Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (Original Text)
Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (Original Text)
Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (Original Text)
DECISION
VITUG, J : p
The Court is called upon to review the act of the Sandiganbayan, and
how far it can go, in ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner, Mme.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, in connection with pending in criminal
cases filed against her for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The instant case arose from complaints filed by a group of employees
of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against petitioner,
then CID Commissioner, for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. The investigating panel, that took over the case from
investigator Gualberto dela Llana after having been constituted by the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon upon petitioner's request, came up with a
resolution which it referred, for approval, to the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) and the Ombudsman. In his Memorandum, dated 26 April
1991, the Ombudsman directed the OSP to file the appropriate informations
against petitioner. On 13 May 1991, OSP submitted to the Ombudsman the
informations for clearance; approved, forthwith, three informations were
filed on even date.
In Criminal Case No. 16698 filed before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner
was indicted thusly:
"That on or about October 17, 1988, or sometime prior or
subsequent thereto, in Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, a public
officer, being then the Commissioner of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation, with evident bad faith and manifest
partiality in the exercise of her official functions, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally approve the application for
legalization for the stay of the following aliens: Jhamtani Shalini
Narendra, Ting Siok Hun, Ching Suat Liong Ting, Cu Kui Pein Uy, Cu Kui
Pwe Uy, Hong Shao Guan, Hong Xiao Yuan, Xu Li Xuan, Qui Ming Xia
Ong, Wu Sui Xin Qiui, Wu Hong Guan Qui @ Betty Go, Wu Hong Ru Qui
@ Mary Go Xu @ Yin Yin Kua, Hong Shao Hua Xu, Hong Shao Wei Xu, Lu
Shing Qing, Lu Shi Tian, Lu Se Chong, Shi Qing Yu, Xu Angun @ Xu An
Cin, Xu Pinting, Wang Xiu Jin, Cai Pian Pian, Cai Wen Xu, Cai Min Min,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Cai Ping Ping, Choi Kin Kwok @ Bernardo Suarez, Yen Liang Ju @ Jeslyn
Gan, Cai Yan Nan, Yen Ling Chien @ Chrismayne Gan, So Chen Yueh-O,
Cai Ya Rong, who arrived in the Philippines after January 1, 1984 in
violation of Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13, 1988 which
prohibits the legalization of said disqualified aliens knowing fully well
that said aliens are disqualified thereby giving unwarranted benefits to
said aliens whose stay in the Philippines was unlawfully legalized by
said accused." 1
Hence, the instant recourse. The petition assails the authority of the
Sandiganbayan to decree a ninety-day preventive suspension of Mme.
Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, from
any government position, and furnishing a copy thereof to the Senate of the
Philippines for the implementation of the suspension order.
The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension
of an incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support. Section 13
of the statute provides:
"SECTION 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — 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.
"In the event that such convicted officer, who may have already
been separated from the service, has already received such benefits he
shall be liable to restitute the same to the Government. (As amended
by BP Blg. 195, March 16, 1982)."
The law does not require that the guilt of the accused must be
established in a presuspension proceeding before trial on the merits
proceeds. Neither does it contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the
strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) the gravity of the
offense charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could
influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the
records and other evidence before the court could have a valid basis in
decreeing preventive suspension pending the trial of the case. All it secures
to the accused is adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity
of the proceedings against him, such as, that he has not been afforded the
right to due preliminary investigation, that the acts imputed to him do not
constitute a specific crime warranting his mandatory suspension from office
under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, or that the information is subject
to quashal on any of the grounds set out in Section 3, Rule 117, of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. 10
The instant petition is not the first time that an incident relating to
petitioner's case before the Sandiganbayan has been brought to this Court.
In previous occasions, the Court has been called upon to resolve several
other matters on the subject. Thus: (1) In Santiago vs. Vasquez, 11 petitioner
sought to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No.
16698 for violation of Republic Act No. 3019; (2) in S antiago vs. Vasquez, 12
petitioner sought the nullification of the hold departure order issued by the
Sandiganbayan via a "Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from Enforcing
its Hold Departure Order with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, with Motion to set Pending Incident for
Hearing; (3) in Santiago vs. Garchitorena, 13 petitioner sought the
nullification of the resolution, dated 03 March 1993, in Criminal Case No.
16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) and to declare Presiding Justice
Garchitorena disqualified from acting in said criminal case, and the
resolution, dated 14 March 1993, which deemed as "filed" the 32 amended
informations against her; and (4) in Miriam Defensor Santiago vs.
Sandiganbayan, 14 petitioner assailed the denial by the Sandiganbayan of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
her motion for reconsideration from its 03rd August 1995 order allowing the
testimony of Pedellaga. In one of these cases, 15 the Court declared:
"We note that petitioner had previously filed two petitions before
us involving Criminal Case No. 16698 (G.R. Nos. 99289-99290; G.R. No.
107598). Petitioner has not explained why she failed to raise the issue
of the delay in the preliminary investigation and the filing of the
information against her in those petitions. A piece-meal presentation of
issues, like the splitting of causes of action, is self-defeating.
"Petitioner next claims that the Amended informations did not
charge any offense punishable under Section 3 (e) of RA. No. 3019
because the official acts complained therein were authorized under
Executive Order No. 324 and that the Board of Commissioners of the
Bureau of Investigation adopted the policy of approving applications for
legalization of spouses and unmarried, minor children of "qualified
aliens" even though they had arrived in the Philippines after December
31, 1983. She concludes that the Sandiganbayan erred in not granting
her motion to quash the informations (Rollo , pp. 25-31).
"In a motion to quash, the accused the accused admits
hypothetically the allegations of fact in the information (People vs.
Supnad, 7 SCRA 603 [1963]). Therefore, petitioner admitted
hypothetically in her motion that:
4. At pp. 336-337.
5. Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, 163 SCRA 163.
6. Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383.
7. At p. 386.
8. Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, supra; Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.
9. Luciano vs. Mariano, 40 SCRA 187; People vs. Albano, 163 SCRA 511, 517-
519.
10. Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, supra; Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M.
No. 00-05-03-SC, dated 03 October 2000, which became effective on 01
December 2000.
11. 205 SCRA 162.
12. 217 SCRA 633.