Segovia v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Perla A. Segovia, Reynaldo C. Santiago, and Winifredo SM. Pangilinan, along with two other officers, were designated as the Contracts Committee for the National Power Corporation's (NPC) "Mindanao Grid LDC & SCADA/EMS System Operation Control Center and Facilities Project." They conducted pre-qualification and bidding procedures. The lowest and second lowest bidders were disqualified. The Committee declared a failure of bidding and recommended re-bidding, which was approved by the NPC Board. The project was eventually canceled. Procedural History: Urban Consolidated Constructors, Inc. (Urban), the second lowest bidder, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that the Contracts Committee acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence in disqualifying the lowest bidder and subsequently declaring a failure of bidding instead of awarding the contract to Urban. The Ombudsman recommended that petitioners be charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners sought a reinvestigation, but the recommendation to withdraw the information was ultimately disapproved. The accused were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and a pre-trial was held. The Petition: The People filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. 3019. Petitioners opposed, arguing that suspension was discretionary and not mandatory under the circumstances, as the project was canceled, their current duties were unrelated to bidding, and evidence was already submitted. The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated February 1, 1996, ordering their preventive suspension for ninety (90) days, holding that suspension was mandated by law. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated February 23, 1996. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify these resolutions, alleging grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the preventive suspension of public officers under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is mandatory or discretionary. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether preventive suspension is mandatory or discretionary: The Court reiterated the firmly entrenched doctrine that under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), the suspension of a public officer is mandatory upon the filing of a valid information and after a determination of its validity in a pre-suspension hearing. The law is clear and explicit, leaving no room for interpretation that such suspension is mandatory. The Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan's authority to suspend public officials indicted before it has been repeatedly upheld. The theory of "discretionary suspension" has been consistently rejected by this Court in a long line of jurisprudence. The purpose of preventive suspension is not penal but a preventive measure to prevent the accused from hampering the prosecution, intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or committing further malfeasance while in office. The mandatory nature of the suspension is designed to protect public interest and prevent the accused from using the prerogatives of their office to frustrate justice. The Court noted that the arguments raised by the petitioners regarding the cancellation of the project and their current duties were not new and had been previously rejected in similar cases. On whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan acted in adherence to the clear command of R.A. 3019 and established jurisprudence by ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners. The Court stressed that once a valid information is determined to exist after a pre-suspension hearing, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to issue the order of preventive suspension. The court has no discretion to hold the suspension in abeyance. The petitioners' submission that their suspension would be purposeless due to the cancellation of the project and their changed duties was found to be without merit, as the grounds for preventive suspension include preventing the accused from committing further acts of malfeasance, not solely intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court reiterated that the potential delay of vital projects or the deprivation of the people of an official's services are not sufficient grounds to disregard the mandatory provision of the law. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan were deemed not capricious, whimsical, oppressive, or wanting in logic.
Main Doctrine
The preventive suspension of a public officer under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is mandatory upon the determination of the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing, and the court has no discretion to withhold such suspension.