G.R. No. L-33362. July 30, 1971. JOSE R. OLIVEROS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, Judge, Circuit Criminal Court, 7th Judicial District; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR EMILIO GANCAYCO; STATE PROSECUTOR EDILBERTO BAROT, JR., and ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN of Rizal, respondents.
FACTS

An information was filed against petitioner Jose R. Oliveros, then Municipal Mayor of Antipolo, Rizal, for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The charge stemmed from his alleged appointment of his brother, a private bank employee, as a confidential agent, causing the municipality to pay a salary without the appointee rendering service. The information was filed by State Prosecutor Edilberto Barot, Jr. and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Eliseo C. de Guzman. Respondent Judge Onofre A. Villaluz, on the same day the information was filed and without a prior hearing, issued an order suspending Oliveros from office pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019.
Petitioner Oliveros filed for writs of certiorari and prohibition, challenging the suspension order. He argued grave abuse of discretion on two grounds: first, that the prosecutors lacked authority to file the information as a prior recommendation for dismissal by the Provincial Fiscal had quashed the case, and second, that he was suspended without being given an opportunity to contest the validity or sufficiency of the information against him.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the filing of the information was valid despite a prior provincial fiscal’s recommendation for dismissal; and (2) Whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner’s suspension from office without a prior hearing on the validity of the information.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the filing of the information but nullified the suspension order. On the first issue, the Court found the petitioner’s claim of lack of preliminary investigation and prosecutorial authority to be without merit. The record showed that after the Provincial Fiscal recommended dismissal, the entire record was elevated to the Secretary of Justice for review, as permitted by the Revised Administrative Code. The Secretary, exercising supervisory power, reversed the recommendation and designated State Prosecutor Barot as a special prosecutor to file the case under R.A. No. 5783. This authority of the Secretary of Justice over provincial fiscals is well-established.
On the second issue, the Court agreed with the petitioner and ruled that the immediate suspension order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Citing the precedent in Luciano vs. Wilson, the Court held that before issuing a suspension order under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Act, which has serious consequences for an elected official, the judge must first conduct a hearing to determine the validity of the information. The suspension cannot be issued ex parte. The Court set aside the suspension order and directed respondent Judge Villaluz to conduct a preliminary hearing on the validity of the information. Should the court uphold the information’s validity after such a hearing, it may then issue a new suspension order. The petition was dismissed as to the other respondents.