This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While a pre-suspension hearing is aimed at securing for the accused fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the information or the regularity of the proceedings against him,[43] Luciano likewise emphasizes that no hard and fast rule exists in regulating its conduct.[44] With the purpose of a pre-suspension hearing in mind, the absence of an actual hearing alone cannot be determinative of the validity of a suspension order. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| (d) No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him, e.g., that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation; that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act; or he may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The mandatory suspension decreed by the Act upon determination of the pendency in court of a criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft Act or for bribery under a valid information requires at the same time that the hearing be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act. Hence, if the trial court, say, finds the ground alleged in the quashal motion not to be indubitable, then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order upon its upholding the validity of the information and setting the same for trial on the merits. The pre-suspension hearing envisaged in the afore-quoted law is conducted to determine basically the validity of the information, from which the court can have a basis either to suspend the accused and proceed with the trial of the case, or withhold the suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedings which impairs its validity. That hearing may be treated in the same manner as a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash.[27] The law does not require that the guilt of the accused be established in a pre-suspension proceeding before trial on the merits proceeds.[28] Neither does it contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) 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.[29] | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is settled that once a court determines that the information charging a public officer with an offense under R.A. No. 3019 or Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,[14] or any other offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is valid, it is bound to issue an order of preventive suspension of the accused public officer as a matter of course.[15] | |||||