Republic of the Philippines

SANDIGANBA YAN

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NOS. SB-16-CRM-0136-0172

For: Violation of Section 3 (e) ofR.A. No. 3019, as amended

PRESENT:

PONFERRADA, r., Chairperson

HERRERA, J. &

MIRANDA,l.

ROBERTO R. CORPUS,Accused.

Promulgated:

JAN 16 20f!H-x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

PONFERRADA, J.:

This refers to the Compliance to Order (To show cause whyaccused should not be suspended pendente lite) dated October 14,

~

II

, ,./,',. r :...-i.••......../ .•....

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 2

2016, of accused Roberto R. Corpus and the Prosecution'sComment dated December 28, 2016.

Accused is charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of RepublicAct No. 3019, as amended, under an Information which reads asfollows:

"That on or about September 27, 2007or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, inIba, Zambales, Philippines, and within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accusedROBERTO R. CORPUS, a high-rankingofficial, being then the Officer-in-ChargeProvincial Assessor ofZambales, while in theperformance of his official functions andcommitting the ofJense in relation to hisoffice, did then and there wilfully, unlawfullyand criminally, with evident bad faith, grossinexcusable negligence and manifestpartiality cause the issuance of TaxDeclaration No. 003-1756 in the name ofVictor Balicas, Sr., covering a lot with anarea of 237 square meters which forms partof Cadastral Lot no. 5053 part Cad 547-DAssessor's Lot No. 180A 179 despite duenotice of the fact that said property wasdeclared under Tax Declaration No. 003-0168 and covered by Transfer Certificate ofTitle No. T-25607 of the Register ofDeedsforthe Province of Zambales in the name ofRolando Young married to Marites Young,creating a possible conflicting legal interestsover the said parcel of lot by making itappear that said Victor Balicas, Sr. has aclaim or right of possession thereof, therebygiving unwarranted benefits, advantage orpreference to the latter to the damage andprejudice of spouses Roberto and Marites r

:~,?(),/

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. S8-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 3

Young, and to the prejudice of the publicservice.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

After the arraignment of the accused on September 29, 2016,the Court issued a show cause order why he should not be suspendedpendente lite. Pursuant to said order, the accused submitted thesubject Compliance to Order dated October 14, 2016, with thefollowing arguments:

" 1.) (A)ccused humbly opines that there isa need for a Motion To SuspendAccused Pendente Lite;

2.) (A)ccused does not hold a positionwherein he may hamper or frustrate hisprosecution; and

3.)(A)ssuming arguendo that accused maybe suspended pendente lite, suchsuspension should not exceed ninety(90) days."

Asked for comment, the prosecution in its Comment datedDecember 28, 2016, stressed that the accused having been arraignedwith the offense of violation of R.A. 3019, as amended, hissuspension is mandatory and, therefore, he should be suspendedpendente lite.

Ruling/Discussion

At the outset, it is well to discuss the nature of the suspensionpendente lite of an accused public official.

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. S8-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 4

Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, reads in full asfollows:

"Section 13 - Suspension and loss a/benefits.- Any incumbent public officer againstwhom any criminal prosecution under a validinformation under this Act or under Title 7,Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for anyoffense involving fraud upon government orpublic funds or property whether as a simpleor as a complex offense and in whatever stageof execution and mode of participation, ispending in court, shall be suspended fromoffice. Should he be convicted by finaljudgment, he shall lose all retirement orgratuity benefits under any law, but if he isacquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatementand to the salaries and benefits which hefailed to receive during suspension, unless inthe meantime administrative proceedingshave been filed against him.

In the event that such convicted officer,who may have already been separated fromthe service, has already received suchbenefits he shall be liable to restitute the sameto the Government." (underscoring supplied)

Thus, to suspend the accused pendente lite, two (2) requisitesmust be present: 1.) the Information must be valid; and 2.) theoffense charged is a covered offense i.e., it is a violation of R.A.3019 or an offense under Title VII, Book II of the Revised PenalCode or any offense involving fraud upon government or publicfunds or property.

It cannot be disputed that the subject Information is valid. Infact, the accused has been arraigned and entered a plea of not guiltythereby admitting and acknowledging the validity of the

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. S8-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 5

Information. It likewise cannot be disputed that the offense ofviolation of R.A. 3019 charged against the accused is a coveredoffense as it is expressly stated in the afore-quoted Section 13 ofR.A.3019.

With the presence of the two (2) requisites, the suspensionpendente lite of the accused must follow as a matter of course. It ismandatory and as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, there areno "ifs" and "buts" about it. 1 The Court has neither the discretionnor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required toprevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses orfrustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance inoffice.? Moreover, the accused public official may be suspendedpendente lite even if he is holding a position which is different fromthe position held when he allegedly committed the offense charged.'

It must be stressed, however, that suspension pendente lite isnot a determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused as suchguilt or innocence will be subject to the evidence to be presented inthe trial of the case. Likewise it must be stressed that the suspensionpendente lite is not a penalty. It is not a penalty, because it is notimposed as a result of a judicial proceedings which determines theguilt of the accused. In fact, if acquitted, the accused officialconcerned will be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries andbenefits which he failed to receive during suspension."

To recapitulate, considering the validity of the Information andthat the accused is charged with violation of Republic Act 3019 asamended, covered by Section 13 thereof, it is mandatory for theCourt, and there are no "ifs" and "buts" about it, to issue thecorresponding preventive suspension order against him.

1 Libanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112386, June 14, 1994; Villaseiior v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.180700, March 4, 2008.2 Barrera v. People, G.R. Nos.145233-52, May 28,2004; Talaga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.169888,November 11,2008.3 Bayot v Sandiganbayan, 128 SeRA 383 (1984), Oel050 v. Sandiganbayan, 173 seRA 409(1989), Libanan v Sandiganbayan, 233 seRA 163 (1994), Paredes v. Sandiganbayan, et aI.,G.R. No. 118364, August 8, 1995.

4 Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 seRA 636,645 (001) citing Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, 128SeRA.

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. S8-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 6

As regards accused's first argument that there is a need for amotion to suspend pendente lite, there is nothing in the afore-quotedSection 13 that requires such motion to suspend the accusedpendente lite. It is enough as afore-discussed that the Informationagainst the accused is valid and that the offense charged is a coveredoffense.

On his second argument that he is currently holding theposition of Administrative Officer, and as such does not hold aposition wherein he may hamper or frustrate his prosecution, asearlier discussed, and as aptly cited by the prosecution in AntonioM. Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. 5

"(It) is now settled that sec. 13 of Republic Act No.3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan tosuspend any public officer against whom a validinformation charging violation of that law, Book 11, Title7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involvingfraud upon government or public funds or property isfiled. The Court trying a case has neither discretion norduty to determine whether preventive suspension isrequired to prevent the accused from using his office tointimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution orcontinue committing malfeasance in office. Thepresumption is that unless the accused is suspended hemay frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts ofmalfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon afinding that there is probable cause to believe that acrime has been committed and that the accused isprobably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge toissue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The lawdoes not require the court to determine whether theaccused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction ofthe court. " (underscoring supplied)

5 235 see» 103-104

RESOLUTIONCrim. Case Nos. SS-16-CRM-0136-0172People vs. Roberto Rillor Corpus

Page 7

On his third argument, the Court concedes that his suspensionpendente lite should not exceed a period of ninety (90) days."

WHEREFORE, accused Roberto R. Corpus is ordered TOCEASE AND DESIST from further performing and/or exercisingthe functions, duties and privileges of his position as AdministrativeOfficer, or any other position he may now or hereafter be holding,effective immediately upon receipt of this Resolution andcontinuing for a period of ninety (90) days.

In this regard, let a copy of this Resolution be furnished theProvincial Governor of Zambales for the implementation of thesuspension herein ordered. The said official or his duly authorizedrepresentative is directed to inform the Court in writing of the actiontaken with regard to the suspension of the accused within five (5)days from receipt of this Resolution. The said official is alsodirected to inform the Court of the actual date of the implementationof the suspension, together with the expiry date of the ninety (90)day period, so that it shall be deemed automatically lifted at the endof the term.

SO ORDERED. VAd?

RODOLFJ:.~~NFERRADAAssociate Justice

Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

~.JjJ~,RERA,JR.Justice

RAPlremy

6 Ibid.