August 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > August 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178844 : August 21, 2007] ATTY. ANTONIO Z. DE GUZMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN:
[G.R. No. 178844 : August 21, 2007]
ATTY. ANTONIO Z. DE GUZMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 21, 2007
G.R. No. 178844 - Atty. Antonio Z. de Guzman v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the Office of the Ombudsman
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Attorney Antonio Z. de Guzman (petitioner) seeking to nullify the Resolution dated May 2, 2007 of respondent Sandiganbayan, granting the Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite of the prosecution and the Resolution dated July 13, 2007, denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The allegations and issues raised in the present petition ultimately boil down to the propriety of petitioner's indictment for violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and the constitutionality of the said law.
The validity of the Information as well as the propriety of the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman has already been settled by the Court in G.R. No. 170274, entitled "Antonio Z. de Guzman v. Orlando C. Casimiro, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Law Enforcement Office, Office of the Ombudsman, and Dennis Villa-Ignacio in his capacity as Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman." In the said case, the Court dismissed the petition for certiorari in a Resolution dated December 12, 2005 on the ground that the Ombudsman committed no grave abuse of discretion. Said Resolution attained finality on January 31, 2006. An Entry of Judgment was made on May 10, 2006. As such, the Court can no longer review the same.
Moreover, preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 has been laid to rest by the Court in several cases. In Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan[1] the Court ruled that preventive suspension is not unconstitutional because a suspension of a public officer under a valid information is mandatory; it is not a penalty; a person under suspension enjoys the presumption of innocence; the rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of validity, and to declare a law unconstitutional, the basis for such declaration must be clearly established. In the more recent case of Segovia v. Sandiganbayan[2], the Court held that the validity of Section 13, R.A. No. 3019, as amended - re suspension pendente lite of an accused public officer - may no longer be put at issue, having been repeatedly upheld by the Court. The suspension is not penal in character but merely a preventive measure before final judgment. However, the preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of 90 days in consonance with Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), now Section 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
A perusal of the assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan shows that the foregoing law and jurisprudence were applied in granting the Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite and preventively suspending Atty. de Guzman for a period of 90 days. Indubitably, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its issuance of the said Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DISMISSED.
Quisumbing, J., on leave.
G.R. No. 178844 - Atty. Antonio Z. de Guzman v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the Office of the Ombudsman
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Attorney Antonio Z. de Guzman (petitioner) seeking to nullify the Resolution dated May 2, 2007 of respondent Sandiganbayan, granting the Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite of the prosecution and the Resolution dated July 13, 2007, denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The allegations and issues raised in the present petition ultimately boil down to the propriety of petitioner's indictment for violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and the constitutionality of the said law.
The validity of the Information as well as the propriety of the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman has already been settled by the Court in G.R. No. 170274, entitled "Antonio Z. de Guzman v. Orlando C. Casimiro, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Law Enforcement Office, Office of the Ombudsman, and Dennis Villa-Ignacio in his capacity as Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman." In the said case, the Court dismissed the petition for certiorari in a Resolution dated December 12, 2005 on the ground that the Ombudsman committed no grave abuse of discretion. Said Resolution attained finality on January 31, 2006. An Entry of Judgment was made on May 10, 2006. As such, the Court can no longer review the same.
Moreover, preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 has been laid to rest by the Court in several cases. In Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan[1] the Court ruled that preventive suspension is not unconstitutional because a suspension of a public officer under a valid information is mandatory; it is not a penalty; a person under suspension enjoys the presumption of innocence; the rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of validity, and to declare a law unconstitutional, the basis for such declaration must be clearly established. In the more recent case of Segovia v. Sandiganbayan[2], the Court held that the validity of Section 13, R.A. No. 3019, as amended - re suspension pendente lite of an accused public officer - may no longer be put at issue, having been repeatedly upheld by the Court. The suspension is not penal in character but merely a preventive measure before final judgment. However, the preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum period of 90 days in consonance with Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), now Section 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
A perusal of the assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan shows that the foregoing law and jurisprudence were applied in granting the Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite and preventively suspending Atty. de Guzman for a period of 90 days. Indubitably, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its issuance of the said Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DISMISSED.
Quisumbing, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 96131, September 6, 1991, 201 SCRA 417, 422.
[2] 351 Phil. 569, 578 (1998).
