Bolastig Vs. Sandiganbayan



IX. Exercising Good Governance at the Local Level: C. Supervision Over and Discipline of Local Officials G.R. No. 110503 – Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan Mendoza An information was filed against Gov. Bolastig of Samar for violation of RA 3019 in the alleged overpricing of the purchase of office supplies (i.e., onion skin paper) for the provincial gov’t. The total price of 100 reams should’ve only been P5,500 but the contract provided for P55,000. The prosecutor moved for his preventive suspension, citing Sec. 13 of RA 3019. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and suspended him for a period of 90 days. Hence, this petition for certiorari. The SC held that the SB acted in accordance with law in ordering the preventive suspension given the mandatory nature of Sec. 13 of RA 3019.

DOCTRINE It is now settled that Sec. 13 of RA 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of the law, Book II, Title 7 of the RPC, 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 continue committing malfeasance in office. The fact that an elected official’s preventive suspension may deprive his constituents of the official elected by them is not a sufficient basis for reducing what is otherwise a mandatory suspension provided by law. FACTS 1. Antonio M. Bolastig is the governor of Samar. He was a member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) responsible for the purchase of office supplies for the provincial gov’t. The BAC entered into a purchase contract with a private citizen (Reynaldo Esparaguerra) for 100 reams of Onion Skin (size 11" x 17") at a unit price of P550 or a total price of P55,000. 2.

3.

4.

An Information was filed against him, the Provincial Treasurer, and the Property Officer for alleged overpricing of the onion skin paper in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The information alleged that the contract was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government as the prevailing unit price for said item was only P55.00 or a total price of P5,500, thereby causing undue injury to the government in the total amount of P49,500. Bolastig pleaded not guilty. Special Prosecution Officer III Wilfredo Orencia moved for Bolastig’s suspension, citing Sec. 13 of RA 30191. 

Bolastig opposed the motion for his suspension arguing that: By merely invoking the said provision, the prosec would have him suspended “as if suspension of a public officer is a mindless and meaningless exercise, and is imposed w/out regard to the spirit and intent of the law upon w/c it is based.”

“It cannot be assumed that laws are enacted and followed w/out a particular purpose to be served, especially when a mechanical application shall injure not only the public official concerned, but the entire electorate as well.” (cos he says He further contends that his suspension may deprive his constituents of the services of an elected official elected by them.)

5.

Sandiganbayan (SB) rejected his arguments and ordered his suspension for 90 days:  Suspension is mandatory under Sec. 13, RA 3019, pursuant to w/c all that is required is for the court to make a finding that the accused stands charged under a valid information “for any of the above-described crimes for the purpose of granting or denying the sought for suspension.”

6.

Hence, this petition filed by Bolastig alleging that:  The SB committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolution (to suspend him) despite the prosec failing to show any public interest to be served or injury to be prevented in having him suspended. And that his constituents would be affected by the suspension for no valid reason of their duly elected Governor.  While the SB has the power to order preventive suspension, it needs to go further, beyond the filing of the Information, and determine the necessity of the preventive suspension in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Anti-Graft Law.

ISSUE with HOLDING: W/N the SB acted in accordance w/ the law in preventively suspending Bolastig – YES. 1. It is now settled that Sec. 13 of RA 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of: o that law (i.e., RA 3019); o Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code; or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed. 2.

The presumption is that the accused may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or both if he were to remain in office. The court trying a case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is necessary to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or continue committing malfeasance in office.

3.

The 90-day period of preventive suspension is not found in Sec. 13 of RA 3019 but was adopted from Sec. 42 of the Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807), which is now Sec. 52 of the Administrative Code of 19872.

4.

The duration of preventive suspension of criminal prosecutions under RA 3019 is thus coeval (same duration) with the period prescribed for deciding administrative disciplinary cases. If the case is decided before 90 days, then the suspension will last less than 90 days, but if the case is not decided within 90 days, then the preventive suspension must be up to 90 days only. The duration of preventive suspension will, therefore, vary to the extent that it is contingent on the time it takes the court to decide the case but not on account of any discretion lodged in the court, taking into account

1 1. “Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. - Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal

2 Sec. 52. Lifting of Preventive Suspension Pending Administrative Investigation. - When the

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 government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.”

administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: Provided, That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.

1

the probability that the accused may use his office to hamper his prosecution. Indeed, were the SB given the discretion to impose a shorter period of suspension, it would lie in its power not to suspend the accused at all. That, of course, would be contrary to the command of Sec. 13 of RA 3019. 5.

In the case at bar, since the trial in the SB is now over with respect to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution, there is no longer any danger that Bolastig would intimidate prosecution's witnesses.

6.

Finally, the fact that Bolastig’s preventive suspension may deprive the people of Samar of the services of an official elected by them, at least temporarily, is not a sufficient basis for reducing what is otherwise a mandatory period prescribed by law. The vice governor, who has likewise been elected by them, will act as governor. Indeed, even the Constitution authorizes the suspension (for not more than 60 days) of members of Congress found guilty of disorderly behavior.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION Petition dismissed. DIGESTER: Viveka

2