Rios v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dindo C. Rios, the incumbent Mayor of San Fernando, Romblon, was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for the alleged unauthorized disposition of 1,319 pieces of confiscated tanguile lumber on May 16, 1994, causing undue injury to the Government. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Information, arguing lack of probable cause. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed a Motion to Suspend Petitioner Pendente Lite. The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash and granted the Motion to Suspend. Petitioner's prior petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 126771) was denied for grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution suspending petitioner for ninety (90) days and subsequently denied his Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the Sandiganbayan's resolutions granting the suspension pendente lite, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the facts constituted a violation of R.A. 3019 and in imposing a 90-day suspension, disregarding the Local Government Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the facts charged in the information constitute a violation of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a suspension of ninety (90) days, in clear disregard of the provisions of the Local Government Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision to suspend petitioner pendente lite but modified the duration of the suspension to sixty (60) days, in accordance with the Local Government Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the facts charged constitute a violation of R.A. 3019: The Court reiterated its previous ruling in G.R. No. 126771 that the act of disposing of confiscated lumber without prior authority from the DENR and the Sangguniang Bayan constituted a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust and public officials must be accountable to the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that any act not in consonance with prescribed norms of conduct inflicts injury to the Government, especially when committed by the highest local official, setting a reprehensible example. Furthermore, the assertion that no undue injury was caused was deemed a wrong assumption, as it presumed the disposition price was market value and that proceeds went to the municipality, when the lumber belonged to the National Government and there was no evidence of proper disposition. On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a 90-day suspension in disregard of the Local Government Code: The Court found merit in the petitioner's second assigned error. While Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 mandates the suspension of any incumbent public officer against whom a valid information under the Act is pending, the duration of such suspension for local elective officials is governed by the Local Government Code. Section 63(b) of the Local Government Code explicitly states that any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan erred in imposing a 90-day suspension when the law limits it to 60 days for a single preventive suspension.
Main Doctrine
The mandatory nature of preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 for public officers charged with violations thereof is absolute, leaving no room for discretion by the court. However, the duration of such suspension for local elective officials must comply with the limitations set forth in the Local Government Code.