G.R. No. 110503 - Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan

Antonio M. Bolastig, the petitioner and incumbent Governor of Samar, is the central figure in the case.
The respondents include the Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the People of the Philippines.

An information was filed on August 31, 1989, charging Bolastig and two other public officers—Pedro Ason (OIC Provincial Treasurer) and Prudencio Macabenta (Property Officer)—with overpricing office supplies.
The complaint specifically alleges the overpricing of 100 reams of onion skin paper, purportedly purchased under manifest partiality and bad faith, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).

It is alleged that on or about June 24, 1986, the accused entered into a contract in Catbalogan, Samar, with a private citizen, Reynaldo Esparaguuerra, at an exorbitant price:

The contracted unit price was P550.00 per ream, culminating in a total price of P55,000.00.
The prevailing market price was only P55.00 per ream, which implies a disadvantage to the government amounting to P49,500.00.

The charge underscores an abuse of public trust and significant financial injury to the government.

Bolastig was arraigned on January 5, 1993, where he entered a plea of “not guilty.”
On January 25, 1993, the Special Prosecution Officer III, Wilfredo Orencia, filed a motion for Bolastig’s preventive suspension on the basis of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019.

Section 13 mandates the suspension of any public officer facing criminal prosecution for offenses involving fraud upon government or public funds or property.

A mere invocation of Section 13 should not result in an automatic suspension without a requirement to assess the law’s true spirit and intended purpose.
Mandatory suspension in the absence of a determination regarding the actual need to prevent malfeasance would be a mindless exercise with detrimental political implications.

The Sandiganbayan granted the motion for preventive suspension, ordering Bolastig’s suspension from office for 90 days.
Bolastig subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied on March 29, 1993.
Bolastig petitioned for certiorari to set aside both the suspension order and the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Whether the preventive suspension imposed on Bolastig, as ordered by the Sandiganbayan based on Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, is legally sound and mandatory.

Whether the law’s formulation under Section 13 automatically mandates suspension upon the filing of a valid information, regardless of any further factual inquiry into the necessity of such suspension.
Whether the potential risk of the accused using his office to interfere with the investigation (including tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses) sufficiently justifies a compulsory, non-discretionary suspension.
Whether the temporary deprivation of the political rights of the electorate—by suspending an elected official—is an acceptable consequence of strictly following the statutory mandate.