Assignee: RANOLA
Case Short Name: Rios vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129913, September 26, 1997
Topic: Preventive Suspension
DINDO C. RIOS, petitioner,
vs.
THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR
OF ROMBLON, respondents.
G.R. No. 129913 | September 26, 1997
DOCTRINE
FACTS
● In March 1994, Dindo Rios, who was then the incumbent mayor of the Municipality of
San Fernando, Romblon, caused the disposition of confiscated, assorted and sawn
tanguile lumber consisting of 1,319 pieces without proper authority.
● As such, he was charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:
SEC. 3 Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
● Before his arraignment, Rios filed a Motion to Quash Information and Recall Warrant of
Arrest on the ground that the information was invalid as there was no probable cause to
hold him liable.
● In September 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed a Motion to Suspend
Accused Pendente Lite, to which Rios filed an Opposition, reiterating the same ground
stated in his motion to quash.
● Sandiganbayan: Overruled Rios. // SC: Affirmed Sandiganbayan.
● In January 1997, Rios entered a plea of not guilty. At this point, he was not any longer
questioning the validity of the information against him.
● In March 1997, the Sandiganbayan ordered the suspension of Rios from office for 90 days
counted from the receipt of such resolution.
● Rios filed an MR but was denied. Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE/S
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the suspension
of Rios. NO.
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred when it ordered the suspension of Rios for 90 days. – YES. IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN 60 DAYS ONLY. YES
RULING
The Supreme Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan and stressed the adherence to the
doctrine that public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Public servants must bear in
mind this constitutional mandate at all times to guide them in their actions during their entire
tenure in the government service. "The good of the service and the degree of morality which
every official and employee in the public service must observe, if respect and confidence are to
be maintained by the Government in the enforcement of the law, demand that no untoward
conduct on his part, affecting morality, integrity and efficiency while holding office should be
left without proper and commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances taken into
account."
The suspension pendente lite meted out by the Sandiganbayan is, without doubt, a proper
and commensurate sanction against petitioner. Having ruled that the information filed against
petitioner is valid, there can be no impediment to the application of Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019
which states, inter alia:
Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — Any incumbent public officer against whom any
criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act of under Title 7, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code or for any offenses 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.
It is settled jurisprudence that the aforequoted provision makes it mandatory for the
Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer who has been validly charged with a violation
of R.A. No. 3019, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property.6
"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 in prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office." 7 This is based on the
presumption that unless the public officer is suspended, he may frustrated his prosecution or
commit further acts of malfeasance or both.
On the other hand, we find merit in petitioner's second assigned error.ℒαwρhi ৷ The
Sandiganbayan erred in imposing a 90 day suspension upon petitioner for the single case
filed against him. Under Section 63 (b) of the Local Government Code, "any single preventive
suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days."
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED subject to
the MODIFICATION that the suspension be reduced to 60 days.
