G.R. No. L-7079 October 26, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO V. BAUTISTA, MIGUEL PABALAN and ANTONIO B. RUBIO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants, Francisco V. Bautista, Miguel Pabalan, and Antonio B. Rubio, all members of the police department of Calamba, Laguna, were charged with rape. The Court of First Instance of Laguna acquitted them. However, in the dispositive portion of the decision, the judge ordered that despite the acquittal and dismissal of the case, the accused “should not be reinstated to the service in the police department of Calamba, Laguna, and due to the above findings, they are not entitled to any salary.” The background was that after the filing of the information, Antonio B. Rubio married the offended party, leading to his exclusion from the case. During the trial of the other two, the offended party became a hostile witness, causing the prosecution’s case to collapse and necessitating acquittal. The trial judge, suspecting questionable maneuvers, included the pronouncements against reinstatement and payment of salary. The defendants appealed solely to secure the elimination of these portions from the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s pronouncements in its decision—that the acquitted defendants should not be reinstated and are not entitled to any salary during their suspension—are valid and justified under the applicable law.

RULING

The pronouncements in the appealed decision regarding reinstatement and non-payment of salary were erroneous and unjustified. The trial judge likely relied on Section 2272 of the Revised Administrative Code, which conditioned payment of salary during suspension upon a court provision in its sentence. However, this provision was modified by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, which states that in case of acquittal, the accused “shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension.” The law no longer requires a court order for such payment; entitlement is automatic upon acquittal. Regarding reinstatement, since suspension under the law is only “pending the final decision of the case by the court,” acquittal implies automatic reinstatement. Therefore, the prejudicial portions of the decision are ordered eliminated. No costs.