G.R. No. 129913 September 26, 1997
DINDO C. RIOS, petitioner, vs. THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF ROMBLON, respondents.

FACTS

An information was filed on March 6, 1996, against petitioner Dindo C. Rios, the incumbent Mayor of San Fernando, Romblon, for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleged that on or about May 16, 1994, he willfully and unlawfully caused the disposition of 1,319 pieces of confiscated lumber without proper authority, causing undue injury to the Government. Before arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information, arguing no probable cause existed. The Sandiganbayan overruled this. Petitioner’s subsequent petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 126771) was denied on December 4, 1996. After pleading not guilty at his arraignment on January 20, 1997, the Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s motion to suspend him pendente lite for ninety (90) days in a resolution dated March 24, 1997. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 25, 1997, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the facts charged constitute a violation of R.A. No. 3019 .
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a 90-day suspension pendente lite.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated its prior ruling in G.R. No. 126771 that the act of disposing confiscated lumber without prior authority from the DENR and the Sangguniang Bayan constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Sandiganbayan correctly found that such an act, especially by the highest municipal officer, causes undue injury to the Government by disturbing law and order and setting a reprehensible example. The claim that no injury occurred because proceeds went to the municipal coffers was erroneous, as the lumber belonged to the National Government, not the local government.
2. The Supreme Court found merit in the second argument. While Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 mandates suspension pendente lite, and the Sandiganbayan correctly imposed it, the duration was erroneous. Under Section 63(b) of the Local Government Code, the preventive suspension of a local elective official for a single case shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s order of a 90-day suspension was in clear disregard of this provision.
The appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan was AFFIRMED but MODIFIED, reducing the suspension period to 60 days.