MIGUEL V. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Koronadal City, South Cotabato Vice Mayor (and others) filed a complaint before the Ombuds Ombudsman man against against herein etitio etitioner ner for !iolatio !iolation n of "# $%&' in connecti connection on ith ith archi architec tectur tural al and and engin engineer eering ing ors ors in the the propo proposed sed Koron Koronad adal al publ public ic maret maret** Ombudsman re+uired etitioner to submit a counteraffida!it, hich as submitted after a re+uest re+uest for e-tensio e-tension* n* Ombuds Ombudsman man found found probabl probable e cause cause to file the .nformat .nformation ion before Sandiganbayan charging etitioner ith !iolation of "# $%&' and falsification of public document* /he information essentially said that etitioner etitioner committed the offense charg charged ed,, tain taing g ad!ant ad!antag age e of his posit positio ion, n, and and actin acting g ith ith e!id e!ident ent bad bad faith faith and and manifest partiality /he ne-t turn of e!ents ould sho that prior to arraignment, etitioner ased se!eral e-tensions e-tensions to file a counteraffida! counteraffida!it, it, hich he repeatedly failed* etitioner orally mo!ed for rein!estigation, rein!estigation, and e-tension e-tension of &% days to file counteraffida! counteraffida!it, it, hich as granted #gain ased ased for $%day $%day e-tension, e-tension, and before before the e-piry e-piry of that re+uest, re+uest, he again again ased ased for another $% days* 0oth ere granted, but ased for another 1% days, hich as also granted* 2espite the e-tensions gi!en, he failed to submit his counteraffida!it* /his prompt prompted ed the the rose rosecu cutor tor to declar declare e that that petit petition ioner er has ai!e ai!ed d his his right right to submi submitt count counter era! a!ai ailin ling g e!ide e!idenc nce, e, and and ase ased d the the Sand Sandiga iganb nbay ayan an for for the arrai arraignm gnmen entt of etit etition ioner er** etit etition ioner er then then ased ased an e-tens e-tension ion to file file a motion motion to +uas +uash h and3o and3or r rein!estigation, Sandiganbayan denied due to the already pending rein!estigation and his apparent failure to submit a counter affida!it* etitioner did not +uestion this denial etitioner as arraigned and pleaded not guilty* rosecution rosecution mo!ed to suspend etitioner etitioner pendente lite, hich etitioner opposed* /his as e!entua e!entually lly granted granted by Sandiga Sandiganbay nbayan* an* Motion Motion for reconsid reconsiderat eration ion of etition etitioner er lieise denied , hence, this etition* .ssue: 4hether the etitioner ai!ed his right to present e!idence and be heard
5eld:
6es* etitioner claims that Sandiganbayan gra!ely abused its discretion ordering his suspension despite the information failing to pro!e the e!ident bad faith and manifest impartiality* OS argues that the information sufficiently established all the elements of the crime* etitioner failed to cite ho the e!ident bad faith and manifest impartiality as not pro!en* /he test of 3n an information sufficiently describes the crime charged is if the information describes the crime in intelligible terms and in such particularity ith reasonable certainty so that the accused is duly informed of the crime charged* .n this case, hat etitioner is essentially assailing is that of e!ident bad faith and manifest impartiality* #t best, hat etitioner can as is a bill of particulars* /he main topic on right to present e!idence and be heard is attached to the !alidity of the suspension of etitioner "# $%&' mandates that a public officer charged under that #ct or under "C shall be suspended from office* /he suspension re+uires a prior hearing to determine the !alidity of the information* /he accused public official may challenge the information e!en before the suspension order on the grounds of: (&) Validity of the proceeding that led to the filing of information, (1) propriety of the prosecution on the grounds that the act imputed did not ha!e all the elements of the crime etitioner says that, according to a pre!ious 7urisprudence, the trial court should issue a sho cause order against the prosecution before ordering the suspension* 5oe!er, in that same 7urisprudence he cited, the sho cause order is unnecessary hen a motion to suspend pendent lite as already filed* Moreo!er, the sho cause order (essentially a presuspension hearing) is aimed at securing for the accused a fair and ade+uate opportunity to challenge the !alidity of the information or the !alidity of the proceedings against him* Such proceedings offer the accused to be heard, and being heard and does not necessarily mean oral pleadings before the court* .t can also be ritten pleadings* 4here opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or ritten pleadings has been granted no denial of due process e-ists* #ccused has repeatedly failed to present his counteraffida!it despite being granted se!eral e-tensions* Moreo!er, the said suspension is not a penalty* .t is merely a pre!enti!e measure that reflects the constitutional mandate that a public office is a public trust*
