You are on page 1of 6

BAYOT v SB

Facts: Bayot is one of the several persons who was accused in more than 100
counts of estafa thru falsification of Public documents before the Sandiganbayan.
The said charges started from his alleged involvement as a government auditor of
the commission on audit assigned to the Ministry of education and culture, with
some other employees from the said ministry. The bureau of treasury and the
teacher’s camp in Baguio City for the preparation and encashment of fictitious
TCAA checks for the nom-existent obligations of the teacher’s camp resulting in
damage to the government of several millions. The 1st 32 cases were filed on
july 25, 1987, while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was
elected on January 1980. but on May 1980 Sandiganbayan promulgated a
decision convicting the accused together with his other co-accused in all but one
of the thirty two cases filed against them.
On Mach 16, 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg 195 was passed amending RA 3019.
Issue: Whether or Not it would be violative of the constitutional guarantee
against an ex post facto law.
Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioner’s contention that RA 3019 as
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg 195, which includes the crime of estafa through
falsification of Public Documents as among crimes subjecting the public officer
charged therewith with suspension from public office pending action in court, is
a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the
enactment of ex post facto law. Accdg to the RPC suspension from employment
and public office during trial shall not be considered as a penalty. It is not a
penalty because it is not a result of a judicial proceeding. In fact, if acquitted the
official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. And does not violate the
constitutional provision against ex post facto law.
The claim of the petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is currently
occupying a position diffren tfrom that under which he is charged is untenable.
The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public officer against
whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under RA 3019 for any
offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property or
whatever stage of execution and mode of participation shall be suspended from
office. The use of the word “office” applies to any office which the officer
charged may be holding and not only the particular office under which he was
charged.

G.R. No. 86899-903 May 15, 1989
173 SCRA 409 - Deloso vs Sandiganbayan
This petition seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the
Sandiganbayan which preventively suspended petitioner Amor D. Deloso
(accused in the criminal cases) from his position as provincial governor of
Zambales and from any office that he may be holding.
Deloso was the duly elected mayor of Botolan, Zambales in the local
elections of November 1971. While he occupied the position of mayor, a
certain Juan Villanueva filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan accusing him
of having committed acts in violation of the Anti-Graft Law (Republic Act
3019) for issuing to certain Daniel Ferrer a tractor purchased by the
Municipality of Botolan thru a loan financed by the Land Bank of the
Philippines for lease to local farmers at reasonable cost, without any
agreement as to the payment of rentals for the use of tractor by the latter,
thereby, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Botolan.
Deloso was, then, elected governor of the Province of Zambales in the
January 18, 1988 local elections.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner be suspended indefinitely.
HELD
It would be most unfair to the people of Zambales who elected the petitioner
to the highest provincial office in their command if they are deprived of his
services for an indefinite period with the termination of his case possibly
extending beyond his entire term.
The Court rules that a preventive suspension of an elective public officer
under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 should be limited to the ninety (90)
days under Section 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service
Decree, which period also appears reasonable and appropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
The petitioner may still be suspended but for specifically expressed reasons
and not from an automatic application of Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. The preventive suspension was limited to 90 days. After,

may assume office.
LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
233 SCRA 163
Petitioner: Marcelino Libanan
Respondents: SANDIGANBAYAN and Agustin B. Docena
Ponente: J. Vitug
FACTS:
Petitioner Libanan is the incumbent vice-governor of Eastern Samar and was a
former member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan prior to the 1992 elections.
He was charged in conspiring to other members to prevent and exclude Docena
(Respondent), a qualified
replacement of a deceased member, from exercising his rights and prerogatives
as a member of the said
body.
In effect, the SANDIGANBAYAN issued a resolution suspending their
respective public position and office
for ninety (90) days.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging three grounds: [1] Order of
Suspension if executed
shall affront the petitioner’s right for due process; [2] the suspension would
assault his covenant to the
people of Samar as their vice-governor; and [3] the reasons sought to be
prevented by the suspension no
longer exist.
Petitioner contends that the order of suspension, being predicated on his acts
supposedly committed
while still a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, can no longer attach to him now
that he is the duly
elected and incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Order of Suspension given by the SANDIGANBAYAN is
valid?
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that the term "office" used in the law could apply to any
office which the officer
charged might currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office under
which he was charged.
The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due
process of law. Public office
is "a public agency or trust,"
petitioner invokes.
Hence, SC dismissed the petition. SANDIGANBAYAN’s decision is affirmed.
Berona v Sandiganbayan
Petitioners were public officers and employees of the Provincial Health Office of
Bangued, Abra (Health Office). Dr. Demetrio Beroa (Dr. Beroa) was Provincial
Health Officer II, Dr. Romulo Gaerlan (Dr. Gaerlan) was Provincial Health
Officer I, Aurie Viado-Adriano (Viado-Adriano) was resident auditor and Vida
Labios (Labios) was an accountant. Petitioners were among the seven[if !
supportFootnotes][3][endif]
charged for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) before the Sandiganbayan
in Criminal Case No. 23521. The accusatory portion of the Information reads in
part:
x x x, committing the crime herein charged in relation to and taking advantage of
their official functions, and through bad faith, conspiring and confederating with
each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously release to
Alexander Siddayao, the total amount of P99,987.77 representing payment for
the improvement of the Main Health Center in Malibcong, Abra when in fact,
said Alexander Siddayao is not the labor contractor for the project, resulting to
the non-payment of the salaries due the laborers who worked for the completion
of the above-said project, causing them undue injury.
When arraigned, all the accused pleaded not guilty. On 30 April 1999, the
prosecution filed an Amended Motion to Suspend the Accused Pendente Lite
pursuant to Section 13 of RA 3019 (Section 13). The motion sought the
suspension of petitioners from any public office which they may be occupying
pending trial.
After the pre-suspension hearing held on 6 July 1999, the Sandiganbayan
suspended the petitioners from office for 90 days. The Sandiganbayan held that
preventive suspension is mandatory under Section 13 upon the courts finding that

a Congressman. Hence. had unlawfully granted favors to a third party with respect to the operation of bingo games in the city. tampering with documentary evidence. Gaerlan resigned from the Health Office and briefly engaged in private practice. (Emphasis supplied) Suspension pendente lite prevents the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office Petitioners other contention that there is no longer any danger that petitioners would intimidate prosecution witnesses since two of the latters witnesses had already completed their testimonies in court is also untenable. Department of Health. this petition. Abra. at the time of issuance of the suspension order. who may have already been separated from the service. we held in Bolastig v. Demetrio Beroa. The Sandiganbayan observed that a preliminary investigation was duly conducted before the filing of the Information. Section 13 unequivocally mandates the suspension of a public official from office pending a criminal prosecution under RA 3019 or Title 7. The complaints alleged that petitioner. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif] the petitioner similarly claimed that the order of suspension. or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. Its purpose is to prevent the accused public officer from hampering his prosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or any offense involving public funds or property or fraud on government. The court can then have a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case. the Court explained: In Deloso v. The suspension of the accused shall be automatically lifted upon the expiration of the ninety (90) day period from the implementation of this resolution (Doromal vs. in Bayot v. a Department of Science and Technology (DOST) non-career Project Manager. 128 SCRA 383). could no longer attach to him. Hence. The accused public officers whose culpability remains to be proven are still entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. was already occupying the office of governor and not the position of municipal mayor that he held previously when charged with having violated the Anti-Graft Law. the seat remains filled but the constituents are deprived of representation. They lose sight of the fact that preventive suspension is not a penalty. Labios obtained an appointment as accounting clerk in the Provincial Government of Abra. Sandiganbayan. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving public funds or property or fraud on government. even the Constitution authorizes the suspension for not more than sixty days of members of Congress found guilty of disorderly behavior. [2] On May 23. The Information charged petitioners under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 for causing undue injury to any party. SO ORDERED. unlike in the case of removal. or withhold the suspension and dismiss the case. the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon recommended the dismissal of both the criminal and administrative complaints. Beroa resigned from the Health Office on 27 March 1995. Dr. In a long line of cases. Petitioners last feeble argument that the prosecution evidence is weak misses the point. Sandiganbayan. Another is to prevent the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. [if !supportFootnotes][11][endif] Section 13 reinforces the principle that a public office is a public trust. La Union for the implementation of this suspension. unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him. Beroas suspension would deprive his constituents in the Municipality of Pilar the services and leadership of their highest elected municipal official to the greater detriment of public service. but if he is acquitted. the suspension of then Cavite Mayor Bayot was also sustained even as he was charged for acts committed as government auditor of the Commission on Audit. who has likewise been elected by them. respectively. In the event that such convicted officer. Equally futile is their claim that Dr. The first Resolution ordered thus: WHEREFORE. has already received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the same to the government. Inc. a Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). in view of the foregoing. (ELAN) against petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman. applies to petitioners since they are no longer occupying the positions they held when they were charged under RA 3019. Resident Auditor. is pending in court. WHEREFORE. [3] . Sandiganbayan[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif] that x x x. Sandiganbayan. 23521.[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif] The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature which the court will pass on after a full-blown trial on the merits. Provincial Health Officer I. The Courts Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. Bayot vs. Rejecting his thesis. and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. Cashier and Accountant. Abra. The vice governor. this Court rejected a similar argument advanced by Governor Deloso who. 23521. which the Sandiganbayan found sufficient in form and substance. SO ORDERED. 177 SCRA 354. 2003. Dr. Sandiganbayan. The possibility that the accused would intimidate witnesses or hamper their prosecution is just one of the grounds for preventive suspension. San Fernando. in his capacity as mayor of the City of Lucena. thus rejecting the view expressed in one case that members of the legislature could not be suspended because in the case of suspension. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation. Suspension pendente lite applies to any office the officer might be currently holding Petitioners contend that the Sandiganbayan has no legal basis to suspend them because they are presently occupying positions different from those under which the Information charged them. He re-joined the government service. The Court reiterated this doctrine in Segovia v. based on his indictment as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan. to the damage and prejudice of the complainants. He ran and won as the Municipal Mayor of Pilar. Esther Barbero and Vida Labios are hereby suspended as Provincial Health Officer II. Viado-Adriano became resident auditor of the Land Bank of the Philippines. subject of the Information in Criminal Case No. This issue is neither new nor controversial. Sandiganbayan. The period imposed by the Sandiganbayan is also in accord with our previous rulings limiting to 90 days the period of preventive suspension under Section 13. or permanent or temporary employees. a Governor. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. is not a sufficient basis for reducing what is otherwise a mandatory period prescribed by law. Suspension and loss of benefits. the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif] The purpose of a pre-suspension hearing is to determine the validity of the information. Sandiganbayan[if !supportFootnotes][9][endif] in this wise: The provision of suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted upon a valid information under the Act. Petitioners contend that at the time of their preventive suspension they were no longer holding the positions they were occupying when the transactions. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official.[if !supportFootnotes][7][endif] In this case. Section 13 of the same law reads: SEC. Prior to Deloso. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. The term office in Section 13 of the law applies to any office which the officer might currently be holding and not necessarily the particular office in relation to which he is charged. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid Information under this Act or under Title 7. We AFFIRM the Resolutions dated 8 September 1999 and 4 February 2000 issued by the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. These reasons cannot override the mandatory character of Section 13. and from any other public office which they may now or hereafter be holding for ninety (90) days from receipt of this resolution. we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. accused Dr. which qualifies the public officer as incumbent. administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality. Thus. Should he be convicted by final judgment.a valid information charges the accused for violation of RA 3019 or Title 7. will act as governor. In Libanan v. The only issue posed for resolution is whether Section 13. Indeed. This Court has repeatedly held that such preventive suspension is mandatory. including the Government. That hearing is similar to a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash. He is requested to please inform this Court of his action thereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.[if !supportFootnotes][5] [endif] we have rejected the same arguments petitioners now raise. As in previous cases resolving the same issue. and there are no ifs and buts about it. petitioners suspension is unquestionably mandatory. Bangued. Talaga v Sandiganbayan Criminal and administrative complaints were filed by Elan Recreation. Region I. or correct any part of the proceedings that impairs its validity. as he was already the duly elected and incumbent Vice-Governor of Eastern Samar. Abra. We have long settled this issue. or pertaining to the career or non-career service. a Municipal Mayor. but no longer at the Health Office. Aurie Viado. all of the Provincial Health Office of Bangued.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] In the second Resolution. the fact that petitioners preventive suspension may deprive the people of Samar of the services of an official elected by them. the Sandiganbayan had determined the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose. It applies to a Public High School Principal. The Issue Petitioners would now have this Court strike down the first and second Resolutions as supposedly rendered with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction. he shall be entitled to reinstatement. the answer will not change. 13. or committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. Romulo Gaerlan. Dr. happened. shall be suspended from office. whether they be appointive or elective officials. Section 13 is so clear and explicit that there is hardly room for any extended court rationalization of the law. at least temporarily.

and privileges of their positions as City Mayor.However. despite the mass of jurisprudence relevant to the issue. [5] On February 9. In no sense may the challenged resolutions be stigmatized as so clearly capricious. Faller. whimsical. WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION. in promulgating those resolutions. it only relied on the mandatory provision of Section 13 insensate to the weight and cogency of the peculiar circumstances of the case before it. to wit: xxxx WHEREFORE. respondent referred Criminal Case No.[24] xxxx While petitioners concede that this Court has almost consistently ruled that the preventive suspension contemplated in Section 13 of RA 3019 is . 27737 and 27739. Danilo R. and Aurora C. Indeed that the theory of discretionary suspension should still be advocated at this late date. On the contrary.A. petitioner alleges: I THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IN ABDICATION OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO RESOLVE A JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY.D. oppressive. Salome S. 2. The Court will not do so.[23] thus: Petitioners would now have this Court strike down these resolutions because supposedly rendered in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. while the Second Amended Information (Information) alleged conspiracy between petitioner and the City Councilors. IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT IMPINGES UPON THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE JUDICIARY. the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing of three criminal charges for violation of R. Sandiganbayan[22] that unless the accused is suspended.[18] Assailing his suspension. 771 has been superceded by P. the prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend the Accused Pendente Lite.[15] Petitioner and his co-accused filed an Opposition[16] to the motion. 27738 back to the Office of the Ombudsman and ordered the latter to conduct further preliminary investigation to determine the possible liability of the members of the City Council which passed Ordinance No. 2005. the Ombudsman approved the dismissal of the administrative case but denied the dismissal of the criminal case. [20] Moreover.D. Wilfredo F. Petitioner argues that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when in imposing the sanction of suspension. No. Jr. the prosecution's motion for suspension pendente lite is hereby GRANTED. 771 as it has no applicability to bingo operations and P. In the said Resolution. petitioner contends that respondent should have looked into the environmental circumstances of the case and thus it was unwarranted to apply the presumption in Bolastig v. 2005 enjoining public respondents from implementing the suspension of petitioner. No 7160. petitioner and the City Councilors were arraigned in Criminal Case No.[14] On June 29. bordering on contumacious disregard of the solemn magisterial pronouncements of the Highest Court of the land. On May 17. 3.[11] On February 21. the Sandinganbayan issued a Resolution [6] quashing the Informations in Criminal Cases No. [19] The petition is devoid of merit. he may frustrate or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both. 27738 and all pleaded not guilty. 2005. there being no violation of Presidential Decree (P. as additional accused. Zaballero. respectively. the Sandiganbayan admitted both amended informations. petitioner filed a motion to quash the three informations. Asilo. egregiously erroneous or wanting in logic as to call for invalidation by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. 3019. The Sandiganbayna denied[13] the petition and it likewise denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Aldovino. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Office of the Ombudsman. sustaining its authority to decree suspension of public officials and employees indicted before it.[21] In addition. petitioner and the City Councilors filed a Motion to Quash[12] the Information on the ground that there is no valid information on which the Sandiganbayan has a finding of probable cause because the second amended informations allegations do not constitute an offense. II ASSUMING THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS MANDATORY. and accused Ramon Y. Thereafter. Godofredo V.D. petitioner argues that the bare reliance of respondent on Section 13 without calibrating the weight of diverse and dueling evidence pertinent to the issue of appropriateness of ordering his suspension is a clear abdication of respondent's constitutional duty to exercise its judicial function. 3019: 1. On July 5. Petitioner asks this Court to first look into the circumstances of the case and thereafter determine the propriety of issuing a suspension order. the Sandiganbayan did but adhere to the clear command of the law and what it calls a mass of jurisprudence emanating from this Court. 27738. No. 2005. 2004. 27737. 1869 and R. respondent ordered the suspension of the petitioner and his co-accused. Criminal Case No. Simon N.) No. Garcia are hereby directed to CEASE and DESIST from further performing and/or exercising the functions. or any other positions they may now or hereafter be holding effective immediately upon receipt hereof and continuing for a total period of ninety (90) days. III THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF HEREIN PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS NO VALID INFORMATION UNDER WHICH PETITIONER STANDS CHARGED. The first included the members of the City Council of Lucena City (City Councilors). The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on November 9.. The Court could not be more explicit than its ruling in Segovia v.[7] An Amended Information[8] and Second Amended Information[9] were filed by the prosecution in the Sandiganbayan. As a result. For causing undue injury to complainants when petitioner as mayor of Lucena City vetoed an ordinance granting a local franchise to the complainants to operate bingo games in the city. it sustained the Information in Criminal Case No. IT IS MINISTERIAL DUTY TO ISSUE A PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THERE ARE NO IFS AND BUTS ABOUT IT.A. Dato. Talaga. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER AS SECTION 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation [4] questioning the finding of the Special Prosecutor. However. is little short of amazing. 1963 in said case. No. Sandiganbayan. duties. 2003.[17] Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari with an urgent application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Over the opposition [10] of petitioner. and City Councilors of Lucena City.

Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and . Sandiganbayan. Where either the prosecution seasonably files a motion for an order of suspension or the accused in turn files a motion to quash the information or challenges the validity thereof. They assert that the evils sought to be avoided by separating a public official from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated -.[27] the Court has set out the guidelines to be followed by the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension. The arguments are not new. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. and thereafter hand down its ruling. 3. Neither are they now involved in any bidding for or awarding of contracts. R. All the relevant documentary evidence had been either submitted to the Ombudsman or to the Honorable Sandiganbaya n. Mariano. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving public funds or property or fraud on government.mandatory in character. Section 13. This Court has repeatedly held that such preventive suspension is mandatory.will not occur in the present situation where: 1.Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court. Sandiganbayan. are germane: x x x The fact is that the possibility that the accused would intimidate witnesses or otherwise hamper his prosecution is just one of the grounds for preventive suspension. such as through intimidation of witnesses. Should he be convicted by final judgment. to the prequalificati on of contractors dealing with NPC. in any manner. but if he is acquitted. the trial court should issue an order with proper notice requiring the accused officer to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to the cited mandatory provisions of the Act. unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.A. 3019 or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery. shall be suspended from office. As early as Luciano v. (d) No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. issuing the corresponding order of suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or withhold such suspension in the contrary case. and there are no ifs and buts about it. (Emphasis supplied) In Beroa v. provides: Suspension and loss of benefits. The Courts pronouncements in Bolastig v. ** it (being) emphasized (in this connection) that they were merely designated as ad hoc members of the Committee without additional compensation for their additional duties.[26] the Court explicitly ruled: Section 13 is so clear and explicit that there is hardly room for any extended court rationalization of the law. 3019 or Title 7.[25] (Emphasis supplied) Ineluctably.A. as there is no more need for precautionary measures against their abuse of the prerogatives of their office. .g.or the tampering with documentary evidence -.e. The other one is. No. The Project has been canceled. such show-cause order of the trial court would no longer be necessary. (Their) ** official duties no longer pertain. They have been advanced and rejected in earlier cases. They conclude that their preventive suspension at this point would actually be purposeless. 2. pursuant to section 13 of said Act. Section 13 unequivocally mandates the suspension of a public official from office pending a criminal prosecution under R. What is indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a hearing held for determining the validity of the information. to preclude the abuse of the prerogative of (his) office. the theory of petitioner that environmental circumstances of the case should first be explored has no leg to stand on. they nonetheless urge the Court to consider their case an exception because of the peculiar circumstances thereof. to wit: xxxx (c) By way of broad guidelines for the lower courts in the exercise of the power of suspension from office of public officers charged under a valid information under the provisions of Republic Act No. he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. it may be briefly stated that upon the filing of such information. They will again be so rejected in this case.. to prevent the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. 3019. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law.

The validity of Section 13. (Emphasis supplied) The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to appraise the accused. the act for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. provides: Section 3. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party. No. or correct any part of the proceedings that impairs its validity. VICTOR U. including the Government. the court must first determine the validity of the information through a pre-suspension hearing. These allegations are clear enough for a layman to understand. unlawfully. did then and there willfully. Hence. and. in conspiracy with the City Council. once a case is filed in court. [29] In this case. Corrupt practices of public officers. and criminally. in effect. That hearing is similar to a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. SIMON N. WILFREDO F. The raison detre of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. or he may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided in the Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. In effect.. ASILO. Quezon and GODOFREDO V. AURORA C. PHILIP M. causing any undue injury to any party.including preventive suspension should be acknowledged as within the competence of the court that has taken cognizance thereof. But once a proper determination of the validity of the information has been made. The Information charged the petitioner of evident bad faith and manifest partiality when as Mayor of Lucena City. gave unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang. advantages or preference. to wit: SECTION 9. give unwarranted benefit to Jose Sy Bang of Lucena City.. [34] The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act implicitly recognizes that the power of preventive suspension lies in the court in which the criminal charge is filed. by then and there. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Contrary to the argument of petitioner. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official. The hearings or proceedings held thereon. confederating and mutually helping such other. or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. ALDOVINO.[36] WHEREFORE. [33] Basic is the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. and not one that is doubtful. 771. the Information sufficiently apprises petitioner of the charges against him. Second. 3019 requires proof of the following facts: xxxx 1. granting unto the said Jose Sy Bang a local franchise to operate a bingo business in Lucena City in violation of existing laws. The mandatory suspension decreed by the act upon determination of the pendency in court or criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft Act or for bribery under a valid information requires at the same time that the hearing be expeditious. Sandiganbayan. 2005 is lifted.adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him. the law does not require that the information must allege that the acts in question caused injury to any party. petitioner is stating once again that the allegations in the Information do not constitute an offense. petitioners second assigned error deserves scant consideration.[32] Based on the foregoing test. e.[28] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Stated differently. an essential element in the crime charged. No. Moreover.A. including the government. R. The presence of the word or clearly shows that there are two acts which can be prosecuted under Section 3: First. Cause of the Accusation. FALLER. whether the government or private party. and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act. being the City Mayor of Lucena. and to justify its nullification. Moreover. with reasonable certainty. ZABALLERO. series of 2000 dated June 5. of the offense charged. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Petitioner is holding on to a thin straw in claiming that the Information is fatally defective since it failed to allege that petitioner by enacting and approving Ordinance No. then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order upon its upholding the validity of the information and setting the same for trial on the merits. conspiring. the instant petition is DISMISSED. DANILO R. no violation of the doctrine of separation of powers being perceivable in that acknowledgement.g. being members of the City Council of Lucena City. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law. under which petitioner is charged. in conspiracy with each other. committing the offense in relation to their office. No. administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality. if the trial court. the same having been repeatedly upheld by this Court. This brings the Court to petitioners third assigned error that there is no valid Information under which petitioner stands charged. TALAGA. speculative or argumentative. in Quibal v. Rules of Court provides the guideline for the determination of the validity or sufficiency of allegations in an information. 3019 may no longer be put at issue. constituted a pre-suspension hearing. the above-named accused RAMON TALAGA .[30] the Court ruled that violation of Section 3 (e) of R. DATO. the purpose of the law in requiring a pre-suspension hearing is to determine the validity of the information so that the court can have a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case. whether the government or private party. by enacting and approving Ordinance No. petitioner. namely. SALOME S. The Temporary Restraining Order dated November 9. respondent had determined the validity of the Information when petitioner filed his Motion to Quash. there being no showing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in issuing its Resolution of October 3. 1963. (Emphasis supplied) Section 3(e) of R. This provision shall apply to officers and employees charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. or sometime prior or subsequent thereto.[35] As earlier mentioned. with evident bad faith and/or manifest partiality. CASTILLO. 3019 or of bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act. 1963 had caused injury to any party. preventively suspending the petitioner for ninety (90) days.A. while in the performance of their official and/or administrative functions. Rule 110. say. Finally. it states the specific act which constituted the giving of unwarranted benefits. JR. it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to forthwith issue the order of preventive suspension. that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation. all other acts connected with the discharge of court functions . giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. ROMANO FRANCO C. 2000. 2000 granting unto the said Jose Sy Bang a local franchise to operate a bingo business in Lucena City in violation of Presidential decree No. GARCIA. Respondent has followed the dictates of the law.A. or withhold the suspension and dismiss the case. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 3019. Section 9. finds the ground alleged in the quashal motion not to be indubitable.. The Information reads: That on or about June 5. in Lucena City. PAULO. . 2005.

.SO ORDERED.