Endnotes:
1. Rollo, p. 4.
2. The information reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about the schoolyear 1979-1980 to 22 September 1986, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Principal of the Malabon, Municipal High School, Metro Manila, and as such responsible for the operation of said school and accountable for public funds received by reason of the duties of her office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully end feloniously take, misappropriate, embezzle and convert to her personal use and benefit the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT PESOS and THIRTY SEVEN CENTAVOS (P15,188.37), Philippine Currency, out of such funds, to the damage end prejudice of the Municipal government of Malabon, Metro Manila in the amount aforesaid." (Rollo, pp. 4 and 36).
3. Chapter 4, Title 7 of Book II.
4. Rollo, pp. 4, 7 and 36.
5. Rollo, p. 7.
6. Section 5 of BP Blg. 195 (entitled "an act amending sections eight, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen of Republic Act numbered thirty hundred and nineteen, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act") reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 5. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby amended to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 13. Suspension and loss of benefit. — 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 any 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 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.
x x x"
7. Rollo, p. 28.
8. Rollo, p. 29.
9. People v. Albano, G.R. No. L-45376-77, July 26, 1988, 163 SCRA 511.
10. Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 65848, May 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 541-542.
11. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 61776-61861, March 23, 1984, 128 SCRA 383) ruled that Section 13, Rep. Act 3019, as amended, is not a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law; that paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code11a clearly states that suspension from employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings; that in fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement aid to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension.
11a Article 24(3) of the Revised Penal Code states the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties. — The following shall not be considered as penalties.
x x x.
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.x x x
12. Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, (supra), p. 541.
13. Abbas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 89651, November 10, 1989, 179 SCRA 287.
14. The doctrine on unconstitutional application states that a "law may be valid and yet susceptible to the charge of being unconstitutionally applied." (Pintacasi v. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-23704, July 23, 1972, 46 SCRA 20).
15. In Garcia v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. L-19748, September 13, 1962, 6 SCRA 1), petitioner was then the Chairman of the National Science Development Board (a presidential appointee). During his tenure of office, he was charged with electioneering and dishonesty. The then Executive Secretary ordered his preventive suspension which lasted for more than 60 days. This Court held therein that Section 35 of Republic Act 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) 15a limited the duration of preventive suspension to sixty (60) days; that some of the justices were of the opinion that the 60-day-period rule applies also to presidential appointees; the other members of the court expressed the view that this 60-day limitation does not apply to presidential appointees, but that the suspension shall nevertheless last for a reasonable time only.
15a Section 34, Rep. Act 2260 speaks of suspension of certain public officers during the investigation of charges filed against them; whereas Section 35 of the same Act refers to the period until which said suspension shall last. These two (2) sections state:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 34. Preventive suspension. — The President of the Philippines may suspend any chief or assistant chief of a bureau or office and in the absence of special provision, any other officer appointed by him, pending an investigation of the charges against such officer or pending an investigation of his bureau or office. With the approval of the proper Head of Department, the chief of a bureau or office may likewise preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee in his bureau or under his authority pending an investigation, if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or if there are strong reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the service.
"Section 35. Lifting of preventive suspension pending administrative investigation. — When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the Commissioner of Civil Service within the period of sixty (60) days after the date of suspension of the respondent, the respondent shall be reinstated in the service. If the respondent officer or employee is exonerated, he shall be restored to his position with full pay for the period of suspension."cralaw virtua1aw library
In Layno v. Sandiganbayan (supra), petitioner Layno, the elected municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao del Sur was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 in an information filed with the Sandiganbayan on 17 May 1983 . In August 1983, a motion to suspend accused pendente lite was filed with the Sandiganbayan, which suspended him on 26 October 1983. It was ruled in said case that Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019 (mandatory provision on suspension) was unconstitutionally applied; that a preventive suspension may be justified so long as its continuance is not for an unreasonable length of time, otherwise, an indefinite suspension raises questions of due process and equal protection.
16. In the Deloso case, (G.R. Nos. 86899-903, May 15, 1989, 173 SCRA 409) Deloso was elected governor of the Province of Zambales in the 1988 local elections. Charges for violation of the Anti-Graft Law were filed against him and imposed on him by the Sandiganbayan was a preventive suspension from his office without a definite duration.
In the Doromal Case (G.R. No. 85468, September 7, 1989, 177 SCRA 354), Doromal was then a Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (a presidential appointee) who was charged with violation of Rep. Act 3019. The Sandiganbayan ordered his indefinite suspension pendente lite from said office.
17. Section 42 of P.D. 807 reads;
"Section 42. Lifting of Preventive Suspension Pending Administrative Investigation. — When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: Provided, That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
18. People v. CA, G.R. Nos. 57425-27, March 18, 1985, 135 SCRA 372.
19. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."cralaw virtua1aw library
20. The Garcia case (supra, p. 6) ruled that the evils of indefinite suspension during investigation arise when the "respondent employee is deprived in the meantime of his means of livelihood, without am opportunity to find work elsewhere, lest he be considered to have abandoned his office" ; that prolonged suspension is worse than removal.
In Morfe v. Mutuc, (G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424) it was held that while a public office is not a property, but a public trust, the right to office is nevertheless a protected right as the security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution is protected by the due process clause.
21. Section 2(b) of Rep. Act 3019 reads: "Sec. 2. Definition of terms — As used in this Act, the term — . . . .’Public officers’ includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph."cralaw virtua1aw library
22. Sections 3 and 4 of Pres. Decree 807 give the coverage of the Civil Service, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 3. As used in this Decree, the following shall be construed thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Agency means any bureau, office commission, administration, board, committee, institute, corporation, whether performing governmental or proprietary function, or any other unit of the National Government, as well as provincial, city or municipal government, except as hereinafter otherwise provided.x x x
"SEC. 4. Position embraced in the Civil Service. — The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation whether performing governmental or proprietary function.
Positions in the Civil Service shall be classified into career service and non-career service."cralaw virtua1aw libraryx x x
23. Section 42, P.D. 807.