Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
561
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 561
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
562
562 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
FerrerandAssociatesLawOfficeforpetitioner.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
BRION,J.:
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforcertiorariunderRule651 filed
byFernandoQ.Miguel(petitioner),assailingtheJanuary25,2006
and March 27, 2006 resolutions2 of the Sandiganbayan. These
resolutions(i)orderedthepetitionerssuspensionfrompublicoffice
and (ii) denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the
suspensionorder.
_______________
1RC.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi, and concurred in by
AssociateJusticesEfrenN.delaCruzandNorbertoY.Geraldez,Sr.
563
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 563
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
TheAntecedentFacts
On May 29, 1996, then Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and
other local officials3 of Koronadal City, South Cotabato filed a
lettercomplaint with the Office of the OmbudsmanMindanao
(Ombudsman)4 charging the petitioner, among others,5 with
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, in connection with the
consultancy services for the architectural aspect, the engineering
design, and the construction supervision and management of the
proposedKoronadalCitypublicmarket(project).6
InaJune27,1996order,theOmbudsmandirectedthepetitioner,
amongothers,tosubmithiscounteraffidavit.OnOctober23,1996,
after moving for an extension, the petitioner filed his counter
affidavit.7 In its July 29, 1999 resolution, the Ombudsman found
probable cause against the petitioner and some private individuals
for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and against the petitioner alone for
Falsification of Public Document under Article 171, par. 4 of the
RevisedPenalCode.8
On March 1, 2000, the Ombudsman filed the corresponding
informationswiththeSandiganbayan.9Theinformationforviolation
ofSection3(e)ofR.A.No.3019reads:
_______________
3 The Sangguniang Bayan memberscomplainants are as follows: Rose Dideles,
ReneJumilla,PablitoSubereandEdwinAbrisRollo,p.5.
4Id.,atp.83.
5GasparE.Nepomuceno,JesusG.Casus,ErnestoR.Lagdameo,Jr.,BonifacioM.
Madarcos,andVinciNicholasR.Villaseorid.,atp.103.
6Id.,atpp.110113.
7Id.,atpp.124125.
8Id.,atpp.5and83.
9 The case for violation of R.A. No. 3019 was docketed as Criminal Case No.
25819 (id., at p. 103). The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to drop
ErnestoR.Lagdameo,Jr.,BonifacioM.
564
564 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
Thaton10January1995orsometimepriororsubsequentthereto,inthe
Municipality of Koronadal, South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioner], a high ranking public
officer in his capacity as former Municipal Mayor of Koronadal, South
Cotabato, and as such while in the performance of his official functions,
committing the offense in relation to his office, taking advantage of his
officialposition,conspiringandconfederatingwiththeprivate[individuals]
xxxactingwithevident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits and
advantages to said [accused], by inviting them to participate in the
prequalification of consultants to provide the Detailed Architectural &
Engineering Design and Construction Supervision and Management of the
proposed Koronadal Public Market, without causing the publication of said
invitation in a newspaper of general circulation, thereby excluding other
consultants from participating in said prequalification.10 (Emphases and
underscoringadded)
_______________
Madarcos,JesusG.CasusandVinciNicholasR.VillaseorfromtheInformation
(id.,atpp.106and108).ThefalsificationcasewasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.
25820(id.,atp.103).
10Id.,atp.117.
11 On March 3, 2000 and June 5, 2000, Bonifacio M. Madarcos and Ernesto R.
Lagdameo,Jr.,respectively,filedaMotionforReinvestigationid.,atpp.103104.
12Id.,atp.104.
13DatedAugust30,2000ibid.
565
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 565
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
_______________
14DatedSeptember28,2000id.,atp.105.
15DatedOctober29,2000ibid.
16Id.,atp.106.
17Ibid.
18Id.,atp.27.
19Id.,atp.6.
566
566 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,theProsecutionsMotion
is GRANTED. As prayed for, the Court hereby orders the suspension of
[the petitioner] from his position as City Mayor, Koronadal City, South
Cotabato,andfromanyotherpublicpositionhenowholds.Hissuspension
shallbeforaperiodofninety(90)daysonly.22
OnFebruary2,2006,thepetitionermovedforreconsiderationof
hissuspensionorderanddemandedforapresuspensionhearing.23
TheSandiganbayandeniedhismotion,24promptinghimtofilethis
certioraripetitiontochallengethevalidityofhissuspensionorder.
ThePetition
ThepetitionerclaimsthattheSandiganbayangravelyabusedits
discretion in ordering his suspension despite the failure of the
information to allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits and
advantagesbythepetitionerwasmadethroughmanifestpartiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. He alleges that
the phrases evident bad faith and manifest partiality actually
refersnottohim,buttohiscoaccused,25renderingtheinformation
fatallydefective.
Thepetitionerbewailsthelackofhearingbeforetheissuanceof
hissuspensionorder.CitingLuciano,etal.v.Hon.
_______________
20Id.,atpp.67.
21Id.,atpp.2124.
22Id.,atp.24.
23Id.,atp.13.
24Id.,atpp.2628.
25Id.,atp.67.
567
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 567
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
TheOSPsComment
The OSP argues for the sufficiency of the information since all
theelementsoftheoffenseunderSection3(b)ofR.A.No.3019are
specificallypleadedbywayofultimatefacts.Theseelementsare:
1.ThepetitionerwastheMunicipalMayorofKoronadal,South
Cotabatoatthetimematerialtotheactscomplainedof
2.Thepetitioneractedwithmanifestpartialityandevidentbad
faithwhenheinvitedonlyhiscoaccusedprivateindividuals
to participate in the prequalification of consultants for the
project instead of publishing it in a newspaper of general
circulationand
3.The petitioners actions, performed in relation to his office,
gaveunwarrantedbenefitsandadvantagestohiscoaccused.28
TheOSPfaultsthepetitionerforhisattempttomisleadtheCourt
on the sufficiency of the allegations in the information, by
convenientlyfailingtocitethephraseactingwithevidentbadfaith
and manifest partiality when the petitioner quoted the relevant
portionsoftheinformationinhispetition.
_______________
26148BPhil.17840SCRA187(1971).
27Rollo,pp.1314.
28Rollo,p.45.
568
568 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
CitingJuanv.People,29theOSParguesthatwhilenoactualpre
CitingJuanv.People,29theOSParguesthatwhilenoactualpre
suspension hearing was conducted, the events preceding the
issuance of the suspension order already satisfied the purpose of
conducting a presuspension hearingi.e., basically, to determine
thevalidityoftheinformation.Here,thepetitionerwasaffordedhis
right to preliminary investigation both by the Ombudsman and by
the OSP (when the petitioner moved for a reinvestigation with the
Sandiganbayan) the acts for which the petitioner was charged
constituteaviolationofR.A.No.3019andTitleVII,BookIIofthe
RevisedPenalCodeandthepetitioneralreadymovedtoquashthe
information,althoughunsuccessfully,afterhehadbeendeclaredto
have waived his right to submit countervailing evidence in the
reinvestigationbytheOSP.30
Issues
Thereareonlytwoissuespresentedforourresolution:
1.Whether the information, charging the petitioner with
violationofSection3(e)ofR.A.No.3019,isvalidand
2.Ifitisvalid,whethertheabsenceofanactualpresuspension
hearing renders invalid the suspension order against the
petitioner.
TheCourtsRuling
Wedismissthepetitionforfailuretoestablishanygraveabuseof
discretionintheissuanceoftheassailedresolutions.
_______________
29379Phil.125322SCRA125(2000).
30CitingSocratesv.Sandiganbayan,324Phil.151253SCRA773(1996).
569
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 569
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
Theinformationforviolation
ofR.A.No.3019isvalid
In deference to the constitutional right of an accused to be
informedofthenatureandthecauseoftheaccusationagainsthim,31
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
(Rules)32 requires, inter alia, that the information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or
omissions imputed which constitute the offense charged.
Additionally,theRulesrequiresthattheseactsoromissionsandits
attendant circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understandingtoknowwhatoffenseisbeingchargedxxxandfor
thecourttopronouncejudgment.33
_______________
31Constitution,ArticleIII,Section14(2).
32Section6,Rule110oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurereads:
SEC.6.Sufficiency of complaint or information.A complaint or
informationissufficientifitstatesthenameoftheaccusedthedesignation
of the offense given by the statute the acts or omissions complained of as
constitutingtheoffensethenameoftheoffendedpartytheapproximatedate
of the commission of the offense and the place where the offense was
committed.
Whenanoffenseiscommittedbymorethanoneperson,allofthemshall
beincludedinthecomplaintorinformation.
33Section9,Rule110oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurereads:
SEC.9.Causeoftheaccusation.Theactsoromissionscomplainedof
asconstitutingtheoffenseandthequalifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
commonunderstandingtoknowwhatoffenseisbeingchargedaswellasits
qualifying and aggravating circumstance and for the court to pronounce
judgment.
570
570 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
Thetestoftheinformationssufficiencyiswhetherthecrimeis
described in intelligible terms and with such particularity with
reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the
offense charged. In particular, whether an information validly
chargesanoffensedependsonwhetherthematerialfactsallegedin
thecomplaintorinformationshallestablishtheessentialelementsof
the offense charged as defined in the law. The raisondetre of the
requirementintheRulesistoenabletheaccusedtosuitablyprepare
hisdefense.34
In arguing against the validity of the information, the petitioner
appears to go beyond the standard of a person of common
understandinginappreciatingtheimportofthephraseactingwith
evident bad faith and manifest partiality. A reading of the
informationclearlyrevealsthatthephraseactingwithevidentbad
faithandmanifestpartialitywasmerelyacontinuationoftheprior
allegationoftheactsofthepetitioner, and that he ultimately acted
withevidentbadfaithandmanifestpartialityingivingunwarranted
benefitsandadvantagestohiscoaccusedprivateindividuals.Thisis
what a plain and nonlegalistic reading of the information would
yield.
Notably,inhispetition,thepetitionerwouldhaveusbelievethat
this elemental phrase was actually omitted in the information35
when, in his reaction to the OSPs comment, what the petitioner
actually disputes is simply the clarity of the phrases position, in
relation with the other averments in the information. Given the
supposed ambiguity of the subject being qualified by the phrase
actingwithevidentbadfaithandmanifestpartiality,theremedyof
thepetitioner,ifatall,ismerelytomoveforabillofparticularsand
notforthe
_______________
34Lazarte,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.180122,March13,2009,581SCRA431.
35 See Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 144823, December 8, 2003, 417
SCRA242.
571
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 571
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
quashalofaninformationwhichsufficientlyallegestheelementsof
theoffensecharged.36
Thepresuspensionorderisvalid
Section13ofR.A.No.3019reads:
572
572 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
tionofR.A.No.3019oroftheprovisionsonbriberyoftheRevised
PenalCode.40
InLucianov.Mariano41thatthepetitionerreliedupon,theCourt
required, by way of broad guidelines for the lower courts in the
exerciseofthepowerofsuspension,that
(c)uponthefilingofsuchinformation,thetrialcourtshouldissue
anorderwithpropernoticerequiringtheaccusedofficertoshowcause
at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from
office pursuant to the cited mandatory provisions of the Act. Whereeither
theprosecutionseasonablyfilesamotionforanorderofsuspensionor
the accused in turn files a motion to quash the information or
challengesthevaliditythereof,suchshowcauseorderofthetrialcourt
wouldnolongerbenecessary.Whatisindispensableisthatthetrialcourt
duly hear the parties at a hearing held for determining the validity of the
information, and thereafter hand down its ruling, issuing the corresponding
order of suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or
withholdingsuchsuspensioninthecontrarycase.
(d)No specific rules need be laid down for such presuspension
hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and
adequateopportunitytochallengethevalidityofthecriminalproceedings
againsthim,e.g. that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary
investigation that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a
violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or of the bribery
provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory
suspension from office under section 13 of the Act or he may present a
motiontoquashtheinformationonanyofthegroundsprovidedinRule117
oftheRulesofCourt.(Emphasissupplied)
_______________
40Peoplev.Albano,supranote38,atpp.518519andSocratesv.Sandiganbayan,
supranote30,atpp.179p.779.
41Supranote26,atpp.192193p.202.
573
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 573
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
_______________
42Talaga,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.169888,November11,2008,570SCRA
622,632.
43Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124067, March 27, 1998, 288 SCRA 328,
339.
44Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001, 356 SCRA 636,
645andFloresv.Layosa,G.R.No.154714,August12,2004,supranote37,atpp.345
346.
45G.R.No.161640,December9,2005,513Phil.400477SCRA286(2005).
46Supranote29,atp.140p.138.
574
574 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
_______________
47Floresv.Layosa,supranote37,atpp.345346.
48Tanv.Atty.Balon,Jr.,A.C.No.6483,August31,2007,531SCRA645,655656.
49Rollo,p.109.
50Id.,atp.95.
575
VOL.675,JULY4,2012 575
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
tioninfavoroftheaccusedpublicofficialandastrictconstruction
againsttheState.51Thesuspensionrequiredunderthisprovisionis
not a penalty, as it is not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings in fact, if acquitted, the accused official shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he
failedtoreceiveduringhissuspension.52
Rather, the suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is a
merepreventivemeasure53 that arises from the legal presumption
that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his
prosecutionorcommitfurtheractsofmalfeasanceordoboth,inthe
samewaythatuponafindingthatthereisprobablecausetobelieve
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guiltythereof,thelawrequiresthejudgetoissueawarrantforthe
arrestoftheaccused.54
Suspension under R.A. No. 3019 being a mere preventive
measurewhosedurationshallinnocaseexceedninety(90)days,55
the adequacy of the opportunity to contest the validity of the
informationandoftheproceedingsthatprecededitsfilingvisvis
themeritsofthedefensesoftheaccusedcannotbemeasuredalone
bytheabsenceorpresenceofanactualhearing.Anopportunityto
be heard on ones defenses, however unmeritorious it may be,
against the suspension mandated by law equally and sufficiently
servesboththedueprocessrightoftheaccusedandthemandatory
natureofthesuspensionrequiredbylaw.
_______________
51Villaseorv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.180700,March4,2008,547SCRA658,
666668.
52 Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, No. L61776 to No. L61861, March 23, 1984, 128
SCRA383.
53 Villaseor v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 50, at pp. 666667 and Segovia v.
Sandiganbayan,supranote43,atp.336.
54Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110503, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 103,
108.
55Delosov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.86899903,May15,1989,173SCRA409,
419.
576
576 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Miguelvs.Sandiganbayan
Lestitbeforgotten,Section13ofR.A.No.3019reinforcesthe
principleenshrinedintheConstitutionthatapublicofficeisapublic
trust.56 In light of the constitutional principle underlying the
imposition of preventive suspension of a public officer charged
under a valid information and the nature of this suspension, the
petitionersdemandforatrialtypehearinginthepresentcasewould
onlyoverwhelminglyfrustrate,ratherthanpromote,theorderlyand
speedydispensationofjustice.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petition for lack of
merit.
SOORDERED.
Carpio(Chairperson),Perez,SerenoandReyes,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondismissed.
o0o
_______________
56Constitution,ArticleXI,Section1Beronav.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.142456,
July27,2004,435SCRA303.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.