This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court's stance that there is no longer any reason for the preventive suspension of the respondents as the pertinent documents are with the Commission on Audit likewise has no merit. Respondents argue there is no reason for suspension pendente lite as they could no longer tamper with the evidence. This Court found a similar argument in Bunye v. Escarreal[29] devoid of merit. We reiterate the rule that the prosecution must be given the opportunity to gather and prepare the facts for trial under conditions which would ensure non-intervention and noninterference from accused's camp.[30] Similar to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 emphasizes the principle that a public office is a public trust.[31] Part and parcel of this principle is a presumption that unless the public officer is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or both.[32] Relatedly, the Ombudsman has full discretion to select which evidence it will gather and present, free from any interference. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Suspension and loss of benefits. Any incumbent public officer 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 offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of the execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. x x x (Underscoring supplied) A whole slew of cases reinforce this provision of law. In Luciano v. Provincial Governor,[13] the Court pronounced that suspension of a public officer under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. This was reiterated in Luciano v. Mariano,[14] People v. Albano,[15] Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan[16] and Bunye v. Escareal.[17] In the last mentioned case, the Court said:Adverting to this Court's observation in Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271, 272, that the sole objective of an administrative suspension is "to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep him off the records and other evidence" and "to assist prosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erring official," the petitioners insist that as no such reason for their suspension exists, then the order suspending them should be set aside as a grave abuse of the court's discretion. | |||||