Paredes, Jr. vs.

Sandiganbayan
GR 118354 August 8 1995
FACTS: In January 1990, Teofilo Gelacio, then vice mayor of San
Francisco, Agusan del Sur filed a case against Ceferino Paredes,
Jr. (who was then the governor of the same province), Atty. Generoso
Sansaet (counsel of Paredes), and Mansueto Honrada (a clerk of
court). The three allegedly conspired to falsify a copy of a Notice of
Arraignment and of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes. Gelacio
claimed that, in fact, no arraignment notice had ever been issued
against him in a criminal proceeding against him. Gelacio was able
to produce a certification from the judge handling the case himself
that the criminal case against him never reached the arraignment
stage because the prosecution was dismissed. Atty. Sansaet on his
part maintained that there was indeed a Notice of Arraignment but
he later retracted his testimonies. Paredes claimed that Sansaet
only changed his side because of political realignment.
Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman recommended that
Paredes et al be charged with Falsification of Public Documents.
Paredes appealed but was eventually denied by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: Whether or not Paredes, now a member of Congress, may
be suspended by order of the Sandiganbayan.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of suspension of
Congressman Paredes by the Sandiganbayan, despite his
protestations on the encroachment by the court on the prerogatives
of congress.
The SC ruled:
x x x. Petitioners invocation of Section 16 (3), Article VI of the
Constitution which deals with the power of each House of
Congress inter alia to punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and suspend or expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension,
when imposed, should not exceed sixty days is unavailing, as it
appears to be quite distinct from the suspension spoken of in
Section 13 of RA 3019, which is not a penalty but a preliminary,
preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that the latter is not
being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the
House of Representatives.