CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ LUCIANO V. PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, 28 SCRA 517

LUCIANO V. PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR,

28 SCRA 517

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The suspension envisioned in Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 is mandatory but is not self-operative.

Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, reelection of a public official does not bar prosecution for crimes committed by him prior thereto because, first, said Act makes no time distinctions; second, one of the penalties that attach thereunder is perpetual disqualification, which extends beyond a particular term of office; and third, crimes under the Act prescribe in ten years. If reelection condones previous criminal acts of an elective official punishable under it, then, after the reelection of an official no crime committed by him prior thereto becomes repressible even if the time marked by the statute of limitations has not yet run out. This is patently offensive to the objectives and the letter of the Act.

FACTS

On January 18, 1969, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal B. Jose Castillo instituted Criminal Case 18821 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Makati Mayor Maximo Estrella, Vice-Mayor Teotimo Gealogo, Councilors Justino Ventura, Pedro Ison, Ignacio Babasa, and Bernardo Nonato (respondent elective municipal officials) and others, for violation of Sections 3-G and 4-B of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 1 The criminal information therefor substantially charged that, on or about July 26, 1967, Mayor Estrella and his co-accused, conspiring and confederating together, unlawfully entered into a contract with JEF Enterprises for delivery and installation of 59 traffic deflectors valued at P1,426.50 each, 34 units thereof having been delivered, installed and paid for in the total amount of P48,841.00, less 10% which was retained, such contract being manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipal government of Makati and to the latter’s prejudice.

ISSUE

Is the suspension mentioned in Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 automatic?

RULING

The court held that the suspension envisioned in Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of a public official against whom a criminal prosecution under a valid information under the Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, is mandatory because of the use of the word "shall", but is not self-operative, not only because the phrase "shall be suspended" used therein can only mean that there must be someone who shall exercise the act of suspension, but also because under the said section suspension follows the pendency in court of a criminal prosecution under a "valid information," which means that there must first be a determination that the information filed is valid.

  

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)

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

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

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