Miguel vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
•
•
Then Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and other local ofcials o Koronadal City, South Cotabato led a letter!co"#laint $ith the %fce o the %"buds"an!Mindanao charging the #etitioner, a"ong others, $ith $ith viol violat atio ion n o &e#ub e#ubli lic c 'ct 'ct (o. (o. )*+ )*+,, in conn connec ecti tion on $ith $ith the the cons consul ulta tanc ncy y serv servic ices es or or the the architectural architectural as#ect, the engineering design, and the construction su#ervision and "anage"ent o the #ro#osed Koronadal City #ublic "ar-et. n a resol resoluti ution, on, the %"bud %"buds"a s"an n ound ound #roba #robable ble cause cause agains againstt the #etiti #etitione onerr and so"e so"e #rivat #rivate e individuals or violation o &.'. (o. )*+ and against the #etitioner alone or Falsication o /ublic 0ocu"ent under 'rticle +1+, #ar. 2 o the &evised /enal Code. t led the corres#onding inor"ations $ith the Sandiganbayan. The inor"ation or violation o Section )3e4 o &.'. &.'. (o. )*+ reads: o
•
•
•
•
That on +* 5anuary +6 or so"eti"e #rior or subse7uent thereto, in the Munici#ality Munici#ality o Koronadal, South Cotabato, /hili##ines, and $ithin the 8urisdiction o this 9onorable Court, the #etitioner;, a high ran-ing #ublic ofcer in his ca#acity as or"er Munici#al Mayor o Koronadal, South Cotabato, and as such $hile in the #eror"ance o his ofcial unctions, co""itting the o ?ngineer ?ngineering ing 0esign 0esign and Construct Construction ion Su#ervision and Manage"ent o the #ro#osed Koronadal /ublic Mar-et, $ithout causing the #ublication o said invitation in a ne$s#a#er o general circulation, thereby e=cluding other consultants ro" #artici#ating in said #re7ualication.
%n "otions se#arately led by t$o o the #etitioner@s co!accused, the Sandiganbayan ordered the %fce o the S#ecial /rosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. Later, the #etitioner, through counsel, ollo$ed suit and orally "oved or a reinvestigation, $hich the Sandiganbayan li-e$ise granted. The Sandiganbayan gave the #etitioner ten 3+*4 days $ithin $hich to le his counter!afdavit $ith the %S/. Later, /rosecutor &uiA as-ed the Sandiganbayan or the arraign"ent and trial o the #etitioner and o the other accused #rivate individuals. 'ter ter seve severa rall e=te e=tens nsio ions ns soug sought ht and and gran grante ted, d, the the #eti #etiti tion oner er led led a Moti Motion on to Buas Buash h and andor or &einvestigation or the cri"inal cases against hi". The Sandiganbayan denied the #etitioner@s "otion becaus because e o the #endin #ending g %S/ reinv reinvest estiga igatio tion n D this, this, des#it des#ite e the %S/@s %S/@s earli earlier er ter"in ter"inati ation on o the reinvestigation reinvestigation or the #etitioner@s continuous ailure to sub"it his counter!afdavit. counter!afdavit. The #etitioner did not 7uestion the denial o his "otion. The #etitioner $as arraignedE arraignedE he #leaded not guilty in both cri"inal cases. Later, the %S/ led a Motion to Sus#end the #etitioner; /endente Lite. %n 5une 1, **6, the #etitioner led his GVigorous %##ositionG based on the Gobvious and atal deect o the i;nor"ationG in ailing to allege that the giving o un$arranted un$arranted benets and advantages $as done through "aniest #artiality, evident bad aith or gross ine=cusable negligence.
%n 5anuary 6, **H, the Sandiganbayan #ro"ulgated the assailed resolution sus#ending the #etitioner #endente lite.
•
•
•
%n February , **H, the #etitioner "oved or reconsideration o his sus#ension order and de"anded or a #re!sus#ension hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his "otion, #ro"#ting hi" to le this certiorari #etition to challenge the validity o his sus#ension order. The #etitioner be$ails the lac- o hearing beore the issuance o his sus#ension order. Citing Luciano, et al. v. Hon. Mariano, etc., et al. he clai"s that no$here in the records o the case can one see any order or resolution re7uiring the #etitioner to sho$ cause at a s#ecic date o hearing $hy he should not be ordered sus#ended. For the #etitioner, the re7uire"ent o a #re!sus#ension hearing can only be satised i the Sandiganbayan ordered an actual hearing to settle the deect in the inor"ation.
ssue: •
Ihether the absence o an actual #re!sus#ension hearing renders invalid the sus#ension order against the #etitioner.
&uling: •
Since a #re!sus#ension hearing is basically a due #rocess re7uire"ent, $hen an accused #ublic ofcial is given an ade7uate o##ortunity to be heard on his #ossible deenses against the "andatory sus#ension under &.'. (o. )*+, then an accused $ould have no reason to co"#lain that no actual hearing $as conducted.
•
t is $ell settled that to be heard does not only "ean oral argu"ents in courtE one "ay be heard also through #leadings. Ihere o##ortunity to be heard, either through oral argu"ents or #leadings, has been accorded, no denial o #rocedural due #rocess e=ist.
•
n the #resent case, the #etitioner 3i4 led his Vigorous %##osition 3to the %S/s Motion to Sus#end 'ccused Pendente Lite 4, and ater receiving an adverse ruling ro" the Sandiganbayan, 3ii4 "oved or reconsideration o the sus#ension order issued against hi", and 3iii4 led a &e#ly to the %S/s %##osition to his #lea or reconsideration. Jiven this o##ortunity, $e nd that the #etitioners continued de"and or the conduct o an actual #re!sus#ension hearing based on the sa"e alleged deect in the inor"ation, $hich $e have ound $anting has legally nothing to anchor itsel on.
•
Lest it be orgotten, Section +) o &.'. (o. )*+ reinorces the #rinci#le enshrined in the Constitution that a #ublic ofce is a #ublic trust. n light o the constitutional #rinci#le underlying the i"#osition o #reventive sus#ension o a #ublic ofcer charged under a valid inor"ation and the nature o this sus#ension, the #etitioners de"and or a trial!ty#e hearing in the #resent case $ould only over$hel"ingly rustrate, rather than #ro"ote, the orderly and s#eedy dis#ensation o 8ustice.
