G.R. Nos. 61776-61861. March 23, 1984.
REYNALDO R. BAYOT, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reynaldo R. Bayot, a former government auditor with the Commission on Audit, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with multiple counts of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. The charges alleged his involvement in a scheme to prepare and encash fictitious checks, causing millions in government damage. He was initially convicted in 32 of these cases, with his appeal pending before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, Bayot was elected Municipal Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite in January 1980.
In 1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 amended Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft Law), mandating the suspension pendente lite of any incumbent public officer facing prosecution for offenses involving fraud upon government funds. Relying on this amendment, the prosecution moved to suspend Bayot from his current office as mayor. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered his suspension. Bayot sought reconsideration, arguing the amended law’s retroactive application to acts committed before its passage constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the suspension from office of petitioner Bayot, as incumbent mayor, based on Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, for charges filed prior to its enactment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the suspension order. The Court clarified that the mandatory suspension under the amended Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is not a penal sanction but a preventive measure. Citing Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code, it ruled that suspension from public office during trial is explicitly classified as not a penalty, as it is imposed prior to final judgment and the accused is entitled to reinstatement and back salaries if acquitted. Since it is not a criminal penalty, its application does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, which applies only to punitive statutes.
The Court also rejected Bayot’s ancillary argument that he could not be suspended from his elective position as mayor for acts allegedly committed in a previous, different government capacity. The law explicitly states that “any incumbent public officer” facing a valid information for the covered offenses “shall be suspended from office.” The term “office” is unqualified and applies to any public office currently held by the accused, not merely the specific office involved in the charge. The suspension is a consequence of the incumbent status and the nature of the charge, not the specific post.