REYNALDO R. BAYOT, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Reynaldo R. Bayot is one of the several persons accused in
more than one hundred (100) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of
Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. The said charges stemmed
from his alleged involvement, as a government auditor of the Commission
on Audit assigned to the Ministry of Education and Culture, together
with some officers/employees of the said Ministry, the Bureau of
Treasury and the Teachers’ Camp in Baguio City, in the preparation and
encashment of fictitious TCAA checks for non-existent obligations of the
Teachers’ Camp resulting in damage to the government of several million
pesos. The first thirty-two (32) cases were filed on July 25, 1976.

In the meantime, petitioner ran for the post of municipal mayor of
Amadeo, Cavite in the local elections held in January 1980. He was
elected.

On May 30, 1980, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting
herein petitioner and some of his co-accused in all but one of the
thirty-two (32) cases filed against them. Whereupon, appeals were taken
to this Court and the cases are now pending review in G. R. Nos.
L-54645-76.

However; on March 16, 1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was passed amending,
among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. The said section,
as amended, reads –

“Sec. 13. Suspension of and Loss of Benefits. Any
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a
valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code or for and offense involving fraud upon government or
public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense
and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, 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 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 had been filed against
him.”

Thereafter, in other cases pending before the respondent court in which
herein petitioner is one of the accused, the prosecution filed a motion
to suspend all the accused-public officers pendente lite from their respective offices or any other public office which they may be occupying pending trial of their cases.

On July 22, 1982, respondent court issued an order directing the
suspension of all the accused including herein petitioner “from their
public positions or from any other public office that they may be
holding x x x ” (p. 26, Rollo).

Herein petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that “to
apply the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 to the herein accused
would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of protection against
an ex post facto law” (p. 28, Rollo). The motion was denied
by respondent court in a resolution dated September 6, 1982. Hence,
this petition for certiorari.

It is the submission of petitioner that respondent court acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in suspending petitioner
from office as Mayor of Amadeo, Cavite, pendente lite because –

1. Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, is a penal
statute in which case the provision of said Act must be strictly
construed in favor of the accused and against the State;

2. A close perusal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, as well as the
proceedings therein of the Batas Pambansa is absent of the legislative
intent to have said Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 applied retroactively;

3. In the supposition that Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 is to be
applied retroactively, its application would violate the Constitutional
provision against enactment of ex post facto law; and,

4. Petitioner cannot be suspended to the position of which he
was duly elected by the people of Amadeo, Cavite, based on an act which
has nothing to do with his present position.

We find no merit in petitioner’s contention that Section 13 of Republic
Act 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which includes the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as among the
crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith with suspension
from office pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates
the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law.
Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states
that suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or
in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty.
It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be
entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos.
1, 3 and 4 of said Article 24 are merely preventive measures before
final judgment. Not being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension
from office, pending trial of the public officer charged with crimes
mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity
does not violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law.
Further, the claim of petitioner that he cannot be suspended because
he is presently occupying a position different from that under which he
is charged is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that
any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under
a valid information under Republic Act 3019 or for any offense
involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property whether
as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution
and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. Thus, by the use of the word “office” the same applies to any
office which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the
particular office under which he was charged.

ACCORDINGLY, instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Acting C.J., Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J. and Teehankee, J., on leave – abroad.