Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Antonio M. Bolastig, the governor of Samar, along with two others, was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) for allegedly overpricing 100 reams of onion skin paper. The Information alleged that on June 24, 1986, as OIC Governor, Provincial Treasurer, and Property Officer, respectively, and members of the Bids and Awards Committee, they confederated and, through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, entered into a purchase contract for onion skin paper at P550.00 per ream, which was grossly disadvantageous to the government as the prevailing price was only P55.00 per ream, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of P49,500.00. Procedural History: Petitioner was arraigned on January 5, 1993, and pleaded not guilty. On January 25, 1993, the Special Prosecution Officer moved for petitioner's suspension pendente lite pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that suspension should not be a mindless exercise and should consider the spirit and intent of the law, as well as the injury to the public official and the electorate. The Sandiganbayan denied the opposition and granted the motion for suspension for 90 days. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The implementation of the resolution was held in abeyance to allow the filing of the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering his suspension despite the prosecution's failure to show public interest to be served or injury to be prevented, and despite the injury to the people of Samar. He argued that the Sandiganbayan should have gone beyond the filing of the information to determine the necessity of suspension, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the accused from using their office to influence witnesses or tamper with records.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioner. Whether Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 requires mandatory preventive suspension upon the filing of a valid information, and if so, the permissible duration and grounds for such suspension, considering arguments about the trial stage and impact on the electorate.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law in ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner Antonio M. Bolastig.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioner: The Court reiterated that Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information has been filed for violations of the said Act, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or offenses involving fraud upon government or public funds or property. The Court clarified that the trial court has no discretion or duty to determine whether preventive suspension is necessary to prevent the accused from using their office to intimidate witnesses, tamper with records, or commit further malfeasance. The law presumes that such risks exist unless the accused is suspended. This mandatory nature is akin to the issuance of an arrest warrant upon a finding of probable cause, where the judge is not required to assess the likelihood of the accused escaping or evading jurisdiction. On whether Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 requires mandatory preventive suspension upon the filing of a valid information, and if so, the permissible duration and grounds for such suspension, considering arguments about the trial stage and impact on the electorate: The Court explained that the ninety-day period for preventive suspension is not an arbitrary limit but is derived from provisions concerning administrative disciplinary cases. The duration is contingent on the time it takes the court to decide the case, not on any discretion lodged in the court regarding the probability of the accused hampering the prosecution. The Court dismissed the petitioner's contention that since the prosecution had already presented its evidence, there was no longer any danger of him intimidating witnesses, emphasizing that another crucial ground is to prevent the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. The Court found that the fact that the petitioner's preventive suspension might temporarily deprive the people of Samar of their elected governor's services is not a sufficient basis to disregard the mandatory period prescribed by law, as the vice governor would assume the duties.
Main Doctrine
Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 mandates the preventive suspension of any incumbent public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of the said Act, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed. The court has no discretion to determine the necessity of such suspension; it is a mandatory consequence of the filing of a valid information.