IGNACIO R. BUNYE, JAIME D. FRESNEDI, LUCIO B. CONSTANTINO, NOLASCO L. DIAZ, RUFINO J. JOAQUIN, ROGER S. SMITH, ALEJANDRO L. MARTINEZ, AND ROMAN E. NIEFES, PETITIONERS, VS. ASSOC…

This petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by
the petitioners, who are the municipal mayor, vice-mayor and incumbent
councilors or members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila. The petition seeks to annul the
resolution promulgated on May 11, 1993 by the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan preventively suspending them from office pending their trial for
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act under an
information alleging that:

“That on or about August 1988, in the municipality of Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused all
public officers being the Mayor (Ignacio R. Bunye), Vice-Mayor (Jaime D.
Fresnedi), Municipal Attorney
(Victor C. Aguinaldo), Municipal Councilors (Carlos C. Tensuan, Alejandro L.
Martinez, Epifanio A. Espeleta, Rey E. Bulay, Lucio B. Constantino,
Roman E. Niefes, Nemesio Q. Mozo, Rufino J. Joaquin, Nolasco L. Diaz and Roger
C. Smith), Barangay Chairman of Putatan (Rufino Ibe) and Barangay Chairman of
Alabang (Nestor Santos), all in the municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, said
accused, while in the performance of their
official functions, in conspiracy with one
another and taking advantage of their official positions, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
enact Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 on August
1, 1988, and on the basis thereof,
forcibly took possession of the New Public
Market in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila,
and thereafter took over the operation and management of
the aforesaid public market starting August
19, 1988, despite the fact that, there
was a valid and subsisting lease contract
executed on September 2, 1985 for a
term of 25 years, renewable for another
25 years, between the Municipality of
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, represent­ed by the
former Municipal Mayor Santiago Carlos, Jr.
and the Kilu­sang Bayan sa Paglilingkod
ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan
ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (Kilusang Magtitinda for
brevity), a Cooperative represented by
its General Manager then, Amado G. Perez,
and despite also the warnings from COA
Chairman Domingo and MMC Governor Cruz
‘that appropriate legal steps be taken
by the MMC toward the rescission/annulment
of the contract x x x to protect
the interest of the Government,’ and ‘x
x x to evaluate throughly and study
further the case to preclude possible
damages of financial liabilities which the
Court may adjudge against that municipality
as an off-shoot of the case,’ which
forcible take-over had caused undue injury
to the aforesaid Cooperative members, and
gave the Municipal Government, and in
effect, the herein accused themselves, unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of their official functions as
aforesaid, through evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence, considering that,
the Cooperative members had introduced improvements,
including the construction of the ‘KBS’
build­ing, RR Section-Phases I and II,
asphalting of the roads surrounding the
market place, and for the pur­pose, the
cooperative had invested Thirteen Million Four
Hundred Seven­ty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred
Pesos (P13,479,900.00) in connection therewith,
which had been deposited in trust to
the Municipal Govern­ment, and in consideration
thereof, the cooperative was extended the
above long term lease to manage and
operate the public market and to pay
a monthly
rental of P35,000.00 only–said offense having
been committed by the accused in their
performance of official duties.” (pp. 34-36,
Rollo.)

On motion of the Public Prosecutor, and over the opposition of
the accused, the Sandiganbayan issued on May 11, 1993 a resolution suspending
them pendente lite from public office pursuant to Section 13 of
Republic Act No. 3019 which provides:

“Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of
benefits. – Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecu­tion
under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he
shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is
acquitted,
he shall be entitled to rein­statement and to the salaries and benefits which
he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative
proceedings have been filed against him.”

The petitioners fruitlessly sought a reconsidera­tion of the
order of suspension. In due time, they
filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition wherein they pray for
the issuance of a temporary re­straining order or writ of preliminary
injunction to stay the implementation of the assailed order or resolu­tion.

Upon receipt of the petition, the Court, without granting the
temporary restraining order prayed for, ordered the public respondents to
comment on the petition.

After deliberating on the petition, the public respondents’
comment thereon, and the petitioners’ reply to the comment, the Court is
unconvinced that the peti­tion ought to be granted.

The petitioners’ main argument against their preventive
suspension is that it is unjustified or unnecessary for, having admitted
repeatedly in no less than four (4) pleadings filed in related proceedings and
found in the records of this case, that they did commit the acts constituting
the offense charged against them, i.e., that they enacted and approved
Kapasiyahan Blg. 45 and wrested the management and operation of the new public
market in Alabang from the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan ng Muntinlupa,
Inc. (or “Cooperative” for brevity) and transferred it to the
Municipality of Muntinlupa, the fear of the Court that, unless they are
preventively suspended, they may tamper with the records of that
transaction, has no more validity. Moreover,
the pro­ceedings against the petitioners before the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan involves no factual issue but only the legal question of whether
or not the can­cellation by the petitioners of the Cooperative’s sub­sisting
lease contract over the Muntinlupa Public Market was justified by public
interest or general welfare. Consequently, nothing can possibly be compromised or hampered by their
remaining in office, since the said proceedings will no longer be for the
purpose of receiv­ing evidence on factual issues but only to hear arguments,
position papers or memoranda, on the purely legal issue of whether the
rescission of the Cooperative’s market contract is a valid exercise of police
power by the municipality. Absent any
need for testimonial and/or documentary evidence, any apprehension that the
petitioners might intimidate or coerce prospective witnesses against them, or
tamper with office records under their control, is “more imaginary than
real” (p. 16, Rollo).

Adverting to this Court’s observation in Ganzon vs. CA, 200 SCRA 271, 272, that the sole
objective of an administrative suspension is “to prevent the accused from
hampering the normal course of the investigation with his influence and authority
over possible witnesses or to keep him off the records and other evidence”
and “to assist
prosecutors in firming up a case, if any, against an erring local
official,” the petitioners insist that as no such reason for their
suspension exists, then the order suspending them should be set aside as a
grave abuse of the court’s discretion.

Another point asserted by the petitioners is that their
preventive suspension will “sow havoc and confu­sion in the government of
the Municipality of Muntinlupa, to the certain shattering of the peace and
order thereat” (p. 13, Rollo), for without a mayor, vice-mayor and six (6)
councilors, the local government would be paralyzed. Only eight (8) of the present members of the Sangguniang Bayan
will remain to discharge the duties and responsibilities of that body. If two of them will be designated to take
over the offices of the mayor and vice-mayor, the Sangguniang Bayan will be
without a quorum to perform its functions.

The Court finds no merit in those arguments. Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
unequivocally provides that the accused public officials “shall be
suspended from office” while the criminal prosecution is pending in court.

In Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417, 422, 426, this Court
ruled that such preventive suspension is mandatory; there
are no ifs and buts about it.

“Petitioner at the
outset contends that Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019, as amended, is
unconstitutional as the suspension provided thereunder partake of a penalty
even before a judgment of conviction is reached, and is thus violative of her
constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

“We do not accept the conten­tion because: firstly, under Sec­tion 13, Rep. Act 3019, suspension
of a public officer upon the filing
of a valid information is mandatory
(People vs. Albano, G.R. No. L-45376-77, July 26, 1988, 163 SCRA 511). x x x.”

“x x x                             x x x                                 x x x.

“All told, preventive suspen­sion is not violative of the
Constitution as it is not a penalty. In
fact, suspension particularly under Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019 is mandatory
once the validity of the information is determined (People vs. CA, 135 SCRA
372).”

Clearly, the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in
ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners.

There is no merit in the petitioners’ argument that because they
have repeatedly admitted that they had committed the acts constituting the
offense charged against them, there is no cause for apprehension that they
might tamper with the records in the offices under their control, or intimidate
prospective witnesses against them. The
Solicitor General correctly replied that it is not for the petitioners to say
that their admissions are all the evidence that the prosecution will need
to hold up its case against them. “The prosecution must be given the opportunity to gather and
prepare the facts for trial under conditions which would ensure nonintervention
and noninterference for ninety (90) straight days from petitioners’ camp” (p. 13, Solicitor General’s Comment).

The fear of the petitioners that the municipal government of
Muntinlupa will be paralyzed for ninety (90) days when they (petitioners) are
preventively suspended, is remote. There will still remain eight (8) councilors who can meet as the
Sangguniang Bayan. The President or his
alter ego, the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, will surely know how
to deal with the problem of filling up the temporarily vacant positions of
mayor, vice-mayor and six councilors in accord­ance with the provisions of the
Local Government Code, R.A. 7160 (Samad vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 107854
and Samad vs. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 108642, July 16, 1993;
Sanchez vs. COMELEC, 114 SCRA 454).

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and
prohibition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.