REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anbtganbapanQuezon City

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.

Promulgated:-.lJovtmber ~J! ~~orf0

J

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

LAGOS, J.:

The prosecution filed a Motion to Suspend Accused PendenteLite, praying for the suspension of accused Melani Abad Provido,Isabelita Legaspi Buduan and Marie Ann Magno Constantino.' Theaccused were given a period of ten (10) days within which to file theircomment/opposition." The defense submitted its comment/oppositiondated 18 October 2017.

In its motion, the prosecution states that these accused werealready arraigned and it also asserts that they are incumbent publicofficers: both Provido and Buduan are Senior Agriculturists whileConstantino is an Agriculturist 11, all of the Department of Agriculture,Regional Field Unit XI in Davao City. The prosecution also maintainsthat the Information in this case is valid. As a result, the accused's

*Designated as Special Member, per Administrative Order No. 345-2017 dated 05 October 20171 Dated 25 August 2017; Records, pp. 293-296.2 Order dated 15 September 2017; Records, p. 311.

!1., ~. ;/l/ /{ r,

I ,,! /i I

V

ResolutionPeople v. Alcala, et al.SB-16-CRM-0737Page 2 of 4

preventive suspension is in order, pursuant to Section 13 of RepublicAct No. 3019.

In its comment/opposition, the defense explains that thepurpose of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is to prevent theaccused from tampering with records and to prevent further acts ofmisfeasance. Since the accused previously mentioned are part of atechnical working group, they argue that they are not in a position totamper with any kind of evidence as they are not the custodians ofany relevant records; that the deprivation of salary as well as thehumiliation and embarrassment that they will suffer will cause unduesuffering and prejudice to the said accused.

DISCUSSION and RULING

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 provides:

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. - Any incumbent publicofficer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid informationunder this Act or under Title Seven Book 11 of the Revised Penal Code orfor any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds orproperty whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whateverstage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court shall besuspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgement, heshall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he isacquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries andbenefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in themeantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

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.

It is a preventive suspension, not a penalty, and its purpose isto prevent the accused public officer from hampering his or herprosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses, tampering withdocumentary evidence, or committing further acts of malfeasancewhile in office."

An accused who enters a plea waives any objection he or shemay have to the validity of an information, except on certainqrounds." Herein accused were given the chance to file theircomments to the motion and raise therein any objection to the validityof the Information. Since the accused have already been arraiqned"

3 Beroa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142456,27 July 2004.4 Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, 27 July 2005; Rule 117, section 9 of the Rules ofCourt.5 See Order of 17 January 2017; Records, Vol. 1, pp. 234-235.

ResolutionPeople v. Alcala, et al.SS-16-CRM-0737Page 3 of 4

and no defect in the Information has been noted, the validity of suchInformation is no longer in question.

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 section 13of Republic Act No. 3019 is mandatory and warranted.

While the law does not specify the length of the suspension,jurisprudence has fixed such suspension at ninety (90) days. InGonzaga v. Sendiqenbeyett', the Supreme Court, citing its earlierrulings in Doromal v. Seruiiqenbeyen' and Deloso v.Sendiqenbeyerr, said that preventive suspension under section 13 ofRepublic Act No. 3019 shall be limited to a maximum period of ninety(90) days.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution's motion is hereby GRANTED.Accused Melani Abad Provido, Isabelita Legaspi Buduan and MarieAnn Magno Constantino are ordered preventively suspended fromtheir positions in the Department of Agriculture, Regional Field UnitXI, Davao City or from any other public office which they may now orhereafter be holding, for a period of ninety (90) days.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Regional Executive Director of the Departmentof Agriculture, Region XI who is directed to implement this order ofsuspension and report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt,the action taken on this matter, including the actual date ofimplementation of the suspension order and the ninetieth (90th) daythereof.

50 ORDERED.

R~~GOSAssociate Justice

Chairperson

6 G.R. No. 96131, 6 September 1991.7 G.R. No. 85468, 7 September 1989, 177 SCRA 354.8 G. R. Nos. 86899-903, 15 May 1989, 173 SCRA 409. i//r

-~---~ 1~.

ResolutionPeople v. Alcala, et al.S8-16-CRM-0737Page 4 of 4

WE CONCUR:

~~-LORIFEL L. P~HIMNA

Associat sti~ee~-==--.,