G.R. No. L-31347, August 31, 1970
JOSE C. LUCIANO, Petitioner, v. JOHNNY WILSON, HON. ISIDRO S. RODRIGUEZ, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, JUDGE, CFI of Rizal, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose C. Luciano became the Acting Mayor of Makati, Rizal, following the suspension of the elected mayor and other officials upheld by the Supreme Court in a prior case (G.R. No. L-30306). Prior to assuming office, Luciano was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Criminal Case No. 19346). He initially petitioned the Supreme Court to restrain the filing and prosecution of the information, alleging lack of preliminary investigation, but the petition was dismissed without prejudice to filing an appropriate motion in the lower court. Luciano then filed such a motion in the CFI, which was denied, though the court suggested the incumbent Provincial Fiscal could conduct a reinvestigation. After Luciano requested it, the Provincial Fiscal conducted a reinvestigation and subsequently maintained that prima facie evidence existed. On December 15, 1969, the respondent Judge issued an order suspending Luciano from office pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, stating the information appeared valid. Immediately, respondent Johnny Wilson took an oath as Acting Mayor. Luciano filed the present petition for quo warranto, injunction, and prohibition to restrain the enforcement of the suspension order and Wilson’s takeover. The Supreme Court issued temporary restraining orders. While the case was pending, respondent Wilson filed a motion confessing judgment and agreeing that a hearing should have been held on the validity of the information before suspension.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order suspending petitioner from office without first conducting a hearing on the validity of the information and the claimed lack of proper preliminary investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the suspension order. It granted respondent Wilson’s motion, which conceded the need for a hearing. The Court held that, conformable to the spirit of the law and considering the serious consequences of suspending an elected public official before conviction, a hearing should be held on the validity of the information and the issue of preliminary investigation. The respondent Judge was directed to forthwith hold such a hearing and, if finding in favor of the prosecution, to then hear and decide the criminal case on its merits. The preliminary writs of injunction were dissolved.