Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 366 views

    Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    MczoC.Mczo
    1) Corazon Gonzaga, a school principal, was accused of malversation or misuse of public funds amounting to P15,188.37 based on an audit report. She was suspended from her position pending trial. 2) Gonzaga argued that her suspension was invalid. The Supreme Court agreed that suspensions under the relevant law should not exceed 90 days. 3) The Court set rules limiting preventive suspensions to 90 days maximum to avoid infringing on rights to due process and security of tenure, except for delays caused by the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    MczoC.Mczo
    366 views2 pages
    1) Corazon Gonzaga, a school principal, was accused of malversation or misuse of public funds amounting to P15,188.37 based on an audit report. She was suspended from her position pending trial. 2) Gonzaga argued that her suspension was invalid. The Supreme Court agreed that suspensions under the relevant law should not exceed 90 days. 3) The Court set rules limiting preventive suspensions to 90 days maximum to avoid infringing on rights to due process and security of tenure, except for delays caused by the respondent.

    Original Description:

    asdxasdawdasdawsdawdawda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Corazon Gonzaga, a school principal, was accused of malversation or misuse of public funds amounting to P15,188.37 based on an audit report. She was suspended from her position pending trial. 2) Gonzaga argued that her suspension was invalid. The Supreme Court agreed that suspensions under the relevant law should not exceed 90 days. 3) The Court set rules limiting preventive suspensions to 90 days maximum to avoid infringing on rights to due process and security of tenure, except for delays caused by the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    366 views2 pages

    Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    MczoC.Mczo
    1) Corazon Gonzaga, a school principal, was accused of malversation or misuse of public funds amounting to P15,188.37 based on an audit report. She was suspended from her position pending trial. 2) Gonzaga argued that her suspension was invalid. The Supreme Court agreed that suspensions under the relevant law should not exceed 90 days. 3) The Court set rules limiting preventive suspensions to 90 days maximum to avoid infringing on rights to due process and security of tenure, except for delays caused by the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gonzaga vs.

    Sandiganbayan
    Facts:
    Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are two (2) resolutions of the Sandiganbayan,
    rendered in Criminal Case No. 14404, entitled "People vs. Corazon C. Gonzaga" (For: Malversation
    under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code). The resolution dated 10 September 1990 granted
    the prosecution's motion to suspend accused-petitioner', pendente lite, from her position as school
    principal of Malabon Municipal High School, Malabon, Metro Manila. The resolution dated 30
    October 1990 denied accused-petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the 10 September 1990
    resolution.
    Petitioner alleges in her present petition that a complaint for malversation of public funds was filed
    against her, in her capacity as School Principal of the Malabon Municipal High School, Malabon,
    Metro Manila. The complaint was filed before the Ombudsman by the Municipal Administrator of
    the Municipality of Malabon, based on the audit report of the Commission on Audit, wherein
    petitioner as an accountable officer is alleged to have incurred a shortage of P15,188.37; that an
    information dated 2 March 1990 was thereafter filed against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan
    for the crime of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code; that
    before she could be arraigned, accused-petitioner filed with respondent court a motion for reinvestigation, which motion was denied by said court in its resolution dated 2 July 1990; that on 17
    August 1990, accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged; and that on the same
    date, the prosecution filed a motion seeking to suspend, pendente lite, the accused as school
    principal of the above-named school, on the basis of Section 13, Republic Act 3019 ("Anti-Graft
    and Corrupt Practices Act"), as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195.
    Issue: WON the accused-petitioner is guilty of charge of malversation
    WON his suspension is valid
    Held: 1) He is not guilty in the crime of malversation. It was not stated in the decision because the
    main contention of petitioner in his petition is his suspension which she deemed invalid.
    2) No. In fact, the recommendation of the Solicitor General (counsel for public respondent)
    is that, inasmuch as the suspension mentioned under Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019 is understood as
    limited to a maximum duration of ninety (90) days, the order of suspension imposed on petitioner,
    having been rendered on 10 September 1990, should now be lifted, as suspension has already
    exceeded the maximum period of ninety (90) days.
    All told, preventive suspension is not violative of the Constitution as it is not a penalty. In fact,
    suspension particularly under Section 13 of Rep. Act 3019 is mandatory once the validity of the
    information is determined. What the Constitution abhors is an indefinite preventive suspension as
    it violates the due process and equal protection clauses, and the right of public officers and
    employees to security of tenure.
    Henceforth, considering that the persons who can be charged under Rep. Act 3019, as amended,
    include elective and appointive officers and employees, and further taking into account the rulings
    in the Deloso and Doromal cases, the ninety (90)-day maximum period for suspension under
    Section 13 of the said Act shall apply to all those who are validly charged under the said Act,
    whether elective or appointive officer or employee as defined in Section 2(b) of Rep. Act 3019.
    To the extent that there may be cases of indefinite suspension imposed either under Section 13 of
    Rep. Act 3019, or Section 42 of Pres. Decree 807, it is best for the guidance of all concerned that
    this Court set forth the rules on the period of preventive suspension under the aforementioned
    laws, as follows:

    1. Preventive suspension under Section 13, Rep. Act 3019 as amended shall be
    limited to a maximum period of ninety (90) days, from issuance thereof, and this
    applies to all public officers, (as defined in Section 2(b) of Rep. Act 3019) who are
    validly charged under said Act.
    2. Preventive suspension under Section 42 of Pres. Decree 807 shall apply to all
    officers or employees whose positions are embraced in the Civil Service, as provided
    under Sections 3 and 4 of Id Pres. Decree 807; and shall be limited to a maximum
    period of ninety (90) days from issuance, except where there is delay in the
    disposition of the case, which is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the
    respondent, in which case the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the
    period of suspension herein stated; provided that if the person suspended is a
    presidential appointee, the continuance of his suspension shag be for a reasonable
    time as the circumstances of the case may warrant.

    You might also like