21.bayot v. Sandiganbayan Et Al 128 SCRA 383 PDF

EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861. March 23, 1984.]

REYNALDO R. BAYOT , petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND
DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Renato J. Bihasa for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; EX POST FACTO LAW; LAWS
PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OF PUBLIC OFFICERS PENDING TRIAL,
NOT IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION. There is no merit in petitioner's
contention that Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 195, which includes the crime of Estafa thru Falsication of Public Document as
among the crimes subjecting the public ocer charged therewith with suspension
from oce pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates the
constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law.
2.
CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS; SUSPENSION
FROM OFFICE PENDING TRIAL; APPLICABILITY THEREOF TO ANY OFFICE WHICH
THE OFFICER CHARGED MAY BE HOLDING CASE AT BAR. The claim of petitioner
that he cannot be suspended because he is presently occupying a position dierent
from that under which he is charged is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly
states that any incumbent public ocer against whom any criminal prosecution
under a valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for any offense involving fraud
upon the government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a
complex oense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is
pending in court, shall be suspended from oce. Thus, by the use of the word
"office" the same applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding, and
not only the particular office under which he was charged.
DECISION
RELOVA, J :
p
Petitioner Reynaldo R. Bayot is one of the several persons accused in more than one
hundred (100) counts of Estafa thru Falsication of Public Documents before the
Sandiganbayan. The said charges stemmed from his alleged involvement, as a
government auditor of the Commission on Audit assigned to the Ministry of
Education and Culture, together with some ocers/employees of the said Ministry,
the Bureau of Treasury and the Teacher's Camp in Baguio City, in the preparation
and encashment of ctitious TCAA checks for non-existent obligations of the
Teacher's Camp resulting in damage to the government of several million pesos.
The first thirty-two (32) cases were filed on July 25, 1978.
In the meantime, petitioner ran for the post of municipal mayor of Amadeo, Cavite
in the local elections held in January 1980. He was elected.
On May 30, 1980, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting herein
petitioner and some of his co-accused in all but one of the thirty-two (32) cases led
against them. Whereupon, appeals were taken to this Court and the cases are now
pending review in G.R. Nos. L-54645-76.
However, on March 16, 1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was passed amending,
among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. The said section, as amended,
reads
"Sec. 13.
Suspension of and Loss of Benets . Any incumbent public
ocer 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
oense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property
whether as a simple or as a complex oense and in whatever stage of
execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended
from oce. Should he be convicted by nal judgment he shall lose all
retirement or gratuity benets under any law, but if acquitted, he shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benets which he failed to
receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative
proceedings had been filed against him."
Thereafter, in other cases pending before the respondent court in which herein
petitioner is one of the accused, the prosecution led a motion to suspend all the
accused-public officers pendente lite from their respective oces or any other public
office which they may be occupying pending trial of their cases.
prLL
On July 22, 1982, respondent court issued an order directing the suspension of all
the accused including herein petitioner "from their public positions or from any
other public office that they may be holding . . ." (p. 26, Rollo).
Herein petitioner led a motion for reconsideration alleging that "to apply the
provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 to the herein accused would be violative of
the constitutional guarantee of protection against an ex post facto law " (p. 28,
Rollo). The motion was denied by respondent court in a resolution dated September
6, 1982. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
It is the submission of petitioner that respondent court acted without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in suspending petitioner from oce as Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite,
pendente lite because
1.
Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, is a penal statute in which case the
provision of said Act must be strictly construed in favor of the accused and against
the State;
2.
A close perusal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, as well as the proceedings
therein of the Batas Pambansa is absent of the legislative intent to have said Batas
Pambansa Blg. 195 applied retroactively;
3.
In the supposition that Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 is to be applied retroactively,
its application would violate the Constitutional provision against enactment of ex
post facto law; and,
4.
Petitioner cannot be suspended to the position of which he was duly elected
by the people of Amadeo, Cavite, based on an act which has nothing to do with his
present position.
We nd no merit in petitioner's contention that Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, as
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which includes the crime of Estafa thru
Falsication of Public Document as among the crimes subjecting the public ocer
charged therewith with suspension from oce pending action in court, is a penal
provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex
post facto law. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states
that suspension from the employment or public oce during the trial or in order to
institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. It is not a penalty because
it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the ocial
concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benets which
he failed to receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1, 3 and
4 of said Article 24 are merely preventive measures before nal judgment. Not
being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension from oce, pending trial, of the
public ocer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision
committed before its eectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex
post facto law. Further, the claim of petitioner that he cannot be suspended because
he is presently occupying a position dierent from that under which he is charged is
untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that any incumbent public
ocer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under
Republic Act 3019 or for any oense involving fraud upon the government or public
funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex oense and in whatever
stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended
from oce. Thus, by the use of the word "oce" the same applies to any oce
which the ocer charged may be holding, and not only the particular oce under
which he was charged.
ACCORDINGLY, instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, MelencioHerrera, Plana, Escolin and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Fernando, C .J . and Teehankee, J ., are on leave.

21.bayot v. Sandiganbayan Et Al 128 SCRA 383 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21.bayot v. Sandiganbayan Et Al 128 SCRA 383 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21.bayot v. Sandiganbayan Et Al 128 SCRA 383 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861. March 23, 1984.]

Renato J. Bihasa for petitioner.

Fernando, C .J . and Teehankee, J ., are on leave.

You might also like