G.R. No.

137174 July 10, 2000

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Repe!e"#e$ %y #&e POLLUTION '(JU(IC'TION
BO'R( )(ENR* vs. +'RCOPPER +INING CORPOR'TION
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 132378. January 18, 2000]
ROGELIO JUAN, PEDRO DE JESUS, DELFIN ARREON an! AN"ONIO
GALGUERRA, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF "#E P#ILIPPINES, respondent.
D E I S I O N
PANGANI$AN, J.:
Unlawful and unauthorized use of government property y in!ument puli! offi!ers !onstitutes fraud"
Thus# the provision on preventive suspension in the $nti%&raft 'aw applies to su!h offi!ers even if the
alleged violations are primarily !onsidered as ele!tion offenses"
"%& a'&
(efore us is a )etition for Review under Rule *+ assailing the O!toer ,*# ,--. De!ision
/,0
and the
1anuary 23# ,--4 Resolution of the 5ourt of $ppeals
/20
65$7 in 5$%&R S) No" *8-98"
/80
The assailed
De!ision dismissed the )etition for Certiorari filed y the petitioners" In that )etition# they :uestioned the
$pril 8# ,--. Order
/*0
of the Regional Trial 5ourt of ;uezon 5ity in 5riminal 5ase Nos" ;%-3%3*+3*%3#
dire!ting their immediate suspension from offi!e" On the other hand# the :uestioned 5$ Resolution
denied their <otion for Re!onsideration" =sm
"%& Fa()'
The pro!edural and fa!tual ante!edents of this !ase are summarized in the !hallenged De!ision as follows>
?)etitioners Rogelio 1uan# (arangay 5hairman and )edro de 1esus# Delfin 5arreon# and
$ntonio &alguerra# (arangay @agawads# of (arangay Talipapa# Novali!hes# ;uezon
5ity# were separately a!!used in 5riminal 5ases ;%-3%3*+3* to 33# for violation of
Se!tion 23,%6o7 of the Omnius =le!tion 5ode# efore the Regional Trial 5ourt# (ran!h
-3# National 5apital 1udi!ial Region# ;uezon 5ity" (arangay 5hairman 1uan# and (gy"
@agawad De 1esus were !harged /with0 willful and unlawful use of VHA radio
trans!eiver# an e:uipment or apparatus owned y the arangay government of Talipapa#
Novali!hes# ;uezon 5ity# for ele!tion !ampaign or for partisan politi!al a!tivity" $nd
(arangay @agawads 5arreon and &alguerra were !harged with willful and unlawful use
of a tri!y!le owned y the same arangay government in their politi!al !ampaigns"
?Rodolfo 5ayuit and Ri!ardo &alguerra# representing themselves as ?witnessesBprivate
!omplainants#? assisted y $tty" 'eonides S" (ernae# 1r"# representing himself as
?)rivate )rose!utor#? filed a ?<otion for Removal from Offi!e#? dated De!emer +# ,--3#
for the removal of said lo!al ele!tive offi!ials# to whi!h herein petitioners filed their
!omment# on the ground that movants have no legal standing in !ourt# and neither was the
puli! prose!utor notified of the motion to whi!h he did not !onform# and therefore# said
motion should e eCpunged or stri!Den out from the re!ords# or peremptorily denied"
?In a <anifestation and 5omment to the a!!used%petitionersE !omment# the 5O<='=5
prose!utor stated that he ?!onforms? with the suFe!t motion of private !omplainants#
hen!e# respe!tfully sumit/s0 the same for the ruling of the !ourt# followed y a
Supplement to <otion for Removal from Offi!e# dated Aeruary 24# ,--.# to whi!h
petitioners also filed their opposition"
?On $pril 8# ,--.# respondent !ourt issued an Order# dire!ting the ?CCC immediate
suspension from offi!e of all the a!!used CCC for a period of siCty 6397 days from servi!e
of this Order"?
/+0
"%& A Ru*+n,
In its De!ision# the 5ourt of $ppeals upheld the trial !ourtEs dis!retion to order petitionersE suspension
from offi!e" It ruled>
?The preventive suspension of those offi!ials is authorized under Se!tion ,8 of R$ 89,-#
as amended# whi!h is mandatory in !hara!ter upon the filing of a valid information in
!ourt against them" Su!h suspension !an e issued GC C C in whatever stage of eCe!ution
and mode of parti!ipation# is pending in !ourt C C CE 6see also &onzaga vs"
Sandiganayan# 29, S5R$ *,.# *22# *237" Said !ases stressed though that the
5onstitution reFe!ts preventive suspension for an indefinite duration as it !onstitutes a
denial of due pro!ess and e:ual prote!tion of the law" Nonetheless# preventive suspension
is Fustifiale for as long as its !ontinuan!e is for a reasonale length of time" This
do!trine also finds eCpression in 'u!iano vs" )rovin!ial &overnor# 24 S5R$ +.9#
upholding the power of !ourts to eCer!ise the mandatory a!t of suspension of lo!al
ele!tive offi!ial/s0 under Se!tion ,8 of R$ 89,-"?
/30
6unders!oring found in the
original7 =smso
Hen!e# this )etition"
/.0
"%& I''u&'
In their <emorandum# petitioners urge the 5ourt to resolve the following :uestions>
?," Does Se!" ,8 of R"$" No" 89,- 6$nti%&raft and 5orrupt )ra!ti!es $!t7# or Se!" 39 of
R"$" .,39 6The 'o!al &overnment 5ode of ,--,7 !onfer upon a Regional Trial 5ourt#
efore whi!h a !riminal !ase for violation of Se!" 23, 6o7 of the Omnius =le!tion 5ode
is pending# the power and authority to order the preventive suspension from offi!e of the
a!!used therein upon the filing of a valid Information against himH
?2" In a !riminal !ase for violation of Se!" 23, 6o7 of the Omnius =le!tion 5ode# where
the INAOR<$TION does not allege damages sustained y any private party y reason
thereof# has a person# representing himself to e a ?witnessBprivate !omplainant#? or a
lawyer# representing himself to e a ?private prose!utor#? the legal standing or personality
to file a motion for removal from offi!e of the a!!used in said !riminal !aseH
G2"," Does a motion so filed# a!:uire legal standing efore the 5ourt y
the suse:uent adoption thereof y the 5O<='=5 )rose!utor in said
!aseH <sesm
G2"2" Does a motion so filed# without !omplian!e of the noti!e
re:uirements pres!ried for motions under Rule ,+ of the Revised Rules
of 5ourt# deserve Fudi!ial !ognizan!e y the !ourt vis%a%vis Del 5astillo
v" $guinaldo# 2,2 S5R$ ,3-# ,.*# holding that su!h motion is ?a useless
pie!e of paper with no legal effe!t? that should not e a!!epted for filing
and if filed# is not entitled to Fudi!ial !ognizan!eH?
G2"8" Is there sustantial !omplian!e /with0 su!h noti!e re:uirements y
the mere fa!t that /the0 adverse party filed an opposition to said motion#
pre!isely to :uestion its non%!omplian!e /with0 noti!e re:uirements#
pres!ried y Rule ,+# Revised Rules of 5ourtH?
G2"*" Notwithstanding the foregoing defe!ts of said motion# is it proper
for a Regional Trial 5ourt to taDe !ognizan!e thereof and a!t favoraly
thereon# without setting said motion for hearingH?
5iting R$ .3-,#
/40
petitioners liDewise assail the authority of the trial !ourt to hear the !ases against them"
Aor the saDe of !larity# the dis!ussion of the !ase will revolve around three points> first# the Furisdi!tion of
regional trial !ourts over violations of the =le!tion 5odeIsecond# the propriety of petitionersE suspensionI
and third# the alleged pro!edural lapses of the trial !ourt"
"%& our)-' Ru*+n,
Je find no merit in the )etition"
F+r') I''u&. Jurisdiction over Election Cases
)etitioners insist that the RT5 did not have the Furisdi!tion to hear and de!ide the !ases filed against them#
e!ause the penalty for the offenses !harged did not eC!eed siC years" Thus# they !laim that the authority
to hear the !ases is vested y R$ .3-, in the first%level !ourts" =Csm
The argument does not persuade" It is evident from Se!tion 82# () ,2-# as amended y Se!tion 2 of R$
.3-,# that the Furisdi!tion of first%level !ourts %% the metropolitan trial !ourts# muni!ipal trial !ourts and
muni!ipal !ir!uit trial !ourts %% does not !over those !riminal !ases whi!h y spe!ifi! provision of law are
!ognizale y regional trial !ourts" Se!tion 82 provides>
?Se!" 82" Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. =C!ept in !ases falling within the
eC!lusive original Furisdi!tion of the Regional Trial 5ourts and of the Sandiganayan# the
<etropolitan Trial 5ourts# <uni!ipal Trial 5ourts# and <uni!ipal 5ir!uit Trial 5ourts
shall eCer!ise>
6,7 =C!lusive original Furisdi!tion over all violations of !ity or muni!ipal ordinan!es#
!ommitted within their respe!tive territorial Furisdi!tionI and
627 =C!lusive original Furisdi!tion over all offenses punishale with imprisonment not
eC!eeding siC 637 years irrespe!tive of the amount of fine# and regardless of other
imposale a!!essory or other penalties# in!luding the !ivil liaility arising from su!h
offenses or predi!ated thereon# irrespe!tive of Dind# nature# value or amount
thereofI Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through
!riminal negligen!e# they shall have eC!lusive original Furisdi!tion thereof"
)etitioners were !harged with violating Se!tion 23, 6o7 of the Omnius =le!tion 5ode" Under Se!tion 234
of the said 5ode# regional trial !ourts have exclusiveFurisdi!tion to try and de!ide any !riminal a!tion or
pro!eeding for violation of the 5ode# ?eC!ept those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure
to vote"? The said provision reads>
?Se!" 234" Jurisdiction of courts" The regional trial !ourt shall have the eC!lusive
Furisdi!tion to try and de!ide any !riminal a!tion or pro!eeding for violation of this 5ode#
eC!ept those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote# whi!h shall e
under the Furisdi!tion of the metropolitan or muni!ipal trial !ourts" Arom the de!ision of
the !ourts# appeal will lie as in other !riminal !ases"?
Jorth noting also is this 5ourtEs dis:uisition in COMELEC v. Nona>
/-0
?Je have eCpli!itly ruled in Morales v. Court of !ppeals# that y virtue of the eC!eption
provided for in the opening senten!e of Se!tion 82# the eC!lusive original Furisdi!tion of
<etropolitan Trial 5ourts# <uni!ipal Trial 5ourts# and <uni!ipal 5ir!uit Trial 5ourts
does not !over !riminal !ases whi!h y spe!ifi! provisions of law fall within the
eC!lusive original Furisdi!tion of Regional Trial 5ourts and of the Sandiganayan#
regardless of the penalty pres!ried therefor" Otherwise stated# even if those eC!epted
!ases are punishale y imprisonment not eC!eeding siC 637 years# 6i.e., prision
correccional, arresto maor, or arresto menor7 Furisdi!tion thereon is retained y the
Regional Trial 5ourts or the Sandiganayan# as the !ase may e" @yle
?$mong the eCamples !ited in Morales as falling within the eC!eption provided for in the
opening senten!e of Se!tion 82 are !ases under 6,7 Se!tion 29 of () (lg" ,2-I 627 $rti!le
839 of the Revised )enal 5ode as amendedI 687 the De!ree on Intelle!tual )ropertyI and
6*7 the Dangerous Drugs $!t of ,-.2# as amended"
?Undoutedly# pursuant to Se!tion 234 of the Omnius =le!tion 5ode# ele!tion offenses
also fall within the eC!eption"
?$s we stated in <orales# Furisdi!tion is !onferred y the 5onstitution or 5ongress"
Outside the !ases enumerated in Se!tion +627 of $rti!le VIII of the 5onstitution#
5ongress has the plenary power to define# pres!rie# and apportion the Furisdi!tion of
various !ourts" 5ongress may thus provide y law that a !ertain !lass of !ases should e
eC!lusively heard and determined y one !ourt" Su!h law would e a spe!ial law and
must e !onstrued as an eC!eption to the general law on Furisdi!tion of !ourts# namely#
the 1udi!iary $!t of ,-*4# as amended# and the 1udi!iary Reorganization $!t of ,-49"
R"$" .3-, !an y no means e !onsidered as a spe!ial law on Furisdi!tionI it is merely an
amendatory law intended to amend spe!ifi! se!tions of the 1udi!iary Reorganization $!t
of ,-49" Hen!e# R"$" No" .3-, does not have the effe!t of repealing laws vesting upon
Regional Trial 5ourts or the Sandiganayan eC!lusive original Furisdi!tion to hear and
de!ide the !ases therein spe!ified" That 5ongress never intended that R$ .3-, should
repeal su!h spe!ial provisions is induitaly evident from the fa!t that it did not tou!h at
all the opening senten!e of Se!tion 82 of (")" (lg" ,2- providing for the eC!eption"? 6Itals
supplied7
5learly then# regional trial !ourts have Furisdi!tion to hear and de!ide !ases for violation of the Omnius
=le!tion 5ode# su!h as those filed against petitioners"
S&(on! I''u&. Preventive Suspension
)etitioners !ontend that their !ases are not suFe!t to Se!tion ,8 of R$ 89,-# the $nti%&raft and 5orrupt
)ra!ti!es $!t# whi!h mandates the preventive suspension of indi!ted puli! offi!ials" Je disagree"
)etitioners were a!!used of using arangay property for ele!tion !ampaign purposes and other partisan
politi!al a!tivities during their in!umen!y as arangay offi!ials# in violation of Se!tion 23, 6o7 of the
Omnius =le!tion 5ode# whi!h reads as follows>
?Se!tion 23," Prohi"ited !cts" The following shall e guilty of an ele!tion offense>
6o7 #se of pu"lic funds, mone deposited in trust, e$uipment, facilities owned or
controlled " the %overnment for an election campai%n. &$ny person who uses under any
guise whatsoever# dire!tly or indire!tly# 6,7 puli! funds or money deposited with or held
in trust y# puli! finan!ing institutions or y government offi!es# anDs# or agen!iesI 627
any printing press# radio# or television station or audio%visual e:uipment operated y the
&overnment or y its divisions# su%divisions# agen!ies or instrumentalities# in!luding
government%owned or !ontrolled !orporations# or y the $rmed Aor!es of the )hilippinesI
or 687 any e:uipment# vehi!le# fa!ility# apparatus or paraphernalia owned y the
government or y its politi!al sudivisions# agen!ies# in!luding government%owned or
!ontrolled !orporations# or y the $rmed Aor!es of the )hilippines for any ele!tion
!ampaign or for any partisan politi!al a!tivity"? @y!alr
On the other hand# Se!tion ,8# R"$" 89,-# as amended# provides>
?S=5" ,8" 'uspension and loss of "enefits" $ny in!ument puli! offi!er against whom
any !riminal prose!ution under a valid information under this $!t or under Title .# (ooD
II of the Revised )enal 5ode or for any offense involving fraud upon government or
puli! funds or property whether as a simple or as a !ompleC offense and in whatever
stage of eCe!ution and mode of parti!ipation# is pending in !ourt# shall e suspended from
offi!e" Should he e !onvi!ted y final Fudgment# he shall lose all retirement or gratuity
enefits under any law# ut if he is a!:uitted# he shall e entitled to reinstatement# and to
the salaries and enefits whi!h he failed to re!eive during suspension# unless in the
meantime administrative pro!eedings have een filed against him"
?In the event that su!h !onvi!ted offi!er# who may have already een separated from the
servi!e# has already re!eived su!h enefits he shall e liale to restitute the same to the
government"?
Interestingly# prior to its amendment y () ,-+#
/,90
the said provision had applied to puli! offi!ers who#
under a valid information# were !harged with violations of R$ 89,- or with offenses !overed y the
Revised )enal 5ode provision on riery"
/,,0
The amendatory law eCpanded the s!ope of the provisionI
now# puli! offi!ers may liDewise e suspended from offi!e if# under a valid information# they are !harged
with an offense falling under Title . of (ooD II of the Revised )enal 5ode# or with any other form of
fraud involving government funds or property"
True# the !ases against petitioners involve violations of the =le!tion 5odeI however# the !harges are not
unidimensional" =very law must e read together with the provisions of any other !omplementing law#
unless oth are otherwise irre!on!ilale" It must e emphasized that petitioners were in!ument pu"lic
officers !harged with the unauthori(ed and unlawful use of %overnment propert in their !ustody# in the
pursuit of personal interests" The !rime eing imputed to them is aDin to that !ommitted y puli! offi!ers
as laid down in the Revised )enal 5ode" 5ertainly# petitionersE a!ts !onstitute fraud against the
governmentI thus# the present !ase is !overed y Se!tion ,8 of R$ 89,-" 5alrDy
The aforementioned proviso reinfor!es the prin!iple that a puli! offi!e is a puli! trust" Its purpose is to
prevent the a!!used puli! offi!er from hampering his prose!ution y intimidating or influen!ing
witnesses# tampering with do!umentary eviden!e# or !ommitting further a!ts of malfeasan!e while in
offi!e"
/,20
)reventive suspension is not a penaltyI
/,80
petitioners# whose !ulpaility remains to e proven#
are still entitled to the !onstitutional presumption of inno!en!e"
"%+r! I''u&. Allegations of Procedural Prejudice
)etitioners assail the trial !ourtEs Order of suspension on the ground that it was issued pursuant to the
initial ?<otion for Removal Arom Offi!e#?
/,*0
re!eived y the trial !ourt on De!emer 3# ,--3" The
re!ords show that this <otion neither !omplied with the noti!e re:uirements provided under the Rules of
5ourt# nor was it filed y one who was a party to their !ases"
The 5ourt has held time and again that a motion that does not meet the noti!e re:uirements of Se!tions *
and + of Rule ,+ of the Rules of 5ourt
/,+0
is pro forma# and that the trial !ourt has no authority to a!t on it"
The re:uisites laid down in the aforementioned provisions are !ategori!al and mandatory# and the failure
of the movants to !omply with them renders their <otions fatally defe!tive"
/,30
The Rules mandate the servi!e of a !opy of a motion !ontaining a noti!e of time and pla!e of hearing# in
order to afford the adverse party time to study and answer the arguments in the said motion efore its
resolution y the !ourt"
5onsidering the !ir!umstan!es of the present )etition# however# we elieve that the re:uirements of
pro!edural due pro!ess were sustantially !omplied with# and that su!h !omplian!e Fustifies a lieral
interpretation of the aove%mentioned rules" <esm
In his ?<anifestation on 5omment of the $!!used#? the 5O<='=5 prose!utor adopted the assailed
<otion as well as the Aeruary 24# ,--. ?Supplement to <otion for Removal from Offi!e"? This a!tion
should e !onsidered to have thus !ured the pro!edural defe!t pointed out y petitioners" <ore important#
however# is the fa!t that the trial !ourt heard petitioners and considered their arguments" In their siC%page
<emorandum
/,.0
filed pursuant to the dire!tive of the trial !ourt# petitioners were ale to ventilate their
arguments against the <otion for Removal from Offi!e" They !ontended that neither R$ 89,- nor Se!tion
39 of the 'o!al &overnment 5ode Fustified their suspension from offi!e" Indeed# the purpose of a noti!e
of hearing was servedI
/,40
the pleadings that were filed for and against them negated their allegations of
pro!edural preFudi!e"
Under Se!tion ,8 of R$ 89,-# the suspension of a puli! offi!er is mandatory after the determination of
the validity of the information# as enun!iated in 'ocrates v. 'andi%an"aan
/,-0
whi!h we :uote>
?This 5ourt has ruled that under Se!tion ,8 of the anti%graft law# the suspension of a
puli! offi!er is mandatory after the validity of the information has een upheld in a pre%
suspension hearing !ondu!ted for that purpose" This pre%suspension hearing is !ondu!ted
to determine asi!ally the validity of the information# from whi!h the !ourt !an have a
asis to either suspend the a!!used and pro!eed with the trial on the merits of the !ase# or
withhold the suspension of the latter and dismiss the !ase# or !orre!t any part of the
pro!eeding whi!h impairs its validity" That hearing may e treated in the same manner as
a !hallenge to the validity of the information y way of a motion to :uash"?
In the !ase at ar# while there was no pre%suspension hearing held to determine the validity of the
Informations that had een filed against petitioners# we elieve that the numerous pleadings filed for and
against them have a!hieved the goal of this pro!edure" The right to due pro!ess is satisfied not Fust y an
oral hearing ut y the filing and the !onsideration y the !ourt of the partiesE pleadings# memoranda and
other position papers"
/#EREFORE# the petition is herey )EN*E) and the assailed De!ision of the 5ourt of
$ppeals !++*,ME)" 5osts against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, -Chairman., /itu%, Purisima and 0on(a%a&,ees, JJ., concur.123244