REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0765 to 0767For: Violation of Section 3 (e) of

Republic Act No. 3019

- versus- Present:

Accused.

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, B., J. andMORENO,J.

ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN,et al.,

Promulgated:

JuJ':J "5, dblc;' tf

l[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------l[

RESOLUTION

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.:

For resolution is accused Romulo De Mesa Festin's "Motion.for Reconsideration on the Order of Preventive Suspension" datedJune 2,2019.1

'pp, 615-617, Vol. Ill, Record

Accused-movant Festin submits that while theSandiganbayan may issue an order of preventive suspension.r=

11

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0765 to 0767People vs. Festin, et al.

-2-

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

against an accused public official pursuant to Section 13 ofRepublic Act (R.A.)No. 3019, the said suspension should be nolonger than sixty (60) days. To support his argument, he invokesthe ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rios v.Sandiganbayan,2 to wit:

The Sandiganbayan erred in imposing a 90 daysuspension upon petitioner for the single case filed againsthim. Under Section 63 (b) of the Local Government Code,"any single preventive suspension of local elective officialsshall not extend beyond sixty (60) days.>

THE RULING OF THE COURT

The Court finds the subject motion unmeritorious.

To begin with, in Miranda v. Sandiganbayan,4 theSupreme Court en banc noted that the case of Rios v.Sandiganbayan,5 relied on Section 636 of the Local Government

//2279 seRA 581 (1997)3 p. 615, Id4464 seRA 165 (2005)5279 seRA 581 (1997)6 Section 63. Preventive Suspension. -

(a) Preventive Suspensionmay be imposed:

(1) By the President, if the respondent is an elective official of a province, ahighly urbanized or an independent component city;

(2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a componentcity or municipality; or

(3) By the mayor, if the respondent is an elective official of the barangay.

(b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when theevidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probabilitythat the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose athreat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence: Provided, That, anysingle preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60)

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0765 to 0767People vs. Festin, et al.

-3-

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

Code in holding that the preventive suspension of local electiveofficials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days. Therein, theHigh Court explained that the said provision "was only meantas a cap on the discretionary power of the president,governor and mayor to impose excessively long preventivesuspensions. ''7

To be clear, as early as 1989, the Supreme Court, in thecase of Deloso v. Sandiganbayan,8 held that a preventivesuspension of an elective public officer under Section 13 of R.A.No. 3019 should be limited to a period of ninety (90) days underSection 42 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807. This rulingwas reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bolastig v.Sandiganbayan,9 wherein it further explained that althoughthe "ninety-day" period is not found in Section 13 of R.A. No.3019, the same was adopted from Section 42 of the Civil ServiceDecree (Presidential Decree No. 807) which is now Section 52 ofthe Administrative Code of 1987, to wit:

Section 52. Lifting of Preventive Suspension PendingAdministrative Investigation. - When the administrativecase against the officer or employee under preventivesuspension is not finally decided by the discipliningauthority within the period of ninety (90) days after thedate of suspension of the respondent who is not apresidential appointee, the respondent shall beautomatically reinstated in the service: Provided, Thatwhen the delay in the disposition of the case is due to thefault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period

------------------~~days: Provided, That, any single preventive suspension of local elective officials {hall notextend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided, further, That in the event that severaladministrative cases are filed against an elective official, he cannot be preventiV~IYsuspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single year on the same ground orgrounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension.

7 Emphasissupplied J8173 SCRA409 (1989)9235 SCRA103 (1994)

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-l6-CRM-0765 to 0767People vs. Festin, et al.

-4-

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

of delay shall not be counted in computing the period ofsuspension herein provided.

Also in Bolastig, the High Tribunal clarified that theduration of the said preventive suspension is "coeval with theperiod prescribed for deciding administrative disciplinary cases;"hence, preventive suspensions in criminal prosecutions underR.A. No. 3019 may last for less than ninety (90) days if the caseis decided within that period; otherwise, the preventivesuspension must be up to ninety (90) days onlv.!" This rulingwas further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the cases ofSegovia, et aL, v. Sandiganbayan, 11 Layus v.Sandiganbayan,12 Beroiia, et al., v. Sandiganbayan,13 andMiguel v. Sandiganbayan.14

In sum, taking into consideration the above-mentionedpronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding the duration ofthe preventive suspension for offenses committed under R.A.No.3019, the Court finds no plausible reason to reconsider itsquestioned Resolution promulgated on May 22, 2019.

WHEREFORE, accused Romulo De Mesa Festin's "Motionfor Reconsideration on the Order of Preventive Suspension" datedJune 2, 2019, is DENIED for lack of merit.?J

t}I10 See Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, 235 SeRA 103 (1994).

11 288 seRA 328 (1998)12 320 seRA 233 (1999)13 435 seRA 303 (2004)14375 seRA 560 (2012)

ResolutionCriminal Cases Nos. SB-16-CRM-0765 to 0767People vs. Festin, et al.

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

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila

~ARO~AJE-TPresiding JusticeChairperson

WE CONCUR:

-5-