G.R. No. 250787 - Philippine Health Insurance Corp. vs. Commission on Audit

The petitioners – Dr. Demetrio Beroaa, Dr. Romulo Gaerlan, Aurie Viado-Adriano, and Vida Labios – were public officers and employees of the Provincial Health Office of Bangued, Abra.
They were charged under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in Criminal Case No. 23521 for alleged acts of malfeasance involving the misuse of public funds.
The accusatory portion of the Information alleged that the officers conspired to release a payment of P99,987.77 to Alexander Siddayao for a public project, despite him not being the proper contractor, thereby causing undue injury by withholding laborers’ wages.

The case centers on two contested resolutions by the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan:

The first Resolution (dated 8 September 1999) granted the prosecution’s motion to suspend the petitioners from office pendente lite for 90 days.
The second Resolution (dated 4 February 2000) denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the suspension order.

The purpose of the preventive suspension, as determined in a pre-suspension hearing held on 6 July 1999, was to safeguard the integrity of the investigation and prosecution by preventing potential malfeasance and witness intimidation.

At the time the transactions in question were committed, the petitioners occupied the following positions:

During the pendency of the proceedings, changes occurred in their employment statuses:

Dr. Beroaa resigned and subsequently won as Mayor of Pilar, Abra.
Dr. Gaerlan resigned, briefly engaged in private practice, and later rejoined government service in a different capacity.
Viado-Adriano assumed a position as a resident auditor at the Land Bank of the Philippines in Bangued, Abra.
Labios secured an appointment as an accounting clerk in the Provincial Government of Abra.

The petition sought to annul both the suspension order and the denial of its reconsideration, contending grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan.
The key argument advanced by the petitioners was that Section 13 of RA 3019, which mandates the suspension of an "incumbent public officer" pending criminal prosecution, is inapplicable since at the time of suspension they were no longer holding the positions under which the information was filed.

The preventive suspension is mandated by Section 13 of RA 3019 which requires that any public officer facing criminal charges under the Act (or under corresponding provisions of the Revised Penal Code involving public funds or fraud) must be suspended from office.
A preliminary investigation was conducted and found to be sufficient in form and substance, thus forming the basis for a pre-suspension hearing where the Sandiganbayan validated the information charged against the petitioners.

The decision references earlier rulings – including Libanan v. Sandiganbayan, Deloso v. Sandiganbayan, Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, and Segovia v. Sandiganbayan – to emphasize that the preventive suspension applies irrespective of any subsequent change in the public office held.
The doctrine laid down in these cases reinforces the view that the term “office” in Section 13 pertains to any position the accused might currently hold, and not solely the position under which the acts were committed.

Whether the preventive suspension under Section 13 of RA 3019 is mandatory even when the public officers no longer occupy the positions that were in effect at the time the alleged acts were committed.
Whether the appellants’ change in status or appointment to different public offices provides a valid ground to set aside the suspension orders issued by the Sandiganbayan.
Determining if the pre-suspension hearing’s finding of a valid information is sufficient to mandate suspension pendente lite regardless of any subsequent employment changes.