Pimentel v. Garchitorena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Governor Mariano J. Pimentel and Lilia L. Salun-at are accused in SB Crim. Cases Nos. 13834-36 of falsifying public documents by making it appear that resolutions were passed appropriating substantial sums of money for supplementary budgets and aid, when in fact, no such resolutions were adopted. In SB Crim. Case No. 16560, Governor Pimentel is charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly granting a lease of a government building and equipment to his son-in-law, Edgardo Merjudio, without a formal contract or a proper resolution. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan, through its First and Second Divisions, issued orders suspending petitioners Governor Pimentel, Lilia L. Salun-at, and Edgardo Merjudio pendente lite pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. 3019, as amended. These suspensions were based on the criminal charges filed against them involving fraud against the government and public funds or property. The petitioners were suspended on April 15, 1991, and August 2, 1991, respectively. The Petition: The petitioners, Governor Mariano J. Pimentel, Lilia L. Salun-at, and Edgardo Merjudio, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. They contend that their suspension, which had already exceeded the maximum period of ninety (90) days as established in prior jurisprudence and Section 42 of P.D. No. 807, should be lifted. They argue that while the suspension is permissible under R.A. 3019 for offenses involving fraud against the government, it cannot extend beyond the statutory ninety-day limit.
Issue(s)
Whether the preventive suspension orders issued by the Sandiganbayan are valid. Whether the duration of the preventive suspension exceeded the maximum period allowed by law.
Ruling
The petitions are granted. The orders of suspension dated April 15, 1991 and August 2, 1991 issued by the First and Second Divisions of the Sandiganbayan are hereby lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the preventive suspension orders: The Court affirmed that the suspension of Governor Pimentel and Provincial Secretary Salun-at was proper as the informations against them charged offenses involving fraud against the government or public funds or property, as contemplated by Section 13 of R.A. 3019. On the duration of the preventive suspension: The Court reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases, such as Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, and Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, that such suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days fixed in Section 42 of P.D. No. 807. The purpose of preventive suspension is to prevent the accused from using their position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. In the present case, the petitioners were suspended on April 15, 1991, and their suspension had already exceeded the ninety-day limit by the time the petitions were filed. Therefore, their continued suspension was no longer justified. Similarly, the preventive suspension of petitioners Pimentel and Merjudio in Crim. Case No. 16560, which was fixed for a period of ninety (90) days from August 2, 1991, was also subject to the same ninety-day limitation. Their prayer to lift the said suspension, if not yet done, was deemed proper and meritorious.
Main Doctrine
The preventive suspension of public officers, while proper under Section 13 of R.A. 3019 when facing charges involving fraud against the government or public funds or property, cannot exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days as fixed in Section 42 of P.D. No. 807.