GR 169888; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169888 November 11, 2008
RAMON Y. TALAGA, JR., City Mayor, Lucena City, petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, 4th Division, and PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Criminal and administrative complaints were filed by Elan Recreation, Inc. (ELAN) against petitioner Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., the City Mayor of Lucena, with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging he unlawfully granted favors to a third party regarding the operation of bingo games. The Ombudsman dismissed the administrative case but proceeded with the criminal case. The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing of three criminal charges for violation of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Sandiganbayan quashed the Informations in two cases but sustained Criminal Case No. 27738, which alleged petitioner gave unwarranted benefits to Jose Sy Bang by approving an ordinance granting him a local franchise to operate bingo games. After amended informations were filed, including city councilors as co-accused and alleging conspiracy, petitioner and the councilors were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend the Accused Pendente Lite. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered the preventive suspension of petitioner and the councilors for ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 . Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the suspension order.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioner under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. The Court ruled that under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 , preventive suspension is mandatory once a valid information is filed. The Court reiterated its consistent jurisprudence that the suspension is mandatory and ministerial upon the court once a valid information under R.A. No. 3019 is pending. The Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the Sandiganbayan should have considered the “environmental circumstances” of the case or that the suspension was purposeless, citing precedents like Segovia v. Sandiganbayan and Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan. The Court held that the purpose of suspension is not only to prevent intimidation of witnesses but also to prevent the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. The Court also found that the Sandiganbayan had already determined the validity of the information when it denied the motion to quash and proceeded with arraignment; thus, it was its ministerial duty to issue the suspension order. The Temporary Restraining Order issued earlier was lifted.