GR 110216; (September, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110216 September 10, 1993
IGNACIO R. BUNYE, JAIME D. FRESNEDI, LUCIO B. CONSTANTINO, NOLASCO L. DIAZ, RUFINO J. JOAQUIN, ROGER S. SMITH, ALEJANDRO L. MARTINEZ, and ROMAN E. NIEFES, petitioners, vs. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ROMEO M. ESCAREAL, JOSE S. BALAJADIA, NARCISO T. ATIENZA, and AUGUSTO M. AMORES in their personalities as members of the Second Division of the SANDIGANBAYAN and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the municipal mayor, vice-mayor, and incumbent councilors of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The information alleged that they conspired to enact Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 on August 1, 1988, and based thereon, forcibly took possession, operation, and management of the new Public Market in Alabang from the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan ng Muntinlupa, Inc., despite a valid and subsisting 25-year lease contract, causing undue injury to the cooperative and giving the municipal government unwarranted benefits. Upon motion of the Public Prosecutor, the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division issued a resolution on May 11, 1993, ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners from office pending trial pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 . Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the suspension order.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners from office pending their criminal trial.
RULING
No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 , preventive suspension of a public officer against whom a valid information is pending in court is mandatory. The Court cited Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, which ruled that such suspension is not a penalty and is not violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence; it is mandatory once the information’s validity is determined. The Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that their admissions of the acts charged eliminated the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, stating that the prosecution must be given the opportunity to prepare its case without interference. The Court also found no merit in the claim that the suspension would paralyze the municipal government, noting that eight councilors would remain and the President or the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government could address the temporary vacancies in accordance with the Local Government Code.