ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF 1998 AS AMENDED (RA 8485 AS AMENDED

BY RA 10631)
SECTION 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to
provide adequate care, subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause
or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or
maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the
Committee on Animal Welfare.
The killing of any animal other than cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos
and horses (* NOTE: “deer” and “crocodiles” were delisted) is likewise hereby declared
unlawful except in the following instances:
1. When it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion or sect or a
ritual required by tribal or ethnic custom of indigenous cultural communities; however,
leaders shall keep records in cooperation with the Committee on Animal Welfare;
2. When the pet animal is afflicted with an incurable communicable disease as
determined and certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
3. When the killing is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered by the
animal as determined and certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
4. When it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being;
5. When done for the purpose of animal population control;
6. When the animal is killed after it has been used in authorized research of experiments;
and
7. Any other ground analogous to the foregoing as determined and certified licensed
veterinarian.
In all the above mentioned cases, including those of cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry,
rabbits, carabaos and horses (* NOTE: “deer” and “crocodiles” were delisted) the
killing of the animals shall be done through humane procedures at all times.
For this purpose, humane procedures shall mean the use of the most scientific
methods available as may be determined and approved by the committee.
Only those procedures approved by the Committee shall be used in the killing
of animals.
SECTION 9. Any person who subjects any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect
shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment and/or fine, as
indicated in the following graduated scale:
1) Imprisonment of one (1) year and six (6) months andone (1) day to two (2) years
and/or fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) if the animal
subjected to cruelty, maltreatment, or neglect dies;
2) Imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and six (6) months
and/or a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) if the animal subjected
to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect survives but is severely injured with loss of its natural
faculty to survive on its own and needing human intervention to sustain its life; and
3) Imprisonment of six (6) months to one (1) year and/or fine not exceeding Thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for subjecting any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or
neglect but without causing its death or incapacitating it to survive on its own.

SECTION 10. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall deputize animal
welfare enforcement officers from nongovernment organizations, citizens
groups, community organizations and other volunteers who have undergone the
necessary training for this purpose. The Philippine National Police, the National Bureau
of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies shall designate animal welfare
enforcement officers. As such, animal welfare enforcement officers shall have the
authority to seize and rescue illegally traded and maltreated animals and to arrest
violators of this Act subject to the guidelines of existing laws and rules and regulations
on arrest and detention.
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Animal Welfare:
1) Promulgate the guidelines on the criteria and training requirements for the
deputization of animal welfare enforcement officers; and
2) Establish a mechanism for the supervision monitoring and reporting of these
enforcement officers.

RA NO. 3019 ( ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)

Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the
preceding subparagraph.
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:
(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.

Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any
of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall
be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years,
perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of
the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
xxx.
The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides guidelines
for officials in their use of power. Under Section 4 of the this law, public officials and employees are
bound to observe the standards of personal conduct in the discharge of their official duties, particularly:
commitment to public interest, professionalism, justness and sincerity, political neutrality,
responsiveness to public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy, and simple living.
While they should uphold the public interest in the discharge of duty, the law also provides, under the
standard of justness and sincerity, that officials must “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 interest.”
Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that public officers must serve the public with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. This is manifested by how public officers
themselves honor the law and set an example to the people to follow the law and orders, both legal
and administrative ones. The Supreme Court, in several cases involving public officials and
employees, has time and again stressed that persons in public office must conduct themselves with
good manners and proper decorum becoming of their office, in every situation—whether work-related
or not.

In Ganzon v Arlos (G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013), a case involving a public official who
threatened to kill someone during a Christmas party, the Supreme Court gave a reminder that the law
of good manners and proper decorum applies even outside office hours. The Court upheld the
dismissal of the public official, and further defined “misconduct,” citing Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr. (G.R. No.
169449, March 26, 2010), viz: “Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior. 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. In grave
misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.”

Similarly, in Alarilla v Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 136806, August 22, 2000), a municipal mayor was
charged with grave threats before the Sandiganbayan for aiming a gun and threatening to kill the
private complainant because he was angered by the speech delivered by the latter in a public hearing.
The Supreme Court ruled that even if an act of a public official or employee is not an element of the
crime of grave threat charged, the act is considered “intimately connected” to his/her public office when
it is committed as response to the performance of his or her official capacity.
In Zacarias v. National Police Commission (G.R. No. 119847, October 24, 2003), the Court stated that
the scope of “conduct unbecoming” a public officer (particularly a police officer in this case) refer to
acts or behavior of an officer in an official or unofficial capacity which includes dishonoring oneself
personally, seriously compromising his position and exhibiting oneself as “morally unworthy” to
continue in the office or as a member of the organization.
Further, in Yabut v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 111304, June 17, 1994), the Court upheld the
suspension of a public officer even if there was sufficient provocation by the private complainant that
resulted in the traffic altercation, mauling and eventual shooting between the parties. The Court
explained that while it cannot condone the disrespect and provocation demonstrated by the private
complainant which caused the patience of the vice mayor to break, for public officials, especially
elected ones, “[S]trict personal discipline is expected of an occupant of a public office because a public
official is a property of the public. He is looked upon to set the example how public officials should
correctly conduct themselves even in the face of extreme provocation.”

Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public office."32 Misconduct becomes grave if it
involves any of the additional elements of corruption, wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard
established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.33 Substantial evidence is such
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.34 G.R. No. 208341 June 17, 2015 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner
vs MA. NIMFA P. DE VILLA, Responden