GR L 27594; (November 1975) (Digest)
March 15, 2026GR L 60946; (December, 1982) (Digest)
March 15, 2026G.R. No. 124471 November 28, 1996
RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo, then Provincial Governor of Cagayan, faced two criminal cases for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from his alleged failure to properly account for and liquidate intelligence funds totaling P750,000 withdrawn from the province’s 20% Development Fund for 1988 and 1989. The Commission on Audit (COA) found the disbursements were supported only by reimbursement receipts, many signed by a single person, or had no supporting papers at all, leading to a complaint for irregular disbursements.
After a reinvestigation, petitioner submitted affidavits from military officers acknowledging receipt of funds for counter-insurgency operations. The COA Provincial Auditor noted that while the required documents were not fully submitted, the affidavits and representations could be convincing proof the funds were used for their intended purpose. Despite this, the Ombudsman proceeded with the cases. The Sandiganbayan denied Aguinaldo’s motion to quash the informations and ordered his 90-day preventive suspension as governor.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash and ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the motion to quash, the Court ruled that the informations sufficiently alleged the elements of malversation, making a detailed discussion of evidence premature at that stage. The factual matters raised by petitioner regarding the affidavits and COA communications constituted matters of defense best ventilated during trial. On the suspension order, the Court emphasized that under Section 13 of R.A. 3019, suspension pendente lite is mandatory upon the court’s determination of the validity of the information. The law requires no prior hearing, and the only requisite is that the accused is validly charged under a statute such as R.A. 3019 or the Revised Penal Code for an offense involving fraud upon public funds. Since the informations were valid on their face, the Sandiganbayan was legally bound to issue the suspension order. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.