ART.
212: CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Bayot v. Sandiganbayan (Mar 23 1984 Relova)
FACTS:
 Reynaldo Bayot, government auditor of the COA assigned to the Ministry of
Education and Culture, is one of the persons accused in more than 100 counts of
Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan.
 The charges came from his involvement in the preparation and encashment of
fictitious TCAA checks for non-existent obligations of the Teacher’s Camp in
Baguio City amounting to 7M.
 Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo, Cavite in the Jan 1980 elections, and
won.
 However, BP 195 was passed, amending Sec. 13 of RA 3019.
o 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… shall be suspended from office.
 The Sandiganbayan then ordered the suspension of all the accused including
Bayot.
 Bayot contends a close perusal of BP 195 reveals no legislative intent for it to be
retroactive, and that if applied as such it would be an ex-post facto law.
ISSUE: W/N BP 195 is an ex-post facto law.
HELD: NO.
 Art. 24 of the RPC clearly states that suspension from the employment or public
office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered
as penalty. It is merely a preventive measure before final judgment.
 Not being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension from office, pending trial,
of the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision
committed before its effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex
post facto law.
Deloso v. Sandiganbayan (May 15 1989 Gutierrez Jr.)
FACTS:
 Amor Deloso was the mayor of Botolan, Zambales. A certain Juan Villanueva
filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan, accusing Deloso of violating RA 3019 in
relation to the award of licenses to operate fish corrals, and the issuance of 5
tractors to certain individuals without any agreement to pay rentals.
 The complaint with respect to the licenses was dismissed. The Tanodbayan filed
5 informations, accusing Deloso of violating RA 3019.
 The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion to suspend Deloso pendente
lite pursuant to RA 3019.
 Deloso questions the constitutionality of the suspension provision of Sec. 13 of
RA 3019.
ISSUE: W/N the Deloso should be under preventive suspension.
HELD: NO.
 The order of suspension does not have a definite period so that the petitioner
may be suspended for the rest of his term of office unless his case is terminated
sooner.
o An extended suspension is a distinct possibility considering that the
Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's plea for earlier dates of trial of
his cases on the ground that there are other cases set earlier which
have a right to expect priority.
o Under these circumstances the preventive suspension which initially
may be justified becomes unreasonable thus raising a due process
question.
 Deloso contends that the suspension provision does not apply to him because it
only applies to incumbent public officers. He is now a governor and not a mayor,
the position wherein he was originally charged.
o In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, he cannot be suspended because he is
presently occupying a position different from that under which he is
charged is untenable.
o “any incumbent public officer”
o By the use of the word office the same applies to any office which the
officer charged may be holding, and not only the particular office under
which he was charged.
Rios v. Sandiganbayan (Sept 26 1997 Romero)
FACTS:
 Dindo Rios was the incumbent mayor of San Fernando, Romblon. An
information was filed against him for unauthorized disposition of confiscated
lumber, contrary to RA 3019.
 The OSP filed a Motion to Suspend Rios, which was granted by the
Sandiganbayan.
 Rios was suspended for 90 days.
ISSUE: W/N Rios’ suspension is proper.
HELD: YES.
 Sec. 13 RA 3019
o 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.
 This provision makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public
officer who has been validly charged with a violation of R.A. No. 3019, Book II,
Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property.
 The court trying a case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether
preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from using his office to
intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing
malfeasance in office.
o There is a presumption that unless the public officer is suspended, he
may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or
both.
 However, the Sandiganbayan erred in imposing a 90-day suspension upon
petitioner. The LGC provides that any preventive suspension of local elective
officials shall not extend beyond 60 days.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (Nov 19 2001 Bellosillo)
FACTS:
 Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then president of the PH, was the highest-ranking
official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (Plunder Law). He assails the
constitutionality of the said law because:
a. It is vague
b. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions
c. it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under the
RPC
ISSUE: W/N RA 7080 is unconstitutional.
HELD: NO.
 It is not vague.
o As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that
would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render
them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained.
o It can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute
punishes is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-
gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or
combination of acts.
o The elements of the crime are easily understood and provide adequate
contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. Petitioner is
completely informed of the accusations against him as to enable him to
prepare for an intelligent defense.
o A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general
terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without
defining them.
o When the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at
least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration
provided in Sec. 1, par. (d).
o “Series” refers to two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the
same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d).
 A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application.
o A vague statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
 The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is
whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed
conduct when measured by common understanding and practice.
o The doctrine requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to
be upheld - not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
 It does not dispense with “reasonable doubt”.
o The legislature did not in any manner refashion the standard quantum of
proof in the crime of plunder. The burden still remains with the
prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every fact or element
necessary to constitute the crime.
o What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a
number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would
constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00.
There is no need to prove each and every act alleged in the Information.
o A pattern arises where the prosecution is able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the predicate acts as defined in Sec. 1, par. (d).
Pattern is merely a by-product of the proof of the predicate acts.
 Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent or mens
rea.
o When the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong,
they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in
a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate
crimes are mainly mala in se.
Segovia v. Sandiganbayan (Mar 27 1998 Narvasa CJ)
FACTS:
 Petitioners were prosecuted for violating RA 3019. They were put under
preventive suspension for 90 days under Sec. 13 of the same law.
 The petitioners all had regular executive positions in the National Power
Corporation (NPC). They composed the Contracts Committee for the NPC’s
Mindanao System Operation Control Center and Facilities Project.
o They conducted a bidding for the project. The second and lowest
bidders were Joint Venture and T&D and Urban.
o They declared both bidders disqualified as they had been downgraded
by the PH Contractors Accreditation Board and became ineligible to
bod.
o However, the project was eventually cancelled for reasons not on
record.
 Urban filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the Chairman and BOD of
the NPC, alleging that before the bidding Joint Venture was already disqualified,
but the Contracts Committee enabled it to take part.
o The same alleged that the NPC was already poised to award the
contract to Joint Venture but because Urban protested, the NPC
disqualified Joint Venture.
o Instead of awarding the contract to Urban, NPC cancelled the project.
 An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioners, charging
them for violating Sec. 3 of RA 3019 (causing undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial function
through manifest partiality, evident bad faithy or gross inexcusable negligence.)
 The petitioners were then suspended pendente lite for 90 days.
o The Sandiganbayan held that the suspension was mandated under the
law upon a finding that a proper preliminary investigation had been
conducted, the information was valid, and the accused were charged
with any of the crimes specified in the law; and stressed that its authority
and power to suspend the accused had been repeatedly upheld in
several precedents.
ISSUE: W/N the suspension is mandatory.
HELD: YES.
 RA 3019 recognizes that the power of preventive suspension lies in the court in
which the criminal charge is filed; once a case is filed in court, all other acts
connected with the discharge of court functions -- including preventive
suspension -- should be acknowledged as within the competence of the court
that has taken cognizance thereof.
 It is mandatory for the court to place under preventive suspension a public
officer accused before it.
 However, the preventive suspension may not be of indefinite duration or for an
unreasonable length of time.
o The Court has thus laid down the rule that preventive suspension may
not exceed the maximum period of 90 days (under Admin Code).
 The firmly entrenched doctrine is that under Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Law, the suspension of a public officer is mandatory after a
determination has been made of the validity of the information in a pre-
suspension hearing conducted for that purpose.
o This pre-suspension hearing is conducted to determine basically the
validity of the information, from which the Court can have a basis to
either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of
the case, or withhold the suspension of the latter and dismissed the
case, or correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its validity.
 Guidelines in the Exercise of the Power of Suspension
o Upon the filing of such information, the trial court should issue an order
with proper notice requiring the accused officer to show cause at a
specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from
office pursuant to the cited mandatory provisions of the Act.
o The accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to
challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him.
 The court trying the case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether or
not a preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from using his
office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing
malfeasance in office.
o The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he may
frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do
both.
o The law does not require the court to determine whether the
accused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court.

Disini v. Sandiganbayan (Sept 11 2013 Bersamin)

FACTS:
 Herminio Disini was charged with corruption of public officials (Art. 212 and 210)
and violating Sec. 4 of RA 3019.
