Case Digest (G.R. No. 96131)
Facts:
Corazon C. Gonzaga v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), The People of the Philippines, and The Department of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R. No. 96131, September 06, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Corazon C. Gonzaga, then School Principal of Malabon Municipal High School, was the subject of an audit by the Commission on Audit which allegedly showed a shortage of P15,188.37 for which the Municipal Administrator of Malabon filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. An information for malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (Title 7, Book II) was filed against her in the Sandiganbayan on March 2, 1990.
Before arraignment petitioner moved for re-investigation; the Sandiganbayan denied that motion on July 2, 1990. On August 17, 1990, petitioner pleaded not guilty; on the same date the prosecution moved to suspend her pendente lite from her position under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195. The Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution’s motion and ordered pendente lite suspension effective upon notice in a resolution dated September 10, 1990. Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration in a resolution dated October 30, 1990, citing the mandatory character of Section 13.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 challenging the validity of the suspension imposed by the Sandiganbayan. She primarily contended that Section 13, as applied to her, was unconstitutional because it imposed a penalty prior to conviction and violated her presumption of innocen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unconstitutional insofar as it suspends a public officer pendente lite and thereby infringes the presumption of innocence?
- Was the preventive suspension of petitioner by the Sandiganbayan valid in duration, or must suspension pendente lite under Section 13 (and Section 42 of P.D. 807) be limited to a maximum period?
- If the suspension was invalidly applied as indefinite, is petitioner entitled to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)