Lim-Reyes v. Sandiganbayan

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241449. October 10, 2018.]

GENEVIVE GUMBAN LIM-REYES, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE GOVERNOR OF ANTIQUE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 October 2018 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241449 — Genevive Gumban Lim-Reyes versus Sandiganbayan, The Ombudsman and The Governor of Antique

After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Resolution 1 dated August 10, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SB) in SB-18-CRM-0275 to 0276, the Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition for failure to establish grave abuse of discretion.

A Rule 65 petition for certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is granted only where there is no appeal or no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this regard, it is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. 2 Here, petitioner Genevive Gumban Lim-Reyes (Lim-Reyes) admittedly failed to file a motion for reconsideration to the contested Resolution. While she claims to have filed under exceptional circumstances, the Court finds that she failed to demonstrate how such motion would not serve as an adequate remedy and an opportunity for the SB to rectify its error, if any. On this ground alone, the Petition is already dismissible.

In any case, after a careful study of the Petition, inclusive of its annexes, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the SB in granting the Motion to Suspend Pendente Lite; the only issue in this case is whether the SB acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ordering the preventive suspension of Lim-Reyes. The Court finds in the negative.

Case law is now settled that a suspension under Section 13 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 is mandatory, provided that the requisites therefor are present:

x x x It is now settled that Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed. 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. The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The law does not require the court to determine whether the accused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court. 3 (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the foregoing to this case, the Court finds that the SB, in its Resolution dated August 10, 2018, correctly appreciated the requisites under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019.

SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on wellness leave)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 31-35. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, with Associate Justices Rafael R. Lagos and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac concurring.

2.Luna v. National Labor Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 963, 969 (1997).

3.Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan(Third Division), 305 Phil. 110, 115 (1994).