Bohol Board Member Suspended by Sandiganbayan

[MikeLigalig.com]

By June Blanco

  A MEMBER of the Bohol Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) is suspended anew.

  The Sandigan Bayan Fourth Division issued a fresh 90-day suspension pendente lite on SP member Josil Trabajo for a criminal case he has been facing while still the vice mayor of Carmen town.

  On receiving a copy on June 16 of the Sandiganbayan resolution promulgated on June 1, Gov. Erico Aumentado immediately issued a memorandum order to Trabajo ordering him to cease and desist from further performing and/or exercising the functions, duties and privileges of his present government position – or of any other public office he may now or hereafter be holding.

  The governor, a lawyer by profession, emphasized that it is his duty to implement the Sandiganbayan resolution immediately otherwise he will be violating the law. He said it pained him to implement Trabajo’s suspension because he is a party-mate.

  However, he has no choice. He does not intend to break the law and face the consequences, hence his order dated June 18.

  The Aumentado order was to take effect immediately – on the day following his receipt of the same.

  The case stemmed from the act Trabajo and his co-accused, former Mayor Pedro Budiongan Jr., allegedly committed in February to March, 2003. While in the performance of their official duties, the two allegedly connived, confederated and mutually helped each other in a contract or transaction of supplying, by way of sale, 501 loads of limestone or anapog to the town for the road improvement projects of the Vallehermoso-Montehermoso and Luan-La Salvacion roads.

  In its motion, the plaintiff maintained that the information is valid and that both accused were already arraigned and the prosecution had presented several witnesses, hence, invoking Section 13 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the plaintiff contended that the suspension was mandatory.

  The accused contended in his opposition that there is no ground or basis to place him under suspension considering that he is no longer the vice mayor and as such, there is no dander that he would influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

  He also argued that he can no longer be suspended because he had in fact already been previously suspended pendente lite in two other cases which arose from the same charge or facts as the instant case and are substantially related to the instant case.

  He said to place him under another suspension wpould be tantamount to an indefinite suspension which is prohibited under the law as well as jurisprudence.

  But the Fourth Division ruled to grant the motion.

  Associate Justice Alex Quiroz wrote, concurred in by Associate Justices Gregory Ong, chair and Jose Hernandez, that Section 13 of R.A. 3019 on suspension and loss of benefits had used the word “shall,” making mandatory the suspension of any incumbent public officer already facing a valid information under the act or for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property.

  Further, Quiroz wrote that Section 13 of R.A 3019 does not state that the public officer concerned must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged, hence the word “office” would indicate that it applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding.

  The associate justice did not agree with Trabajo’s second argument either. The ponente said Trabajo is not an accused in the first case he named, but in the second which was filed against several accused, among them Trabajo, for violation of Section 3(c) of R.A. 3019.

  The former vice mayor had allegedly conspired on or about February 21, 2002, in the bidding, award and implementation of the Tan Modesto Bernaldez Municipal St. in Carmen in the amount of P349,808 despite the absence of funds specifically appropriated for such purpose. But the present case is for violation of Section 3(h) of the said Act – or the sale of anapog and not the bidding.

  This belies the argument of the accused that the previous cases arose out of the same facts as in the instant case.

  Quiroz did not subscribe to the assertion of the accused either, that to place him under another suspension pendente lite would be tantamount to an indefinite suspension.

  It has been more than a year since the Court ordered the first indefinite suspension. Besides, the second suspension is only for 90 days and not for the entire duration of the criminal case – negating the accused’s “indefinite suspension” claim. 

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=20717.0