Case Digest (G.R. No. 110503)
Facts:
Antonio M. Bolastig v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 110503, August 04, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Antonio M. Bolastig, then Governor of Samar, was criminally charged by an information filed August 31, 1989, alleging overpricing in the purchase of 100 reams of onion skin paper, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The information alleged that on June 24, 1986, petitioner and two provincial officials entered into a manifestly disadvantageous purchase that caused undue injury to the government. Petitioner was arraigned on January 5, 1993, and pleaded not guilty.
On January 25, 1993, Special Prosecution Officer Wilfredo Orencia moved for petitioner's preventive suspension pendente lite under section 13 of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that suspension should not be mechanically imposed upon mere filing of an information but should be ordered only when necessary to prevent intimidation of witnesses, tampering with records, or further malfeasance, and that suspension would unduly deprive the electorate of their duly elected governor.
The Sandiganbayan (Third Division) granted the Special Prosecution Officer’s motion and suspended petitioner for a period of ninety (90) days by resolution dated March 18, 1993; implementation was held in abeyance to allow a motion for reconsideration which the Sandiganbayan denied on March 29, 1993. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari challenging those resolutions, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in ordering preventive suspension without a factual showing of necessity and in depriving the people of Samar of their elected governor.
In opposing the petition, the Solicitor General relied on prior Supreme Court decisions holding that preventive suspension under section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory upon the filing of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner absent a specific factual finding of necessity?
- Does Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 mandate preventive suspension upon filing of a valid information and, if so, is the duration of preventive suspension limited to a m...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)