Case Digest (G.R. No. 169888)
Facts:
Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169888, November 11, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., then City Mayor of Lucena City; respondents are the Sandiganbayan, 4th Division, and the People of the Philippines. The assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution dated October 3, 2005 ordered petitioner’s preventive suspension for ninety (90) days under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019.The antecedent events began with criminal and administrative complaints filed by Elan Recreation, Inc. (ELAN) with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that petitioner unlawfully favored a third party in relation to the operation of bingo games in Lucena City. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon recommended dismissal of both complaints on May 23, 2003; the Ombudsman approved dismissal of the administrative complaint but denied dismissal of the criminal complaint. The Office of the Special Prosecutor then recommended filing three criminal informations for violations of R.A. No. 3019 (Criminal Cases Nos. 27737, 27738 and 27739), each alleging different acts by petitioner in relation to bingo operations and one (No. 27738) alleging he gave unwarranted benefits by approving an ordinance granting a franchise to Jose Sy Bang.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation which the Ombudsman denied, and on May 17, 2003 he filed motions to quash the three informations in the Sandiganbayan. On February 9, 2004 the Sandiganbayan quashed the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 27737 and 27739 but sustained the information in Criminal Case No. 27738, returning that case to the Ombudsman to determine possible liability of City Council members. The prosecution filed an Amended Information and a Second Amended Information that added the City Councilors and alleged conspiracy; the Sandiganbayan admitted both amended informations despite petitioner’s opposition.
Petitioner and the councilors moved to quash the Information on February 21, 2005; the Sandiganbayan denied the motion and denied reconsideration. The accused were arraigned on June 29, 2005 and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution filed a motion to suspend the accused pendente lite on July 5, 2005; the Sandiganbayan granted suspension in a Resolution dated October 3, 2005 directing petitioner and several councilors to cease performing their official functions for ninety days effective upon receipt. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the suspension and sought a temporary restraining order; the Supreme Court issued a TRO on November 9, 2005 enjoining implementation of the suspension.
Petitioner’s main contentions were that (1) the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering preventive suspension without properly exercising its judicial function; (2) Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is unconstitutional ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by ordering petitioner’s preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019?
- Is Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 unconstitutional for impinging upon the judiciary’s exclusive prerogatives?
- Is the Information in Criminal Case No. 27738 fatally defective and therefore invalid for not alleging an essential element of the offens...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)