link between the respondent’s acts and her official functions as a city prosecutor. In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr., the Court explained that:
x x x 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."
 I will always deny the allegations against me by the Complainants. However, upon the clarification made by my lawyer, the acts complaint of do not constitute Grave Misconduct because the said statements that allegedly maligned the Complainants are purely personal and do not affect the performance of their duties

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 318 OF RPC

1. MARIA C. OSORIO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 207711, JULY 02,  For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must exist: (a) [The accused makes a] false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in [Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. (Citation omitted) All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case. Petitioner, in soliciting private complainant's money, falsely represented that it would be invested in Philam Life and that its proceeds would be used to pay for private complainant's insurance premiums. This false representation is what induced private complainant to part with her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance premiums. Sinc...
Post a Comment
Read more

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

JAYLORD DIMAL AND ALLAN CASTILLO,   v.   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,  G.R. No. 216922, April 18, 2018. With respect to the items under Return on the Search Warrant indicated as "articles recovered/seized in plain view during the conduct of the search ," it is well settled that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. For the "plain view doctrine" to apply, it is required that the following requisites are present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. As explained in  People v. Salanguit ...
Post a Comment
Read more

GRAVE THREATS

ART. 282.  Grave threats . — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer: 1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. If the threat made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. The penalty of  arresto mayor  and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition . In the case of  SANTIAGO PAERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011, the Supreme Court said; Article 282 of the RPC h...
Post a Comment
Read more