CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ DELOSO V. SANDIGAANBAYAN, 173 SCRA 409

DELOSO V. SANDIGAANBAYAN,

173 SCRA 409

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Preventive suspension which may initially be justified may raise a due process question if allowed to continue for an unreasonable length of time. The term “office” under the suspension provision applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office u n d e r which he was charged.

FACTS

On or about February 3, 1978 in Botolan, Zambales, accused Amor Deloso, a public officer being then the Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Botolan, Zambales, issued Daniel Ferrer a tractor purchased by the Municipality of Botolan thru a loan financed by the Land Bank of the Philippines for lease to local farmers at reasonable cost, without any agreement as to the payment of rentals for the use of tractor by Daniel Ferrer, giving the latter unwarranted benefits, thereby causing undue injury to the Municipality of Botolan. Petitioner was then suspended pendente lite from his position as Provincial Governor of Zambales and from any other office that he may now be holding pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019.

He thereafter filed an urgent motion with the Sandiganbayan requesting that the execution and implementation of the suspension order be held in abeyance pending determination of the merits of the petition. The motion was denied prompting the petitioner to ask the Court for an earlier setting of the trial of the cases which was denied by the Sandiganbayan since they have a heavy case load and that other cases have been set earlier. Petitioner then questioned the constitutionality of the suspension provision of Section 13 of RA No. 3019.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was violation of the right to due process when Deloso was suspended indefinitely.

RULING

Yes.

The court held that a preventive suspension of an elective public officer under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 should be limited to the ninety (90) days under Section 42 of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree, which period also appears reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Preventive suspension which may initially be justified may raise a due process question if allowed to continue for an unreasonable length of time.

Here, the court held that the protracted continuance of this preventive suspension had outrun the bounds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. There is injustice inflicted likewise on the people of Botolan. They were deprived of the services of the man they had elected to serve as mayor.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459