REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anbi ganbapanQuezon City

Special Fifth Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-17-CRM-1183 to 1184Plaintiff,

-versus -For: Violation of Section 3(e)and 3(g) of Republic Act No.3019

CONSTANCIO CASINABEMAGHANOY JR., ET AL.,

Accused.Present:LAGOS, J., Chairperson,MENDOZA-ARCEGA, andPAHIMNA*, JJ.

Ix-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Promulgated: t1 0Jan\Jb\rt 1s I 'l01'& ~

RESOLUTION

LAGOS, J.:

Accused Provido, Buduan, and Constantino filed a Motion forReconskieretion' of the Court's resolution dated 27 November 2017.The prosecution filed its comment/opposition thereto."

The accused-movants contend that the records show that theyhave minimal involvement in the subject matter of the case. They alsoclaim that their suspension would result into disruption in delivery ofpublic service. They also ask that their suspension be reduced to 30days.

The prosecution opposes the motion. It argues that thearguments of the accused are matters which should be resolved in the

* Designated as Special Member, per Administrative Order No. 345-2017 dated 05 October 2017.1 Dated 16 December 2017; Records, pp. 386-390.2 Dated 9 January 2018; Records, pp. 411-414.

ResolutionPeople v. Maghanoy, et al.S8-17-CRM-1183 to 1184Page 2 of 3

trial of these cases. It says that the Informations sufficiently charge anddetails the participation of each of the accused.

The motion is denied for lack of merit.

The prosecution is correct in pointing out that the supposed lackof involvement of the accused is not an issue in their preventivesuspension. The arguments in support of this contention is a matter tobe resolved in the trial of these cases.

The Court is duty-bound to order the preventive suspension ofthe accused. As explained in the questioned resolution:

"Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is very straightforward.Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecutionunder a valid information under Republic Act No. 3019 is pending incourt shall be suspended from office.

xxx xxx xxx

Accused Provido, Buduan and Constantino are charged forviolation of section 3(e) and 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 under avalid Information. Thus, their preventive suspension under section13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is mandatory and warranted."

Finally, the length of the preventive suspension imposed by theCourt is guided by jurisprudence. These cases" uniformly set thepreventive suspension under Rep. Act. No. 3019 at ninety days. Theaccused-movants have not shown any prior decided case which setsa lower period of suspension.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is herebyDENIED.

SO ORDERED.

~:;;-LAGOSAssociate Justice

Chairperson

C,-)

3 Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96131, 6 September 1991; Ooromal v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 85468, 7 September 1989,177 SCRA 354; Oeloso v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 86899-903,15 May 1989, 173 SCRA 409.

ResolutionPeople v. Maghanoy, et al.58:'17 -CRM-1183 to 1184Page 3 of 3

WE CONCUR:

ERESA v.ME 0 -ARCEG

Associate Justice ....~

usti