People v. Second Division of the Sandiganbayan

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 174164. September 6, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HON. SECOND DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and LITO NARCISO E. CREUS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 6, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 174164 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HON. SECOND DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and LITO NARCISO E. CREUS, Respondents). — Acting on a complaint filed against respondent Lito Narciso E. Creus (Creus) as the Municipal Mayor of Malabuyoc, Cebu, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for the Visayas conducted a preliminary investigation and ultimately issued a resolution on June 26, 2003 recommending the filing of an information against him and his co-accused, Florita T. Labos, for violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act No. 3019. Thereafter, the information was filed in the Sandiganbayan (docketed as Criminal Case No. 27893), which raffled it to the Second Division (respondent court). Both accused were arraigned, and they pleaded notguilty. 1

On April 28, 2005, the Prosecution filed a MotiontoSuspendAccusedPendenteLite. The respondent court denied the motion, stating that although suspension pendentelite was mandatory, it was not automatic. It opined that the provision on suspension pendentelite allowed only one preventive suspension of a public officer, the same to last until the termination of the case; that the law spoke of a continuous trial during which the accused remained suspended, at the end of which he should either be reinstated or he would lose all retirement or gratuity benefits, depending on whether he was acquitted or convicted; and that this practice continued until its modification through Delosov. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 86899-903, May 15, 1989), whereby the Court limited the suspension to a maximum duration of 90 days. 2 aScITE

In the challenged resolution dated December 29, 2005, the respondent court pointed out that no Division of the Sandiganbayan had ever imposed one suspension pendentelite for each and every case brought before it; that the practice had been to suspend the accused for 90 days, regardless of the actual number of cases pending against him; and that because respondent Creus had already been suspended on account of other cases pending in another Division of the Sandiganbayan, the Second Division could no longer issue its own suspension pendentelite against him. 3

The Prosecution moved for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on June 6, 2006.

Accordingly, the Prosecution, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, brought a petition for certiorari, alleging that the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan had committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suspend respondent Creus pendentelite. 4

Through its manifestation dated December 5, 2016, the petitioner informed the Court that the Sandiganbayan had meanwhile acquitted respondent Creus in Criminal Case No. 27893 through the decision rendered on November 22, 2011; and that the People did not anymore challenge the acquittal. 5

With the main case (Criminal Case No. 27893) having already been decided and terminated with the acquittal of respondent Creus, there is no longer any reason to still resolve the issues raised herein. In other words, the case was rendered moot and academic, rendering the relief being hereby sought — that respondent Creus be suspended pendentelite — as no longer practicable or feasible due to the termination of the trial of Criminal Case No. 27893.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari on the ground of its being rendered moot and academic by supervening events.

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

(Martires, J., no part due to prior action in the Sandiganbayan; Jardeleza, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle Dated August 30, 2017)

SOORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 10-14.

2.Id. at 55-59.

3.Id. at 58.

4.Id. at 17-19.

5.Id. at 144, 148-176.