Mandatory preventive suspension
in cases for violation of RA No. 3019 (anti-graft and corrupt practices act). -
ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET. AL., G.R. No. 146217 , April 7, 2006
“x
x x.
Petitioner’s Suspension
Finds Basis in Section 13 of RA 3019
Petitioner
next contends that he was illegally suspended from office because the offense
of falsification of official documents is found in Title 4, Book II and not in
Title 7, Book II of the RPC. Petitioner
further asserts that this offense does not involve “fraud or property.” Thus, petitioner concludes that his
suspension finds no basis in Section 13 of RA 3019.
The
contention is similarly without merit.
Section
13 provides:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Suspension from office is mandatory whenever a valid
Information charges an incumbent public officer with (1) violation of RA 3019; (2) violation of Title 7, Book II of the RPC; (3) any offense involving
fraud upon government; or (4) any offense involving fraud upon public funds or
property. While petitioner correctly
contends that the charge filed against him and his co-accused does not fall
under Title 7, Book II but under Title 4, Book II of the RPC, it nevertheless
involves “fraud upon government or public
funds or property.”
As used in Section 13, the term
“fraud” is understood in its generic sense, that is, referring to “an instance
or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation.” The Information alleges that petitioner and his
co-accused “feloniously ma[d]e it appear
in official documents that municipal funds totalling [thirty thousand pesos] (P30,000.00)
were expended for the purchase of lumber from Estigoy Lumber when, in truth and
in fact, as both accused well knew, said lumber were actually purchased from
Rowena Woodcraft, a single proprietorship owned by accused Rowena G. Bustillo.” This suffices to classify the charge as
“involving fraud upon government” as contemplated in Section 13.
Petitioner does not dispute that the
official documents he and his co-accused are charged of falsifying are
vouchers. As used in government, vouchers, like daily time records, are
official documents signifying a cash outflow from government coffers,
especially if, as here, receipt of payment is acknowledged. Thus, falsifying
these official documents invariably involves “fraud upon x x x public funds x x
x.”
