In Velasco vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.

1, the Supreme Court held that the essential elements of Section

3(e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, are as follows:

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
and

3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
functions.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of
the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence2

Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish
the image and integrity of his/her public office. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of promoting a
high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code
commands that “[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public
safety and public interest3;

1
G.R. No. 160991, February 28, 2005.
2
Samson vs. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011.
3
Avenido vs. CSC, G.R. No. 177666, April 30, 2008.
The power of the Ombudsman to preventively suspend any public officer administratively charged
before it under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 -- is already well-recognized (Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R.
No. 106719, September 21, 1993). Under Sec. 24 of RA 6770, a public officer may be preventively
suspended if the following two requisites concur: first, the evidence of guilt is strong; and second,
which may be met any of the following three (3) circumstances or ways: a) the charge involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; b) the charge would
warrant removal from the service; or c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case
filed against him(Ombudsman et al. v. Valeroso, G.R. No. 167828, April 2, 2007; Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Evangelista, et.al. G.R. No. 177211, 13 March 2009).