Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Mandatory Nature of Preventive Suspension

    Uploaded by

    Jed Bacyugon Apada
    This document discusses the mandatory nature of preventive suspension for public officials under Section 13 of the Republic Act No. 3019 when a valid criminal case is filed against them. It notes that preventive suspension is required by law when a public official faces criminal prosecution for offenses like corruption. It also distinguishes criminal cases from administrative cases, noting they are separate proceedings with different evidentiary standards. Finally, it states that preventive suspensions under this law are limited to 90 days maximum to avoid indefinite or unreasonable durations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mandatory Nature of Preventive Suspension

    Uploaded by

    Jed Bacyugon Apada
    22 views1 page
    This document discusses the mandatory nature of preventive suspension for public officials under Section 13 of the Republic Act No. 3019 when a valid criminal case is filed against them. It notes that preventive suspension is required by law when a public official faces criminal prosecution for offenses like corruption. It also distinguishes criminal cases from administrative cases, noting they are separate proceedings with different evidentiary standards. Finally, it states that preventive suspensions under this law are limited to 90 days maximum to avoid indefinite or unreasonable durations.

    Original Description:

    qqq

    Original Title

    qqq

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the mandatory nature of preventive suspension for public officials under Section 13 of the Republic Act No. 3019 when a valid criminal case is filed against them. It notes that preventive suspension is required by law when a public official faces criminal prosecution for offenses like corruption. It also distinguishes criminal cases from administrative cases, noting they are separate proceedings with different evidentiary standards. Finally, it states that preventive suspensions under this law are limited to 90 days maximum to avoid indefinite or unreasonable durations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    22 views1 page

    Mandatory Nature of Preventive Suspension

    Uploaded by

    Jed Bacyugon Apada
    This document discusses the mandatory nature of preventive suspension for public officials under Section 13 of the Republic Act No. 3019 when a valid criminal case is filed against them. It notes that preventive suspension is required by law when a public official faces criminal prosecution for offenses like corruption. It also distinguishes criminal cases from administrative cases, noting they are separate proceedings with different evidentiary standards. Finally, it states that preventive suspensions under this law are limited to 90 days maximum to avoid indefinite or unreasonable durations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    180700

    March 4, 2008

    GERARDO R. VILLASEOR and RODEL A. MESA, Petitioners,


    vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (5th Division) and LOUELLA MAE OCO-PESQUERRA (Office of the Special Prosecutor,
    Ombudsman), Respondents.
    1. Mandatory nature of preventive suspension
    It is well-settled that preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. It is evident from the very
    wording of the law:
    Suspension and loss of benefits. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
    information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon the
    government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of the
    execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. x x x (Underscoring supplied)
    It is now settled that Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public
    official against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any
    offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed. The court trying a case has neither discretion
    nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate
    witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continuing committing malfeasance in office.

    Clearly, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Sandiganbayans suspension of petitioners in connection with
    the pending criminal case before it. It was merely doing what was required of it by law.
    Criminal and administrative cases separate and distinct
    Significantly, there are three kinds of remedies that are available against a public officer for impropriety in the
    performance of his powers and the discharge of his duties: (1) civil, (2) criminal, and (3) administrative. These
    remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively. Sometimes, the same offense
    may be the subject of all three kinds of remedies.21
    Defeat of any of the three remedies will not necessarily preclude resort to other remedies or affect decisions
    reached thereunder, as different degrees of evidence are required in these several actions. In criminal cases, proof
    beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice in civil cases.22In
    administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required.
    It is clear, then, that criminal and administrative cases are distinct from each other.23 The settled rule is that criminal
    and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the first two will not inevitably govern
    or affect the third and vice versa.24 Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings.
    Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 not a penal provision but a procedural one
    It is petitioners contention that as a penal statute, the provision on preventive suspension should be strictly
    construed against the State and liberally in their favor.
    Automatic lift of suspension after ninety (90) days
    It must be borne in mind that the preventive suspension of petitioners will only last ninety (90) days, not the entire
    duration of the criminal case like petitioners seem to think. Indeed, it would be constitutionally proscribed if the
    suspension were to be of an indefinite duration or for an unreasonable length of time. The Court has thus laid down
    the rule that preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of ninety (90) days, in consonance with
    Presidential Decree No. 807,36 now Section 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987.

    You might also like