Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001

Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan Case Digest

Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
GR No. 126055
https://pingthing.law.blog/2018/11/21/defensor-santiago-v-sandiganbayan-case-digest/

Facts:

On October 17, 1988, petitioner, then Commissioner of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation Miriam Defensor-Santiago, allegedly, with evident bad faith, approve the application for legalization of the stay of 32 aliens, who arrived in the Philippines after January 1, 1984 in violation of EO 324 which prohibits legalization of said disqualified aliens, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to said aliens whose stay in the Philippines was unlawfully legalized by petitioner.

Pursuant to the information filed with the Sandiganbayan, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena issued an order for the arrest of petitioner fixing bail at P15,000. The Sandiganbayan granted her provisional liberty until her physical condition improves as she was recuperating from injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed concurrently a Petition for Certiorari seeking to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the Criminal Case No. 16698 and a motion before the Sandiganbayan to defer her arraignment. The SC dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed a motion for bill of particulars with Sandiganbayan asseverating that the names of the aliens were conspicuously admitted in the complaint. The SC, in its resolution of November 12, 1992, directed the Sandiganbayan to reset petitioner’s arraignment not later than 5 days from receipt of notice thereof.

On December 7, 1992, the OSP and the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to admit 32 amended informations. On December 2, 1993, the SC directed the OSP and Ombudsman to consolidate the 32 amended informations. Said informations were consolidated under Criminal Case No. 16698.

On July 31, 1995, the prosecution filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to issue an order preventively suspending petitioner. The Sandiganbayan directed petitioner to file her opposition to the July 31 motion for the prosecution within 15 days from receipt thereof.. Petitioner filed her opposition on August 22, 1995. On January 25, 1996, the Sandiganbayan suspended petitioner from her position as Senator for 90 days.

Issue:

WON the Sandiganbayan can issue a 90-day preventive suspension order against petitioner.

Ruling:

Yes. The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of RA 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support, specifically Section 13 of the said law which states that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act shall be suspended from office.

In Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the validity of Section 13 of RA 3019, treating the suspension pendent lite of an accused public officer, may no longer be put to issue. It applies to all persons indicted upon a valid information under the Act, whether appointive or elective, permanent or temporary, career or non-career service.

In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that preventive suspension is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings.

It is also settled that the use of the word “office” in Section 13 of RA 3019 indicates that it applies to any officer which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office under which he stands accused.

The accused is given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the propriety of his prosecution. However, it should be treated in the same manner as a challenge to the criminal proceeding by way of motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and should be limited to an inquiry whether the facts alleged in the information constitute the elements of an offense.

Petitioner claims that the amended informations did not charge any offense punishable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 because the officials acts complained of were authorized under EO 324.
However, in a motion to quash, the accused admits hypothetically the allegations of fact in the information. Hence, petitioner admitted the facts which constitute the elements of the offense.
The pronouncement upholding the validity of the information filed behooved the Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to issue the order of preventive suspension.

Also, the order of suspension prescribed in RA 3019 is different from that of Section 16(3) of Article Vi of the 1987 Constitution because the former is preventive (not a penalty), and the latter is punitive imposed by either House of Congress upon its members. RA 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress. The doctrine of separation of powers simply recognized that each of the 3 co-equal branches of government has exclusive prerogatives and effectively prevents one branch from unduly intruding into the internal affairs of another.