Sandiganbayan turns down Lanao treasurer, mayor ‘s MR

Due to Sandiganbayan, Second Division verdict, Balabagan, Lanao del Sur Mayor and his treasurer meted pendent lite a sixty (60) days preventive suspension and denied of their Motion for Reconsideration (MR) for lack of merit.     Sandiganbayan Chairperson Teresita V.Diaz-Baldos, chairperson  and Associate Justices Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan and Oscar C. Herrera, Jr  read  the Motion for Reconsideration  which was filed by the accused  on 10 June 2011, praying that the Resolution of this Court promulgated  on 07 June 2011  be considered  and that another resolution be issued remanding the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for completion of the preliminary investigation and for amendment of the information to conform to the requirements of law and the rules.    In her order promulgated  dated September  5, 2011, Baldos said the resolution disclosed that in fine, the court finds no justification  to reverse  its previous ruling, Let it be  plainly repeated  that upon a proper  determination of the validity  of the information, it becomes  mandatory  for the court  to immediately issue  the suspension  order as matter of course. There are no ifs and buts about it. The rule on the matter is specific and categorical. It leaves no room for interpretation.    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby denies the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. SO ORDERED" stated in its resolution".     The persistence of the accused in raising the issue of completeness of the preliminary investigation, the court has to state endlessly too that the said matter had already been settled or laid to rest. On the other hand, the validity of the information had likewise been already judiciously resolved.    As a result of the suspension order, Acting Mayor Hadji Omar Quirino R. Sampiano, the elected vice mayor has to assume the post of his brother's as the law requires.     The case is a violation of section 3 (e) of the Republic  Act. No: 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in a criminal case no. SB06-CRM-0392 after the suspended mayor failed to pay the salary of the municipal employees including his Vice Mayor Edna Ogka.     The five pages resolution read that the accused claim that the information against them is not valid, since it failed to charge any offense, the preliminary investigation in the office of the Ombudsman has  not been completed, and that Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio who approved the information had no authority to do so.     The accused in his comment, filed on 26 June 2011, the prosecution asserts that the auxiliary reliefs invoked by the accused are improper and immaterial. Firstly, the validity of the information had already been dealt within the Resolution dated 15 June 2009 and 8 July 2010 which specifically declared the information to be legal and valid. Furthermore, the issue o f completeness of the preliminary investigation was also settled in the Resolution of this Court dated 27 February 2008 and 5 August 2008, wherein it was ruled that there was no denial of the right of the accused to a full or complete preliminary investigation and that the matters raised in the pleadings of the accused were more of matters of defense that could be ventilated in a full blown trial. And after a perceptive assessment of the arguments, the Court fails to finds merit in the Motion for Reconsideration.    "It is significant to note that the Resolution sought to be reconsidered was centered solely on the suspension of the accused pendent lite, and on no other, thus any matter that does not pertain thereto is extraneous and deserves no merit or consideration", the resolution stated.       The resolution further stated that to defeat the suspension is to attack the validity of the information which can be properly ventilated in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for the purpose and there should be three things  are to be inquired therein  and these are whether or not: 1.          The accused has been afforded preliminary investigation prior to the filing of the information against him; 2. The acts  for which he is charged constitute a violation of R.A. No:3019, as amended ,or a crime provided in title 7,Book II of the Revised Penal Code ,or any offense  involving fraud  upon government or public funds  or property; and 3. The information against him can be quashed under any of the grounds provided in Section 2. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, not deemed waived in view of his previous arraignment.       The resolution also read that in fine, the court finds no justification  to reverse  its previous ruling, Let it be  plainly repeated  that upon a proper  determination of the validity  of the information, it becomes  mandatory  for the court  to immediately issue  the suspension  order as matter of course. There are no ifs and buts about it. The rule on the matter is specific and categorical. It leaves no room for interpretation.                   "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby denies the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. SO ORDERED" stated in its resolution".