This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-07-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Rather, the suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is a mere preventive measure[53] that arises from the legal presumption that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.[54] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Renunciation of office results in a cessation of the exercise of power or authority. Preventive suspension is, by default, an involuntary renunciation of an elective local official's term of office. An elective local official does not actively choose to be preventively suspended. Although the laws provide for preventive suspension, its operation is not automatic unlike that of succession of office. Preventive suspension is a double-edged sword, On one hand, any person can use preventive suspension not only as a way to deprive the electorate of an elected official, but also as a tool to restrain a particular elective local official from the performance of his duties. On the other hand, preventive suspension lessens the possibility that the accused would intimidate witnesses or otherwise hamper his prosecution. Preventive suspension also prevents the accused from committing other acts of malfeasance while in office.[29] | |||||
|
2008-11-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when in imposing the sanction of suspension, it only relied on the "mandatory" provision of Section 13 insensate to the weight and cogency of the peculiar circumstances of the case before it.[20] Moreover, petitioner argues that the bare reliance of respondent on Section 13 without calibrating the weight of diverse and dueling evidence pertinent to the issue of appropriateness of ordering his suspension is a clear abdication of respondent's constitutional duty to exercise its judicial function.[21] In addition, petitioner contends that respondent should have looked into the "environmental circumstances" of the case and thus it was unwarranted to apply the presumption in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan[22] that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Again, in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan,[19] the Court stressed the mandatory nature of preventive suspension as follows:x x x It is now settled that Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public official against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 continuing committing malfeasance in office. The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The law does not require the court to determine whether the accused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court.[20] (Underscoring supplied) Clearly, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Sandiganbayan's suspension of petitioners in connection with the pending criminal case before it. It was merely doing what was required of it by law. | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The Court in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan[31] emphasized the mandatory nature of the preventive suspension required under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 in this wise:[S]ection 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 or not a 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 presumption is that unless the accused is suspended he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The law does not require the court to determine whether the accused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court.[32] | |||||