REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SandiganbayanQuezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff, SB-15-CRM-0293

For: Violation of Section 3(e) ofR.A. No. 3019 '

SB-15-CRM-0294For: Violation of Section 3(h),R.A. No. 3019

AL SANCHEZ VITANGCOL III,ET AL., SB-15-CRM-0295

For: Violation of Section 65 Par.C(1), in relation to Section 47 ofR.A. No. 9184

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.ChairpersonFERNANDEZ, SJ', J. andTRESPESES, J.*

Promulgated:

( 0~~yt..-:>' l~{ 10\3: cYi..x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

RESOLUTION

For resolution is accused Arturo Vallo Soriano's Motion forReconsideration dated November 7, 2016,1 seeking the reversal ofthis Honorable Court's Resolution, 2 which granted theprosecution's Motion to Susp nd accused Soriano as ProvincialAccountant of Pangasinan

Per Administrative Order No. 227-2016 dated July 26, 2016.Received on November 10, 2016; Record, Vol. III, pp. 575-579.Dated October 26,2016; Record, Vol. III, pp. 534-540

!"

RESOLUTIONI

People vs. Vitangco/, et a/.Crimina/ Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0293-0295

Page 20f6x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Accused Soriano posits the following arguments to supportthe reversal of the suspension pendente lite order against him:

a. Accused Soriano is not charged as a public official,particularly, as Provincial Accountant of Pan~asinan, inthe instant criminal cases, Hence, preventive suspensionis not applicable to him.

H did not participate, in his official capacity (as theProvincial Accountant of Pangasinan) in the interimmaintenance contract between MRT3 and PH TramsCB&T Joint Venture, which is the subject matter of thepresent criminal cases,3

b. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed theadministrative case against him and found that thequestionable acts imputed upon accused Soriano are notrelated to his duties as Provincial Accountant ofPangasinan,4

c. Accused Soriano's suspension pendente lite would notserve any of the jurisprudentially recognized· purposes ofpreventive suspension under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019,i.e., prevent the accused public officer from hampering hisprosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses,tampering with documentary evidence, or committingfurther acts of malfeasance while in office. The presentcharges are unrelated to the Provincial Government ofPangasinan; accused Soriano has no reason or capabilityas Provincial Accountant to intimidate or influence any ofthe witnesses or tamper any documentary evidence inthese criminal cases. It is impossible for accused Sorianoto commit "further acts of malfeasance while in office"since he is not charged of committing any of malfeasancein office,5

The prosecution, on the other hand, claims that accusedSoriano's Motion for Reconsideration is a mere rehash of thearguments raised in his Opposition to the Motion to Suspend whichwere already considered and passed upon by this Court in itsResolution Qated October 26, 2016.6 The prosecution furthercontends:

The Court possesses no discretion to determine Whe~herpreventive suspension is necessary to forestall th

Mot;on 10' Recon,;de,"!;on dated Novembe, 7,2016,pp. 1-2;Reco'd, Vol. III, pp. 575-56./7Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7.2016, p. 2; Record, Vol. III, p, 576,Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7,2016, p, 3; Record, Vol. III, p. 577.Opposition Re Accused Arturo V. Soriano's Motion for Reconsideration; Record, Vol. III, p, 589.

y.

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Vitangco/, et a/.Crimina/ Case Nos. SB-1S-CRM-0293-029S

Page 30f6x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

possibility that the accused may use his office tointimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution, orcontinue committing malfeasance. Section 13, R.A. No.3019 is clear, and it allows no other interpretation; the onlyqualification under said provision is that the public officerhas a pending criminal case with a valid Information underR.,l\. No. 3019 or under Title VII, Book II of the RevisedPenal Code or for any offense involving fraud upongovernment or public funds or property whether as asimple or complex offense and in whatever stage ofexecution and mode of participation.

This Court has ruled on the validity of the three (3)Informations, where conspiracy was alleged among theaccused including Soriano'?

b. This Court, in its Resolution, explained that Section 13,R.A. No. 3019 applies to any office the officer might becurrently holding and not necessarily to the particularoffice in relation to which he is charged.8

Accused Soriano's Motion to for Reconsideration is deniedfor lack of merit. This Court, in its Resolution dated October 26,2016, explained the reasons for placing accused Soriano undersuspension pendente lite. The grounds herein posited by accusedSoriano are mere reiterations of the arguments in his Opposition tothe Motion to Suspend.9

Time and again the Supreme Court has ruled thatsuspension pendente lite under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019 ismandatory. The Supreme Court, in Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan,10rejected the concept of "discretionary suspension."11 Similarly, inTalaga VS. Sandiganbayan,12 the High Court held that the theorythat the "environmental circumstances" of the case should first beexplored has no leg to stand on. 13 Thus, in Villasenor vs.Sandiganbayan,14 the Supreme Court underscored the mandatorynature of suspension pendente lite under Section 13, R.A. No.3019, and said that, by placing the accused under preven~

7 Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7,2016,pp. 1-2;Record, Vol. III, pp. 589-590. ()8 Motion for Reconsideration dated November 7,2016,p. 2;Record, Vol. III, p. 590. 7.....9 Dated August 17,2016;Record, Vol. III, pp. 353-360.10 288SCRA 328(1998). ..11 At p. 336.12 570SCRA 622(2008).13 At pp. 629-630.14 547SCRA 658(2008).

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Vitangcol, et al.Criminal Case NQs. SB-15-CRM-0293-0295

Page 4 of6x __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

suspension, the Sandiganbayan is simply performing ·what isrequired of it under the law, viz:

Mandatory nature of preventive suspension

It is well-settled that preventive suspension under Section13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. It is evident from the verywording of the law:

Suspension and loss of benefits. - Any incumbentpublic officer against whom any criminal prosecution undera valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II ofthe R~vised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraudupon Ithe government or public funds or property, whetheras a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stageof the execution and mode of participation, is pending incourt, shall be suspended from office. x x x (Underscoringsupplied)

A whole slew of cases reinforce this prOVIsion of law.In Luciano v. Provincial Governor, the Court pronounced thatsuspension of a public officer under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019is mandatory. This was reiterated in Luciano v. Mariano, Peoplev. Albano, Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan and Bunye v. Escarea/.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 anadmj,nistrative suspension is "to prevent the accused fromham'pering the normal course of the investigation with hisinfluence and authority over possible witnesses or to keephim off the records and other evidence" and "to assistprosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erringofficial," the petitioners insist that as no such reason fortheir suspension exists, then the order suspending themshould be set aside as a grave abuse of the court'sdiscretion.

The Court finds no merit in those arguments. Section13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, unequivocally providesthat the accused public officials "shall be suspended fromoffice" while the criminal prosecution is pending in court.

" I~ Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417,422,~26, thiS Court ruled that such preventive suspensionIS mandatory; there are no ifs and buts about it.(Underscoring supplied)

Again, in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, the Court stressedthe mandatory nature of preventive suspension as follows'

~/?-;/

•

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Vitangco/, et a/.Crimina/ Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0293-0295

Page50'6x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

x x x It is now settled that Sec. 13 of Republic Act No.3019· makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan tosuspend any public official against whom a valid informationcharging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the RevisedPenal Code, or any offense involving fraud upongovernment or public funds or property is filed. The courttrying a case has neither discretion nor duty to determinewhether preventive suspension is required to prevent theaccused from using his office to intimidate witnesses orfrustrate his prosecution or continuing committingmalfeasance in office. The presumption is that unless theaccused is suspended he may frustrate his prosecution orcommit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the sameway that upon a finding that there is probable cause tobelieve that a crime has been committed and that theaccused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires thejudge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Thelaw does not require the court to determine whether theaccu~ed is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of thecourt.

Clearly, there can be no doubt as to the. validity of theSandiganbayan's suspension of petitioners in connection withthe pending criminal case before it. It was merely doing whatwas required of it by law.15

As this Court ruled in its October 26, 2016 Resolution, theconditions to place accused Soriano under preventive suspensionare present: (1) accused Soriano is an incumbent public official; heis the Provincial Accountant of Pangasinan having been appointedto said position in August 2014,16 and, (2) he is charged under validInformation for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. 9184.17

That accused Soriano was charged in his private capacityand not for Having committed the act in his official capacity asProvincial Accountant of Pangasinan does not render him immunefrom the application of Section 13, R. A. No. 3019. Preventivesuspension under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019 applies to any officethe officer might be currently holding and not necessarily to theparticular office in relation to which he is charged.18

Finally, the dismissal of the administrative case agai~~A!accuse~ Soriano does not affect the propriety of the suspension...l!r I

" At pp. '>63-665. C;lat;oos om;«.d. f?16 Resolution dated October 26, 2016, p. 2; Record, Vol. III, p. 534, citing Entry of Appearance _/

with Motion for Reconsideration dated January 19, 2016, p. 2; Record, Vol. II, p. 49.' \17 Resolution dated October 26,2016, pp. 4-13; Record, Vol. III, pp. 535-540.18 Serona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SeRA 303,307-308 [2004],citing Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan,

Supra. •

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Vitangcol, et al.Criminal Case Nos. SB-15-CRM-0293-0295

Page 60f6x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

accused Soriano as criminal and administrative cases are distinctfrom each other. The settled rule is that criminal and civil casesare altogethe' different from administrative matters, such that thefirst two will not inevitably govern or affect the third and viceversa.19

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration datedNovember 7,2016 is DENIED.

Pursuant to this Honorable Court's Resolution dated October26, 2016, the Court orders the suspension pendente lite of accusedARTURO V. SORIANO as Provincial Accountant of Pangasinanand from any other public position he may now or hereafter hold fora period of ninety (90) days. Accused Soriano shall immediatelycease and desist from performing the functions of his office uponthe implementation of this Order of Preventive Suspension. Thesuspension of the accused shall automatically be lifted upon theexpiration of the 90-day period from the implementation of thisresolution.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the ProvincialGovernor of Pangasinan for the implementation of this order ofsuspension. The Provincial Governor of Pangasinan is ordered toinform the Court of the action taken thereon within fifteen (15) daysfrom receipt thereof.

H JANE T. F RNANDEZAssociate Justice