Title
Berona vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 142456
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2004
Public officers charged under RA 3019 face mandatory 90-day suspension, regardless of current position, to ensure trial integrity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160949)

Background and Allegations

The petitioners were accused of conspiring to release payment amounting to ₱99,987.77 to Alexander Siddayao for the supposed improvement of the Main Health Center in Malibcong, Abra, despite Siddayao not being the legitimate contractor for the project. Their actions purportedly resulted in non-payment to laborers involved in the project, thus causing undue injury. Upon their arraignment, all pleaded not guilty.

Motion for Preventive Suspension

On April 30, 1999, the prosecution filed a motion to suspend the petitioners from their positions pending trial, citing Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. Following a pre-suspension hearing on July 6, 1999, the Sandiganbayan ordered a 90-day preventive suspension based on findings from the preliminary investigation that acknowledged valid information charges against the petitioners for violations related to public funds.

Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitioners challenged the Sandiganbayan's resolution, arguing that since they had resigned from their positions prior to their suspension—Dr. Beroaa becoming the Municipal Mayor of Pilar, and the others moving to different professional roles—the mandatory suspension under Section 13 did not apply. They contended that they were not “incumbent” in the offices they held when the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

Court's Evaluation of the Arguments

The Court held that the petitioners' arguments lacked merit, reaffirming earlier jurisprudence which clarified that the term "incumbent public officer" in Section 13 applies broadly to any public office currently held, not strictly to the specific position linked to the alleged offense. Citing prior cases, the Court maintained that preventive suspension is applicable irrespective of subsequent employment positions held by the accused.

Purpose and Nature of Preventive Suspension

The Court emphasized that preventive suspension serves multiple purposes: it prevents the accused from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and it upholds the principle that public office is a public trust. The mandatory

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.