GR 161640; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161640 December 9, 2005
SAMSON B. BEDRUZ, GREGORIO M. MONREAL, and EMMA C. LUNA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Samson B. Bedruz (City Engineer OIC), Gregorio M. Monreal (City Assessor), and Emma C. Luna (City Administrator) of Tagaytay City were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged they acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in processing, signing, and approving a fencing permit for the Suarez spouses, despite blatant defects in the application, thereby causing undue injury to the Liongson spouses who claimed ownership of the subject property. After arraignment where petitioners pleaded not guilty, the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for their mandatory suspension from office pending trial pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 .
The petitioners opposed the suspension, arguing that the Information was defective for failing to allege the specific acts constituting manifest partiality or evident bad faith. They contended that the Sandiganbayan must first conduct a hearing to determine the validity of the Information and the propriety of suspension. The Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered their suspension. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioners’ preventive suspension without conducting a prior hearing on the validity of the Information and the existence of the elements of the offense charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 , which provides that upon a valid Information charging an offense under the law, the court shall suspend the accused public officer pendente lite. The suspension is automatic upon the determination of the validity of the Information.
The Court ruled that a hearing to determine the strength of the prosecution’s evidence or to delve into the merits of the case is not a prerequisite for suspension. The Sandiganbayan only needed to ascertain that the Information was valid on its face—that it alleged the elements of the offense under R.A. No. 3019 and was filed by a competent officer. The Sandiganbayan correctly found that the Information against the petitioners met these requirements, as it specifically alleged the acts performed in their official capacities, done with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, resulting in undue injury to a private party. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s duty to order suspension became ministerial, and its order was in strict compliance with the law.