Bolastig vs Sandiganbayan

Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan 235 SCRA 103 August 4, 1994 Justice Mendoza

Antonio Antonio M. Bolastig is the governor governor of the province province of Samar. Informati Information on was filed against against him and two others –Pedro Ason the provincial provincial treasurer treasurer and Prudencio Prudencio Macabenta the  property officer of the province- for alleged overpricing of 100 reams of onion skin paper in violation of Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan acting upon the motion of  the Special Prosecutor suspended the Petitioner for 90 days with the strength of the provision of  sec. 13 of the Anti graft and corrupt practices act which provides for the preventive suspension of public officers if they are under criminal prosecution under valid information under the same act or under title 7, Book II of the RPC, or for any offense involving fraud upon government or   public funds or property as basis. However, herein petitioner contends that his suspension was a mindless and meaningless exercise and it was imposed without regard to the spirit and intent of  the law in which it is based. He further contends that his suspension may deprive his constituents of the services services of an elected official elected elected by them. Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan rejected the motion of the accused hence this petition. Facts:

Whether Whether the Sandiganbay Sandiganbayan an is correct in suspending suspending herein petitioner petitioner as Governor Governor with the strength of Sec. 13 of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Issue:

Yes, it is now settled that sec 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandig Sandiganba anbayan yan to suspend suspend any public public office officerr against against whom whom a valid valid inform informati ation on chargi charging ng viol violat atio ion n of the the law, law, Book Book II, II, Titl Titlee 7 of the the RPC, RPC, or any any offe offens nsee invo involv lvin ing g fraud fraud upon upon government or public funds or property is filed. The fact that an elected official’s preventive suspension may deprive his constituents of the official elected by them is not a sufficient basis for reducing what is otherwise a mandatory suspension provided by law. Held:

 J. C. E. P.